[Senate Hearing 115-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
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 2017
budget request for programs within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics appreciates the opportunity
to submit testimony for the fiscal year 2017 appropriations. The
Academy is the world's largest organization of food and nutrition
professionals, and is committed to improving the nation's health with
nutrition services and interventions provided by registered dietitian
nutritionists. Nationwide, The Academy has over 75,000 members. As
Congress begins work on fiscal year 2017 appropriations, we strongly
urge you to fully fund Federal nutrition programs that will provide a
return on investment to improve health and build strong economies.
Investment in these programs through the appropriations process will
help prevent costly healthcare expenses due to chronic diseases.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children
(wic)
WIC serves low-income women and young children until the age of
five, providing them with a nutritious monthly food package, nutrition
education, healthcare and social service referrals to ensure that this
at-risk population receives the quality nutrition and healthcare
essential for healthy growth and development. We are asking you to
please:
--Fund WIC at $6.350 billion to support a projected caseload of 8.02
million participants. Monitor food cost inflation and caseload
to ensure that appropriated levels meet anticipated needs.
--Provide $150 million to replenish the WIC Contingency Fund
for unforeseen food cost or participation increases.
--Provide $80 million for breastfeeding peer counselors to
improve breastfeeding initiation and duration among the target
population,
--$75 million for Management Information Systems/Electronic
Benefits Transfer (EBT) funding to improve client access,
retailer efficiency, and program integrity,
--$14 million for infrastructure improvements
--$26 million for program initiatives and evaluation
agriculture, food and nutrition research
As you consider the fiscal year 2017 budget, we ask for your
support of the President's budget for the National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA). The National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) funds agriculture and nutrition research that is vital for
communities and the nation to have new technologies and intervention to
improve the health and food security of Americans. In doing so, we ask
that you:
--Support the President's budget to the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI). These research efforts work with local
communities and states to conduct high-quality research to help
assure that our food supply is adequate for the future; and
--Consider restoring the funding for Agricultural Research Services
(ARS) to 2014 levels. ARS is an essential in-house, scientific
research agency. This agency often provides the solutions to
food and nutrition problems that affect Americans every day,
from field to table.
supplemental nutrition assistance program (snap) and nutrition
education and obesity prevention grant program (snap-ed)
We recognize that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
is a mandatory program, but we want convey the importance of the
program, and urge you to protect this vital lifeline for families. SNAP
helps to put food on the table for about 47 million people each month.
SNAP participation closely follows changes in unemployment and
underemployment and so is responsive to changes in need. SNAP-Ed
empowers participants to make healthy food choices using this knowledge
received from the innovative and engaging nutrition education to
purchase, prepare and store nutritious foods. SNAP-Ed is targeted to
fit the local communities it serves in all 50 states and territories,
and outcomes include sustained changed behavior change towards
healthier habits.
During this appropriations cycle, we ask that you:
--Support SNAP as it continues to respond to the need for food
assistance with timely benefits; and
--Support SNAP-Ed and protect mandatory investments in this program.
child nutrition programs
Child nutrition programs operate in school, daycare, after school,
and summer settings, providing nutritious meals and snacks to fuel
children with the energy they need to thrive in the classroom and
beyond. We ask that you:
--Support the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast
Program, Summer Food Service Program, Child and Adult Care Food
Program, and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to provide
children with nutritious meals and snacks; and
--Continue to provide funding, at $35 million, for grants that
would allow schools to purchase kitchen equipment. This will
allow schools to serve healthier meals at a more reasonable
price, and is a long overdue need for schools.
--Provide adequate funding for training and technical
assistance to states for successful implementation of the
Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. This can be done by:
--Increasing funding to the National Food Service Management
Institute, which successfully ran the USDA's Team Up for
Success mentorship program for food service operators;
--Fully fund Team Nutrition program, up to $25 million, in
order to provide nutrition education competitive grants to
states and localities.
--Summer Food Service Program EBT Demonstrations are innovative ways
to tackle the hunger gap that occurs for children when school
is out of session. Please meet the request to expand, over a
ten-year window, this program to provide monthly food
assistance to low-income children in the summer via an
electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card. This is an easy way
for families to have access to healthy foods in the summer
months.
commodity assistance programs
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a win/win for
farmers, producers, processors and low-income consumers to assure
access to healthy foods through our nation's charitable food system,
delivering nutrient-rich food through pantries, shelters, and kitchens
and providing support for storage and distribution. The TEFAP program
staff works in tandem with SNAP-Ed staff to help assure the consumption
of these foods through nutrition education including preparation and
safe storage. In order to help mitigate declining resources for the
purchase of TEFAP foods, the President's Budget includes a legislative
proposal to add an additional $30 million for the purchase of TEFAP
foods in fiscal year 2017 and returns future funding to fiscal year
2015 levels.
We ask that you:
--Fund TEFAP commodities at $329 million, as provided by the 2014
farm bill. TEFAP commodities are distributed to low-income
people through food banks, pantries, kitchens and shelters.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) CSFP provides a
nutritious monthly food package to low-income seniors living at or
below the poverty line. The CSFP food package is designed to meet the
specific nutritional needs of this target population, combating the
poor health conditions often found in food insecure seniors. As the
senior population continues to grow, we ask that you:
--Fund CSFP at $236 million. This funding level is enough to support
caseload in the existing 46 States, the District of Columbia,
and two Indian reservations
supporting local farmers and improving health
To support local farmers while improving the health of Americans, we
ask that you:
--Provide $17 million for WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP), which provides vouchers to low-income women, infants,
and children;
--Provide $21 million for the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program, which provides vouchers for low-income seniors; and
--Provide $9 million for Community Food Projects to meet food needs
of low-income people, increase community self-reliance, and
promote comprehensive responses to food, farm and nutrition
issues.
--Provide funding for Healthy Food Financing Initiative
food and drug administration funding
--The Academy supports the President's request to the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) regarding implementation of the Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).
developing leaders
To ensure a pipeline of leaders dedicated to improving health and
reducing hunger in our country, we ask that you:
--Provide $2 million for the Congressional Hunger Center for the
operation of the Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellowships and
Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellowships, which focus on
developing solutions to hunger based on experience at local
field placements and national policy organizations.
We appreciate your support on these recommendations. We know that
these expenditures will make for smart, long-term investments into the
health of Americans.
[This statement was submitted by Mary Pat Raimondi MS, RD Vice
President, Strategic Policy and Partnerships Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Commodity Distribution Association
On behalf of the American Commodity Distribution Association
(ACDA), I respectfully submit this statement regarding the budget
request of the Food and Nutrition Service for inclusion in the
Subcommittee's official record. ACDA members appreciate the
Subcommittee's support for these vital programs.
We urge the subcommittee to provide $329 million for the purchase
of commodities to be distributed by the Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP), to fully fund administrative expense funding for TEFAP
at $100 million; to approve the President's request for $236,120,000
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) including an
additional 20,000 caseload slots to allow modest expansion of the
program; and to continue to actively monitor two matters: flexibility
in the operation of school meal programs; and recommendations of the
Multiagency Task Force on commodity procurement required by Section
4205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79).
ACDA is a non-profit professional trade association, dedicated to
the growth and improvement of USDA's Commodity Food Distribution
Program. ACDA members include: state agencies that distribute USDA-
purchased commodity foods; agricultural organizations; industry;
associate members; recipient agencies, such as schools and soup
kitchens; and allied organizations, such as anti-hunger groups. ACDA
members are responsible for distributing over 2.2 billion pounds of
USDA-purchased commodity foods annually through programs such as
National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), Charitable Institution Program, and
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
funding for tefap commodities
ACDA strongly supports the proposal in the President's budget to
provide $30 million to offset declines in 2014 Farm Bill-authorized
funding for commodities under The Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP). When coupled with the $299 million provided by the Farm Bill,
TEFAP commodity funding would total $329 million. TEFAP operators
continue to find a significant need for TEFAP foods, and without the
additional $30 million these needs are likely to go unmet. We agree
with USDA's claim that the need for TEFAP is increasing as certain
adult SNAP recipients lose eligibility due to the reestablishment of
time limits on their participation.
fully fund tefap administrative funds at $100 million
We continue to urge the subcommittee to fully fund TEFAP
Administrative Funds at $100 million. TEFAP providers face significant
needs for food handling and storage, and have experienced increased
costs in recent years.
ACDA appreciates the increase to $54,401,000 provided in the fiscal
year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the President's request
for $59,401,000 for fiscal year 2017, but food banks, Community Action
Agencies, and other TEFAP operators continue to find that they have had
little choice but to convert food dollars to administrative expense
funds in order to maintain their operations. Using food dollars for
operating expenses is too often necessary, and reduces the ability of
these operators to provide food assistance to more individuals and
families who continue to face difficult times. We urge the Committee to
not force this choice upon operators that are experiencing reduced
private donations in addition to increased demands.
funding for the commodity supplemental food program
ACDA supports the President's request for $236,120,000 which would
provide for a modest caseload increase for the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP). We thank the Congress for having provided an
additional $900,000 in fiscal year 2016. That increase has allowed
Virginia to begin CSFP operations. We know that many states have
requested caseload increases given the need for this program now
focused on seniors. Virginia, along with the seven states that started
programs following your action in fiscal year 2015--Connecticut,
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island--would
be candidates for this expansion, along with other long-operating
programs.
providing reasonable flexibility in school meal programs
ACDA appreciates the action taken in the fiscal year 2015 and
fiscal year 2016 Acts to provide reasonable and responsible flexibility
in school meal standards, and remains hopeful that these matters will
be addressed as part of the reauthorization of child nutrition
programs. ACDA appreciates and supports the inclusion of Section 309 of
the ``Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016'', as
approved unanimously by the Senate Agriculture Committee, providing
flexibility in school meal programs. ACDA supports the delay in the
Target 2 sodium standard contingent upon the latest scientific research
indicating that further reduction in sodium is necessary to safeguard
the health of children. However, ACDA members remain concerned about
the practicality of meeting a more stringent standard. We also
appreciate the whole grain flexibility because various regions continue
to experience problems with specific grain items such as bagels, grits,
biscuits, and tortillas that are difficult to obtain as whole grain
rich products or are not readily accepted by students. ACDA continues
to support emphasizing the importance of fruits and vegetables in all
forms--fresh, frozen, canned and dried--as noted in the 2015-2020
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. However, we remain concerned about
mandating not just what children are offered in school meals but what
they must take, whether they intend to eat it or not. Increasing
flexibility to program sponsors in planning menus that meet high
nutrition standards but still are within cost targets is of critical
importance.
interagency panel for evaluation and improvement of the usda foods
program
As a result of Section 4205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, a
multiagency task force has been established at USDA for continuous
evaluation and improvement of the USDA Foods program. The first annual
report was submitted to Congress last year, and work has been
undertaken on several important matters. FNS, AMS, and FSA are now
engaging in Business Process Reengineering to determine improvements in
the ordering, procurement, and receiving of USDA Foods. ACDA expects to
actively participate in this project. We encourage the Committee to
monitor this and other actions taken by this task force.
We look forward to continuing to partner with you and USDA in the
delivery of these important food assistance programs.
[This statement was submitted by Ed Herrera, President, American
Commodity Distribution Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) would like to
acknowledge and thank the subcommittee for its historical work directed
to the support of agriculture, our nation's food supply and the well-
being of rural America.
2014 farm bill programs
AFBF strongly opposes reopening the 2014 Farm Bill. That law is a
careful balance of priorities and should not be reopened before its
expiration in 2018 to achieve additional budget savings. Overall Farm
Bill spending--including the nutrition programs--comprises just 2
percent of the total Federal budget. The entirety of the farm safety
net constitutes less than one-third of 1 percent of the overall budget.
The law was crafted to make a significant contribution to deficit
reduction from the farm titles above and beyond the continuing
contributions made through sequestration. No other sector of the
economy has made similar efforts toward deficit reduction, yet many who
benefit from the food, fuel, feed and fiber produced in rural America
continue to look to agriculture for additional cuts.
program that promotes biotechnology
AFBF supports funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service's (APHIS) Biotechnology Regulatory Services if there are
appropriate levels of congressional oversight to ensure APHIS' new
regulatory considerations are science- and risk-based, transparent and
predictable, while promoting innovation in plant breeding and
facilitating trade.
agricultural research priorities
Agricultural research has enabled America's farmers to become the
most efficient in the world. However, without a commitment to further
agricultural research and technological advancement, even America's
farmers could be hard-pressed to meet the challenges of feeding the
world's growing population.
AFBF supports funding USDA's Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative at the level authorized when the program was established in
the 2008 Farm Bill.
AFBF supports funding for the National Agricultural Statistics
Service and the Economic Research Service, which provide essential
information to farmers.
programs that promote animal health
AFBF supports adequate funding for APHIS' work on the USDA
Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan.
AFBF supports funding at the authorized level for the Veterinary
Medicine Loan Repayment Program and the Veterinary Services Grant
Program, which allow veterinarians to ensure animal health and welfare,
while protecting the nation's food supply.
AFBF supports funding for the National Animal Health Laboratory
Network, which provides an early warning system for emerging animal
diseases, at the authorized level.
AFBF supports funding for Section 1433 Continuing Animal Health and
Disease, Food Security, and Stewardship Research, Education and
Extension Programs to address critical priorities in food security,
zoonotic disease and stewardship.
AFBF supports funding for the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine,
which oversees the safety of animal drugs, feeds and biotechnology-
derived products.
programs that expand international markets and safeguard u.s.
agriculture
AFBF supports funding at authorized levels for the following
programs and activities:
--The Foreign Agricultural Service, Market Access Program, Foreign
Market Development Program, Emerging Markets Program and
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, all of which
increase demand for U.S. agriculture and food products abroad.
--USDA to open and staff an office in Cuba. This office will help U.S
agriculture to expand access, understand opportunities and
increase sales into the Cuban marketplace.
--Public Law 480 programs, which provide foreign food aid by
purchasing U.S. commodities.
--APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities,
which protect U.S. agriculture from costly pest problems that
enter from foreign lands.
--APHIS trade issues resolution and management activities that are
essential for an effective response when other countries raise
pest and disease concerns (i.e., sanitary and phytosanitary
measures) to prohibit the entry of American products.
--The U.S. Codex Office, which is essential to improving the
harmonization of international science-based standards for the
safety of food and agriculture products.
programs that enhance and improve food safety and protection
AFBF supports funding for food protection at the Food and Drug
Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) directed
to the following priorities:
--Implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act
--Increased education and training of inspectors
--Additional science-based inspection, targeted according to risk
--Effective inspection of imported food and feed products
--Research and development of scientifically based rapid testing
procedures and tools
--Accurate and timely response to outbreaks that identify
contaminated products, remove them from the market and minimize
disruption to producers
--Indemnification for producers who suffer marketing losses due to
inaccurate government-advised recalls or warnings.
AFBF supports funding for a National Antimicrobial Residue
Monitoring System to detect trends in antibiotic resistance among
foodborne bacteria.
AFBF supports adequate funding for the Food Animal Residue
Avoidance Databank, which aids veterinarians establish science-based
recommendations for drug withdrawal intervals.
AFBF opposes the administration's request for new user fees for
inspection activities. Food safety is for the public good, and as such,
it is a justified use of public funds.
AFBF opposes any provision that would prohibit FSIS from inspecting
equine processing facilities under the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
Prohibiting the harvest of livestock for reasons unrelated to food
safety or animal welfare sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
programs that ensure crop protection tools
AFBF supports funding the Minor Crop Pest Management Program (IR-4)
because developing pest control tools has high regulatory costs, and
this funding ensures safe and effective agrichemicals and biopesticides
are available for small, specialty crop markets.
AFBF supports funding the Office of Pesticide Management Policy,
which promotes the development of new pest management approaches and is
critical for crop protection.
AFBF supports funding the APHIS Plant Pest and Disease programs,
which eradicate, suppress and contain plant pests.
programs that strengthen rural communities and rural housing
AFBF supports funding for the following rural development programs:
--Value-Added Agricultural Producer Grants, the Rural Innovation
Initiative, the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program,
Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loans, the Resource
Conservation and Development Program, the Beginning Farmer and
Rancher Development Program and Cooperative Services, which
foster business development in rural communities.
--The Rural Utilities Service for rural broadband and
telecommunications services, and the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Program.
--Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed Loans, which fund the
construction, enlargement or improvement of essential community
facilities.
--Agriculture in the Classroom, which helps students gain greater
awareness of the role of agriculture in the economy and
society.
AFBF supports modifying USDA Section 514 financing to allow farmers
who are entering the H-2A program to use the housing built with these
funds to house H-2A workers. AFBF also supports allowing famers to
obtain this financing to build new housing for H-2A workers. These
modifications will eliminate some of the main impediments from entering
the H-2A program.
programs that support wildlife services
AFBF supports funding the Wildlife Services programs that prevent
and minimize an estimated $1 billion worth of wildlife damage, while
protecting human health and safety from conflicts with wildlife.
program that encourages renewable energy
AFBF supports funding the Renewable Energy for America Program,
which offers a combination of grants and guaranteed loans for farmers
to purchase renewable energy systems.
[This statement was submitted by Zippy Duvall, President, American
Farm Bureau Federation.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Farm Bureau Federation
Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for your continued leadership and support for
U.S. agriculture. The above signed steering committee members of the
Agriculture Workforce Coalition appreciate this opportunity to submit
our views regarding the fiscal year 2017 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, and respectfully requests this statement be made
part of the official hearing record.
The labor situation in agriculture has been a concern for many
years, but is moving towards a breaking point. Today, large segments of
American agriculture face a critical lack of workers, a shortage that
makes our farms and ranches less competitive with food from abroad and
that threatens the abundant, safe and affordable domestic food supply
American consumers enjoy today.
Repeated evidence over the past decades has shown that there are
some jobs in agriculture that Americans simply do not want to do.
Although many of these jobs offer wages competitive with similar, non-
agricultural occupations, they are physically demanding, conducted
outdoors in all seasons and weather, and are often seasonal or
transitory. It is for this reason that farmers have grown to rely on
foreign workers to perform this work.
The overarching challenge to workforce stability in agriculture is
the widely acknowledged lack of authorized work status by a large
number of agricultural workers despite the prevalence of documentation
presented by workers to the contrary. The only option for farmers and
ranchers to legally find the workers they need is the H-2A temporary
work visa program, a program that has not worked for many agricultural
employers.
The H-2A program's basic framework is overly restrictive and
difficult to maneuver. In recent years the program has become even more
bureaucratic, burdensome and costly to use. But, each year, more and
more farms have to turn to the H-2A program for legal foreign labor to
meet their workforce needs.
The demand on the program is increasing as producers have nowhere
else to turn; yet the administrative weight of the program cannot keep
up. H-2A employment has doubled in the past 4 years and will double
again in the next 2 years or less. This means bureaucratic red tape and
delays in the program result in workers showing up at the farm well
after the date they were needed to be there, and millions of dollars in
agricultural production is lost in the interim.
To improve access to the H-2A program, specifically the housing
requirements, we seek the following:
farm labor housing program
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Labor Housing
(FLH) program provides loans and grants for the development of on-farm
and off-farm housing. The program is operated by USDA's Rural
Development Housing and Community Facilities Program office.
Specifically, Section 514 loans are provided to buy, build,
improve, or repair housing for farm laborers. The range of eligible
tenants was expanded in the 2008 farm bill but legally admitted
temporary laborers, such as H-2A workers, remain ineligible.
Amending the list of eligible tenants who can use Section 514
housing to include H-2A workers will incentivize use of the program as
a means of accessing a legal workforce. We recommend the following
language be included in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill:
42 U.S.C 1484(f)(3)(A) is amended to read: (A) such person
shall be a citizen of the United States, a person legally
admitted for permanent residence or a person legally admitted
and authorized to work in agriculture;
housing allowance
Currently, the H-2A Program does not allow for the use of housing
allowances. Working through USDA's Rural Development Housing and
Community Facilities Program office, we recommend the use of housing
allowances be allowed under the H-2A program unless the Secretary of
Agriculture determines insufficient community based housing exists. The
housing allowance could be based on HUD fair market rental rates for a
two bedroom dwelling occupied by four individuals.
This change would provide greater flexibility to workers within the
H-2A program and removes one of the more significant program barriers.
Specifically, we seek the following language as part of the fiscal year
2017 appropriations bill:
8 USC 1188(c)(4) is amended as follows: Provided further that
an employer may provide a housing allowance unless the
Secretary of USDA determines insufficient community based
housing exists.
conclusion
We remain steadfast in our pursuit of broader immigration reform
that meets both the short- and long-term workforce requirements of all
of agriculture--both those producers with seasonal labor needs, and
those with year-round needs. Yet we recognize such reforms may not come
to fruition in the near term.
Left with no other alternative, we seek your support for the
inclusion of these modest adjustments as you prepare fiscal year 2017
appropriations legislation.
Thank you again, and members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to share our views. We look forward to working with the
committee to ensure continued benefits for rural communities,
consumers, American agriculture and our nation as a whole.
[This statement was submitted by Lisa Van Doren, Vice President &
Chief of Staff, Government Affairs, National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Farmland Trust
natural resources conservation service
I am John Larson, Executive Director of Programs of American
Farmland Trust. I am writing in support of full mandatory funding for
agricultural conservation programs administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as enacted in the Agriculture Act
of 2014. We also urge the subcommittee to support the discretionary
appropriation of $860 million for NRCS's Conservation Operations (CO)
account.
American Farmland Trust is the only national conservation
organization dedicated to protecting farmland, promoting sound farming
practices, and keeping farmers on the land. Since its founding in 1980
by a group of farmers and citizens concerned about the rapid loss of
farmland to development, AFT has helped save millions of acres of
farmland from development and led the way for the adoption of
conservation practices on millions more.
Mandatory conservation program funding provided by the Agricultural
Act of 2014 is invaluable to producers and landowners in helping
implement conservation practices on private agricultural land.
Agricultural producers and other private landowners share in the cost,
and thus help leverage the Federal investment in conservation.
Conservation systems provide protection and restoration of soil health,
water quality, water conservation, air quality, wildlife habitat and
other natural resource concerns. These are real public benefits.
Further, the voluntary adoption of conservation practices can help
avoid the need for governmental intervention and regulation on private
lands while protecting the landscape.
The American Farmland Trust is keenly aware of the budget deficits
plaguing this country and that is why American Farmland Trust supported
the Agricultural Act of 2014, which saved taxpayers $23 billion and
consolidated or eliminated over 100 programs. As part of these
reductions, mandatory conservation programs were cut by over $6 billion
and close to a dozen conservation programs were eliminated or
consolidated. Sequestration has also reduced conservation funding
significantly. Additional cuts or Changes in Mandatory Programs
(CHIMPS) imposed on conservation programs will seriously reduce the
Federal share of investment in conservation on working lands.
As the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies deliberates on fiscal year
2017 agricultural program funding, I urge you to refrain from imposing
caps or other limits on the mandatory funding already established and
enacted by Congress in the Farm Bill. These programs include the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP). Imposing caps not only cuts fiscal year 2017 funding for
needed conservation work, it also has the effect of reducing baseline
in future years that further undermines these essential programs.
For example, through the Agricultural Land Easement component of
ACEP (and the earlier Farmland Protection Program), millions of acres
of productive farmland has been protected from being converted to non-
agricultural use. This has occurred primarily though state and local
farmland protection programs and land trusts that have partnered with
USDA and shared the cost of easements as well as covered most of the
transaction costs like appraisals, recording fees, and the like. The
proceeds from easements have also allowed producers to install
conservation measures on protected lands as well as cover other
important business and family expenses while keeping the land in
agricultural use.
American Farmland Trust also asks for your support of the full $860
million in the President's budget proposal for the Conservation
Operations account of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Conservation Technical Assistance supports the critical,
voluntary conservation practices that ensure soil health, water
quality, water conservation, air quality, wildlife habitat and other
natural resource concerns. Funding for Conservation Operations allows
for the delivery of critical conservation programs and helps ensure the
best technical and scientific knowledge is available to producers and
landowners. This account funds the ``boots on the ground'' work of NRCS
and it is critical to delivery of conservation benefits.
American Farmland Trust believes conservation of our natural
resources requires a strong public-private partnership and mandatory
farm bill conservation funding along with the technical assistance
provided by the Conservation Operations account is key to providing on-
the-ground conservation benefits.
[This statement was submitted by John Larson, Executive Director
for Programs, American Farmland Trust.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Forest Foundation
The American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the Subcommittee to
support strong funding for fiscal year 2017 for programs that are
essential to helping America's 22 million family forest owners, some
282 million acres, conserve and manage their forests to provide the
clean water and air, wildlife habitat, sustainable wood supplies, and
other benefits, that all Americans benefit from.. Maintenance of these
programs will help family forest owners adequately prepare for
increasing threats and save landowners, communities, and industries
from expensive restoration in the future. We urge the Subcommittee to
support:
--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Tree and Wood Pests
program at the fiscal year 2016 level of $54 million and
Specialty Crops program at the fiscal year 2016 level of $156
million;
--Farm Bill authorized levels for the Environmental Quality and
Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP), and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP);
--NRCS, Conservation Operations at $761 million to grow conservation
technical assistance;
--National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Renewable
Resources and Extension Program at $4 million;
--NIFA, McIntire-Stennis, Cooperative Forestry Research at $34
million; and
--Continuation of the Joint Chief's Landscape Restoration
Partnership.
The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit conservation
organization that works on the ground with family woodland owners
through a variety of programs, including the American Tree Farm
System, to protect the values and benefits of America's family
forests, including the clean water, wildlife habitat, and sustainable
wood supplies these lands provide all Americans. Families and
individuals own over one-third of our nation's forests, stewarding more
acres than the Federal government or forest industry\1\. Recent
analysis by AFF and other partners shows these lands are at risk. In
the West, for example, over 4 million acres of family woodlands that
are essential for protecting the west's already scarce water supply,
are at high fire risk. The US Forest Service predicts by 2020, more
than 18 million acres of family forests are threatened by housing
development. These are just a few of the growing threats to family
woodlands. To combat these ever increasing pressures, we must ensure
these families have the financial tools, technical information, and
policy support to keep their forests as forests, for both current and
future generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA, USPRS National Woodland Owner Survey. 2013 Updated Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
aphis invasive pest and pathogen funding
According to the National Woodland Owner Survey, the threat of
forest pests is a top concern for family forest owners. When an
invasive species infests a family's forest, it can destroy their
investment, making recovery difficult, as most families don't generate
regular income.
To provide family forest owners with the tools needed to fight this
growing threat, Congress should at least provide level funding for the
APHIS Tree and Wood Pests program. This program funds eradication
efforts for invasive species and works to prevent the further spread of
invasive species like the Asian Long-Horned Beetle and the Emerald Ash
Borer. Close to 500 species of foreign insects and diseases have become
established in the U.S., and a new damaging pest is introduced, every 2
to 3 years. It is APHIS' responsibility to prevent such introductions
and to respond effectively when pests are introduced.
We ask the Subcommittee to continue providing $156 million to the
``Specialty Crops'' budget account, which funds APHIS' program to stop
spread of the sudden oak death pathogen via trade in nursery plants.
Since 1975, U.S. imports (excluding petroleum products) have risen
almost six times faster than APHIS staff capability to conduct
inspections of those imports. In just 3 years, from 2009 to 2012, more
than 90 new plant pests have been detected in the United States.
farm bill conservation programs
Farm Bill Conservation Programs provide tools to family forest
owners, leveraging the family's own resources to implement conservation
activities on their lands--treatments that can protect the numerous
public benefits we all enjoy. Forest owners participate in programs
like the EQIP and CSP, to help them manage invasive insect
infestations, reduce wildfire risks, implement water quality
improvements, and improve species habitat. The 2014 Farm Bill
strengthened these programs for forest owners and increased
opportunities to use resources for collaborative conservation efforts
on a landscape scale. To realize the full impact, we urge Congress to
support full-funding of these programs at the levels authorized in the
Farm Bill. Congress should also provide strong support for NRCS
Conservation Operations, which fund technical assistance for landowners
and support the implementation of Farm Bill conservation programs.
nifa renewable resources extension program
The Renewable Resources Extension Program supports outreach and
education to forest owners, so they have the education and tools they
need to be good stewards. This is especially important for family
forest owners who are currently unengaged in the management of their
forests. The extension foresters supported by this program are
essential to landowners, providing them with valuable information--
everything from dealing with forest management issues to tax advice for
new forest owners. This why it is key to support the program with $4
million in funding.
nifa mcintire-stennis cooperative forestry research
The forestry research carried out by the nation's land grant
universities is funded through the McIntire-Stennis Program. This
program provides essential tools and information for family forest
owners, and also supports critical family forest research, so that we
may identify barriers to stewardship. Finally, it helps train the next
generation of forestry professionals to provide forest owners the tools
and technical assistance they need. Maintaining the funding level at
$34 million will ensure that the research conducted will help family
forest owners improve their stewardship.
joint chief's landscape restoration partnership
While we don't offer a specific funding level, we also want to
recognize the important work happening through the Joint Chief's
Partnership. This Partnership between NRCS and the U.S. Forest Service
is making significant strides in landscape-scale conservation--allowing
these agencies to work together to cross boundary lines and implement
conservation and management at a significant scale. For example, in the
Blue Mountains of Oregon, with support from the U.S. Forest Service to
conduct outreach and engagement with family forest owners, and with
cost-share resources from NRCS, a collaborative of Federal and state
agencies, university extension programs, and national, state, and local
non-profits are partnering to help landowners restore their forests and
reduce their fire risk across nearly 200,000 acres, complementing the
work of their neighbors- both public or private- all in an effort to
increase by four-fold the pace and scale of cross-jurisdictional forest
restoration. This is just one of many examples of the incredible
success this initiative is having and will have, not just on individual
owners, but on a significant scale to protect water, wildlife, wood
supplies, and many other benefits.
Thank you for considering these requests. We recognize that the
Subcommittee must find areas to reduce spending, but we hope that the
Subcommittee will consider the impact these reductions have on millions
of family forest owners, along with all other Americans who benefit
from well-managed, working forests. We, at AFF, thank the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to provide some insight on these programs, and
appreciate consideration of our testimony.
[This statement was submitted by Tom Martin, President & CEO,
American Forest Foundation.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Forest & Paper Association
introduction
AF&PA supports $6.9 million to provide for implementation of the
declaration requirement of the Lacey Act, as amended by the 2008 Farm
Bill; recommends maintaining funding for the ``Tree and Wood Pests''
category to aid in combating these, and other pests and diseases;
requests $33.9 million for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
Research Program; support the Public-Private Partnership for an
Innovation Institute focused on nanocellulosics proposed in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture budget, and we would like your support and
assistance in ensuring that robust funding is included for the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and that Congress expresses its
intention to continue funding the operation of the Food Contact
Notification (FCN) program.
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national
trade association of the forest products industry, representing pulp,
paper, packaging and wood products manufacturers, and forest
landowners. Our companies make products essential for everyday life
from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment.
The forest products industry accounts for nearly 4 percent of the
total U.S. manufacturing GDP, manufactures approximately $210 billion
in products annually, and employs nearly 900,000 men and women. The
industry meets a payroll of approximately $50 billion annually and is
among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 states. Within
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, continued resources for
protecting forest health and providing adequate resources to enforce
existing trade laws are essential. Specific recommendations follow.
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)--lacey act
enforcement
AF&PA supports $5.5 million to provide for implementation of the
declaration requirement of the Lacey Act, as amended by the 2008 Farm
Bill. Full and effective implementation and enforcement of the Lacey
Act will enable American forest product companies to compete fairly in
the global marketplace, help keep jobs in the United States, and deter
the destructive impacts of illegal logging on forests and forest-
dependent communities in developing countries. When fully implemented,
the law requires U.S. importers of wood and wood products to file a
declaration identifying the genus/species name and country of harvest--
a critical measure intended by the law's sponsors to increase supply
chain transparency and assist Federal agencies in fair and strong
enforcement. The prohibition and the declaration requirement affect a
wide array of American industries, so it is critical that the
declaration process generates data in a streamlined, cost-effective
manner without unduly burdening legitimate trade. To that end, APHIS--
which is responsible for implementing the declaration provision--needs
$6.9 million in funding to fully implement congressional mandates,
including to establish an electronic declarations database and to add
internal capacity to perform data analysis needed for monitoring and
enforcement purposes.
aphis --plant pests
AF&PA recommends maintaining funding for the ``Tree and Wood
Pests'' category to aid in combating these, and other pests and
diseases. As world trade continues to expand, global weather patterns
shift, and an increasingly affluent world population has the ability to
travel to--and demand products from--the far corners of the globe, the
inadvertent, yet inevitable introduction of nonnative pests and
diseases into the United States continues. Additional funding is
vitally needed to aid in combating pests such as the Asian longhorn
beetle, the Emerald Ash borer, and the Sirex woodwasp, as well as
diseases such as Phytopthora ramorum. These are but a sampling of the
diseases that harm commercial timber stands, community parks, and
private forest landowners. American citizens most certainly will bear
the cost of combating these and other emergent threats. We believe a
comprehensive, coordinated response to each is more effective and more
economical.
We also support the Public-Private Partnership for an Innovation
Institute focused on nanocellulosics proposed in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture budget. A collaborative national institute will carry out
transformative research, supporting fundamental science and providing
opportunities to apply science, technology and advanced practices to
create opportunities for new business ventures funded by industry. This
institute will ensure that the United States is the leading source of
commercial cellulosic nanomaterials research, innovation and
production. A National Institute focused on nanocellulosics will
promote economic growth, increase the productivity of the agricultural
and forestry sector, create new jobs and support existing employment in
rural communities and contribute to conservation of the forest
resource.
national institute of food and agriculture--mcintire-stennis
cooperative forestry research
AF&PA requests $33.9 million for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program. Approximately one-third of the United States
is forested and these forests enhance our quality of life and economic
vitality and are an invaluable source of renewable bioproducts, outdoor
recreation, clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and carbon
sequestration. Sustaining these forests in a healthy and productive
condition requires a strong, continuing commitment to scientific
research and graduate education. Foundational financial support for
university-based forestry research and graduate education comes from
the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry program, funded through the
USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Funds are
distributed each of the 50 states with a dollar-for-dollar match
required from the states. Additional funding is needed to provide the
additional scientific research needed to address critical forest issues
such as fires, storms, insects, diseases, urbanization, fragmentation,
and lost economic opportunities; and develop new knowledge and
innovations to sustain healthy, productive forests and address the
challenges facing forest owners, forest products manufacturers and all
Americans who benefit from our forest resources.
food and drug administration--food contact notification program
AF&PA supports continued funding of the Food Contact Notification
Program. The Food Contact Notification (FCN) program protects consumer
health, food safety and quality while providing packaging manufacturers
with an efficient process that is less burdensome than the food
additive approval process. It has allowed packaging manufacturers to
bring new, more environmentally-friendly products to market that have
extended product shelf life, thereby increasing consumer value.
As Congress begins work on appropriations legislation for FDA in
the coming weeks, we would like your support and assistance in ensuring
that robust funding is included in the Appropriations bills for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and that Congress
expresses its intention to continue the operation of the FCN program.
Congress should reject a proposal, included in the Administration's
fiscal year 2016 budget request, calling for industry user fees to
cover certain costs of administering the FCN program. AF&PA appreciates
that the subcommittee has previously rejected proposals to eliminate
the FCN program.
[This statement was submitted by Elizabeth Bartheld, Vice
President, Government Affairs, American Forest & Paper Association-
Government Affairs Department.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Indian Higher Education Consortium
This statement includes a summary of our fiscal year 2017 funding
requests for increasing the capacity of the 1994 Institutions so that
they might truly begin to fulfill their land-grant vision and mission
of self-sufficient, place-based peoples employing an Indigenous model
that incorporates holistic planning, traditional knowledge, and the
integration of education, research, and extension activities.
summary of requests
The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act, the legislation
that created the 1994 (tribal college) land-grant institutions, was
signed into law over two decades ago. In those 20 years, the number of
1994s has grown to 34, but funding for the five 1994-specific programs
has grown very little and remains wholly inadequate. We recognize the
current economic constraints and believe that the increases recommended
in the President's fiscal year 2017 Budget are a solid first step to
ultimately achieving a level of equity within the nation's land-grant
system. The 1994s' programs are administered by USDA's National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and Rural Development. In
NIFA, the TCUs request: 1994s' competitive Extension, $6.7 million in
fiscal year 2017; 1994s' competitive Research program, $3.9 million in
fiscal year 2017; 1994s Education Equity Grants, $3.7 million in fiscal
year 2017; a doubling of the corpus in the Native American Endowment
fund; and in Rural Development, Rural Community Advancement Program
(RCAP), $8 million for the TCU Essential Community Facilities Grants
program to help address the critical facilities and infrastructure
needs that advance their capacity to participate as full land-grant
partners.
Additionally, funding levels are not the only inequities that exist
within the nation's land-grant system. The 1994 institutions are the
only Federal land-grant institutions that are prohibited from
participating in the McIntire-Stennis (forestry) grants program and
from competing for Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) and
federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) grants.
--McIntire-Stennis: In 2008, McIntire-Stennis was amended to include
Tribal lands in the formula calculation for funding of state
forestry programs. However, the 1994 institutions, which are
the Tribal Land-Grant colleges, were not included in the
funding formula; nor were states required to include them in
funding distributions. This oversight is significant, because
75 percent of Tribal land in the U.S. is either forest or
agriculture holding. In response to the dearth of American
Indian professionals in the forestry workforce in Montana and
across the United States, Salish Kootenai College (SKC)
launched a Forestry baccalaureate degree program in 2005. In
2013, SKC became the first tribal college land-grant to join
the National Association of University Forest Resource
Programs, a consortium of 85 forestry schools, the vast
majority of which receive McIntire-Stennis funding. However,
when SKC recently sought specialty accreditation for its
program, the college was told that it was ``one forestry
researcher short'' of the optimum number needed. Participation
in the McIntire-Stennis program, even with the required 1-1
match, would help SKC secure the researcher it needs to gain
this accreditation. Although currently, only SKC has a
baccalaureate degree in forestry, considering the wealth of
forested land on American Indian reservations, other such
programs could arise at the nation's other 1994 (Tribal
College) Land-Grant institutions, to further advance the growth
of the Native workforce in this vital area.
--Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) and federally
Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP): The 1994
Institutions are the only land-grant institutions that are
statutorily barred from participating in programs administered
under Smith-Lever 3(d). However, certain programs therein are
intended to address serious situations that are prevalent in
Tribal communities. Access to two programs in particular would
be especially valuable to the 1994s.
CYFAR: In some of the 1994 tribal communities, suicide among
Native youth is nine to 19 times as frequent as among other
youth. Native youth have more serious problems with mental
disorders, including substance abuse and depression, than other
youth, and perhaps surprisingly, are more affected by gang
involvement than any other racial group. American Indians also
have the highest high school drop-out rates in the nation and
some of the highest unemployment and poverty rates, as well.
Yet, our Native children and youth are the only group in the
country essentially excluded from the benefits of the CYFAR
program, because the 1994 institutions cannot apply for
competitively awarded CYFAR grants. CYFAR supports
comprehensive, intensive, community-based programs and promotes
building resiliency and protective factors in youth, families,
and communities. There is no argument that the 34 Tribal
College and University land-grant institutions (1994s) are
truly community-based institutions.
FRTEP: The USDA's federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program
is only open to 1862 and 1890 Land-Grants. The program's stated
purpose is: ``supports extension agents on American Indian
reservations and tribal jurisdictions to address the unique
needs and problems of American Indian tribal nations. Emphasis
is placed on assisting American Indians in the development of
profitable farming and ranching techniques, providing 4-H and
Youth development experiences for tribal youth, and providing
education and outreach on tribally-identified priorities (e.g.,
family resource management and nutrition) using a culturally
sensitive approach.'' Ironically, the 1994 Land-Grants, which
are chartered by and directly serve federally recognized
American Indian tribes and are located on or near Indian
reservations are barred from participating in this program.
This apparent oversight in eligibility rights needs to be
rectified. A clear step toward recognizing the 1994
Institutions as true partners in the Land-Grant system would be
to afford them eligibility to compete for grant funding under
the Smith-Lever 3(d) programs, particularly the Children,
Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) program; and (2) federally
Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP). We strongly urge
the committee to include language in the fiscal year 2017
Agriculture Appropriations bill or accompanying report, to
recognize the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions as full partners in
the land-grant system by making them eligible to finally
participate in these programs open to all other land-grants.
Illustration of Inequities in Land-Grant System Funding: The first
Americans were not granted Federal Land-Grant status until 1994. As
earlier stated, initial funding of programs established under this Act
was very modest and today, over 20 years since the enactment of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, funding remains
untenably inadequate. A clear illustration of the inequity in land-
grant programs funding can be found in the latest appropriations for
land-grant programs. In fiscal year 2016, Congress appropriated $476
million for extension activities. The 1862s (state) received $300
million in formula-driven extension funds; 1890s (18 HBCUs) received
$46 million; and 1994s (34 TCUs) received $4.5M for competitively
awarded grants. Further, the 1994s cannot access over $85.5M in Smith-
Lever 3(d) grant funds. These inequities cannot be justified or allowed
to continue. The first Americans, last to join the nation's land-grant
family, deserve parity.
programs--solid investment in economic capacity
In the past, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
acres on Indian reservations lay fallow, underused, or had been
developed using methods that caused irreparable damage. The Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 is helping to address this
situation and is our hope for the continued improvement of our
reservation lands. Our current land-grant programs remain very small,
yet critically important to us. It is essential that American Indians
explore and adopt new and evolving technologies for managing our lands
and natural resources. With increased capacity and program funding, we
will become even more fundamental contributors to the agricultural base
of the nation and the world.
conclusion
The 1994s have proven to be efficient and effective vehicles for
bringing educational and career opportunities to American Indians/
Alaska Natives and the promise of self-sufficiency to some of this
nation's poorest and most underserved regions. The small Federal
investment in the 1994s has already paid great dividends in terms of
increased employment, access to quality higher education, and economic
development. American Indian reservation communities are second to none
in their potential for benefiting from effective land-grant programs;
and no institutions better exemplify the original intent of Senator
Morrill's land-grant concept than the 1994s. We truly appreciate your
support and recognition of the 1994s' important 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 and request your full
consideration of our fiscal year 2017 appropriations requests.
[This statement was submitted by Meg Goetz, AIHEC Vice President
for Advocacy, American Indian Higher Education Consortium.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Seed Trade Association
The American Seed Trade Association respectfully submits the
following requests for the U.S. Department of Agriculture fiscal year
2017 appropriations. Founded in 1883, ASTA's mission is to enhance the
development and movement of quality seed worldwide. ASTA's diverse
membership consists of over 700 companies involved in seed production,
distribution, plant breeding and related industries in North America.
ASTA represents all varieties of seeds, including grasses, forages,
flowers, vegetables, row crops and cereals. For more information about
this request, please contact Jane DeMarchi, Vice President for
Government and Regulatory Affairs at the American Seed Trade
Association.
USDA intramural research programs conduct research that requires a
long-term investment leading to high-impact payoff. Management and
utilization of vast collections of genetic resources are the type of
research that can't be done by an individual university or company. It
is important that Congress recognize how vital these collections are to
the ability of the U.S to provide the essential materials for food,
feed, and fiber for the world.
Agricultural Research Service
National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)
Request: At least $44 million
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National Plant Germplasm
System (NPGS), a network of 26 labs that preserve the genetic diversity
of crop plants, is a critical resource for scientists to access genetic
diversity. This access helps bring forth new varieties that can resist
pests, diseases, and environmental stresses for all types of cropping
systems, including organic, conventional and biotech. In addition, it
is a vital resource for horticulture and conservation research.
The NPGS is currently funded at approximately $44 million. This
amount is insufficient to maintain and distribute the collections to
U.S. researchers who are developing varieties for conventional and
organic farmers and other landscape uses. ASTA recommends increasing
funding for the NPGS so it can better fulfill its mission.
Agricultural Research Service
National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)
Germplasm Enhancement of Maize (GEM)
Request: $2.7 million
The Germplasm Enhancement of Maize (GEM) program within the funding
for the ARS NPGS focuses on adapting exotic corn germplasm for use in
the U.S. and on identifying useful genetics in exotic landraces to
develop new hybrids. These resources are then made available to any
breeders who request them. Over 500 inbred lines have been released to
date. Because these materials are adapted to temperate U.S. conditions,
U.S. seed companies are saved 6-8 years in the breeding cycle.
The continued success of American agriculture is intimately linked
to corn production. USDA estimates that 13.6 billion bushels were
harvested in 2015. However, U.S. corn production is based predominantly
on two races of maize from more than 250 New World races. This limited
genetic diversity renders the U.S. corn crop, and therefore, the global
food supply, more vulnerable to attack by new diseases. The GEM
materials can play an important role in fighting new diseases in the
U.S. and globally. Examples include the catastrophic Maize Lethal
Necrosis which is causing significant crop losses in Africa, and Late
Wilt, a very devastating disease in Egypt which has now been reported
in Spain.
GEM is a model public-private partnership between the Federal
government, universities, and companies of all sizes. In addition to
its significant research contributions, GEM also facilitates
development of future researchers. So far, the GEM project has trained
18 Ph.D. and 14 M.S. students. The current funding for GEM is
approximately $1.6 million. Private industry provides over $625,000 of
in-kind support annually for this effort, and industry germplasm
contributions to GEM are currently valued at over $3 billion.
Demand for maize germplasm continues to increase, and GEM has
already distributed more than 21,000 seed samples. ASTA supports an
increase in GEM funding for both research and operations costs, and the
need to establish consistent winter nurseries for seed increases and
regeneration. We recommend increasing funding of the Germplasm
Enhancement of Maize to $2.7 million.
GEM Private Cooperators:
3rd Millennium Genetics Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico
AgiWise, L.L.C. Ames, IA
AgReliant Genetics, LLC Lebanon, IN
1BASF Plant Science Breeding,
L.L.C. Research Triangle Park, NC
Beck's Superior Hybrids, Inc. Atlanta, IN
Brownseed Genetics Bay City, WI
CRD Advisors, LLC Kelley, IA
DKD Genetics, Inc. Vincennes, IN
Dow AgroSciences Indianapolis, IN
DuPont Pioneer Johnston, IA
FFR Cooperative Lafayette, IN
Forage Genetics Nampa, ID
Genetic Enterprises Int'l Luther, IA
Global Investors, LP Des Moines, IA
Hoegemeyer Enterprises Hooper, NE
Ingredion Inc. Indianapolis, IN
Illinois Foundation Seeds, Inc. Tolono, IL
JFS and Associates, LTD Harlan, IA
MBS Genetics, LLC. Story City, IA
Monsanto Company St. Louis, MO
PANNAR Seed Johnston, IA
Professional Seed Research, Inc. Sugar Grove, IL
SEEDirect Woodstock, IL
Summit Genetics Carroll, IA
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Minnetonka, MN
Terrell Seed Research Wabash, IN
Trimble Genetics International, LLC Johnstown, IA
Wyffels Hybrids Geneseo, IL
National GEM Public Cooperators:
Cornell University
Iowa State University
Louisiana State University
North Carolina State University
North Dakota State University
Ohio State University
Purdue University
Texas A&M University
The University of Delaware
The University of Illinois
The University of Missouri
The University of Nebraska
The University of Tennessee
The University of Wisconsin
Truman State University
USDA-ARS multiple locations
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
Plant Material Centers
Request: $14.5 million
ASTA recommends that the USDA-NRCS Plant Material Centers be fully-
funded at $14.5 million. The network of 25 PMCs across the country seek
out and test plants and plant technologies that restore and sustain
healthy natural regional ecosystems. A key function of the centers is
to evaluate plants for conservation traits and to make these materials
available to commercial growers, who in turn provide plant materials to
the public.
The materials developed by the Plant Material Centers are critical
to many USDA goals, including improving soil health, increasing
pollinator and wildlife habitat and expanding the availability of new
cover crop solutions.
Nationwide, 500 of the 700 releases from the PMCs are currently
under commercial production. This work can't be duplicated by the
private sector seed industry, which lacks the resources to develop and
test materials to address such an extensive range of concerns for the
entire United States.
[This statement was submitted by Andrew W. LaVigne, President & CEO
American Seed Trade Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology (AG)
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) urges Congress to
approve the President's proposed fiscal year 2017 budget for research
and food safety programs at the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
proposed budget would ensure that the USDA is able to adequately fund
programs that support research and development critical to sustaining a
safe and competitive food and agriculture system in the United States.
The ASM strongly supports funding the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) with $1.379 billion, including $700 million for the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), the level authorized
by Congress when it was established in the 2008 Farm Bill. The ASM
recommends $1.256 billion for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
USDA's in house research. Agriculture remains a strong and consistent
contributor to the US economy, with the USDA estimating a total of
$775.8 billion in economic activity annually and the source of one in
twelve US jobs. However, agriculture research only accounts for 2
percent of Federal R&D spending, regardless of clear links among
innovative research, productivity, public health and market value.
usda research advances us agriculture and productivity
AFRI funding has been well below the $700 million level authorized
by Congress when it established AFRI in the 2008 Farm Bill, re-
authorized in 2014. In fiscal year 2014, AFRI received 3,875 proposals,
of which 1,640 were recommended for funding, but only 390 won support
due to budget constraints. Currently, AFRI is able to fund only one out
of 10 grant proposals.
Economic analyses cited by USDA show that investment in agriculture
research and extension yields $20 in returns for every dollar spent.
The economic potential is evident in the agency's 883 patent
applications and 429 issued patents during 2009-2015. Last year, the
USDA technology transfer portfolio included 421 licenses generating
income and 301 cooperative R&D agreements, many with small businesses.
The value of US exports has risen more than 45 percent since 2009; in
2009-2015, exports totaled over $911 billion.
Increased funding is needed for NIFA's mission to assure food
safety and nutritional security, advance food and agricultural systems
through science and technology, support rural economies and create jobs
and train the next generation of food and agriculture scientists by
supporting research, education and extension activities at US
universities and colleges. In its farm bills, Congress outlined the
priority areas for AFRI grants: plant health and production and plant
products; animal health and production and animal products; food
safety, nutrition and health; bioenergy, natural resources and
environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture
economics and rural communities. AFRI has awarded grants to
universities, businesses, foundations, non-profits, community groups,
associations and Federal and international partners.
AFRI studies include food processing technologies like irradiation
and microwave pasteurization and how pathogens survive on fresh
produce. A major effort currently focuses on Huanglongbing (HLB), a
bacterial infection commonly known as citrus greening, which last year
infected more than 75 percent of the Florida citrus crop. Researchers
are developing bactericides, therapeutic delivery systems and new
genetic approaches to stop this economically devastating disease.
Each year, AFRI provides funding for the education and training of
nearly 2,500 undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students for
careers in the agricultural, food, natural resource and human sciences.
Federal projections through 2020 indicate that, at present funding
levels, US education institutions will not graduate sufficient numbers
of new workers in agricultural fields, in fact falling short by 22,500.
The fiscal year 2017 budget will continue USDA's education of the
general public and agricultural producers. NIFA just announced creation
of five centers across the United States to conduct training, education
and technical assistance tailored toward small farm owners, food
processors and other specific audiences.
The Agriculture Research Service employs more than 6,500 staff to
conduct approximately 700 research projects at 90-plus USDA
laboratories in the United States and abroad. USDA scientists either
access existing or innovate new leading edge science and technology to
advance the agency's basic and applied research. This year, as example,
ARS will continue development and use of genomics technologies to
improve livestock and crop production. Genetically engineered (GE)
crops that can resist pests became commercially available for major
crops in 1996. By 2013, farmers had planted 170 million acres with GE
crops, about half of US farmland in crop use.
The ARS fiscal year 2017 request outlines priority areas that
include antimicrobial resistance, climate change, water supplies, avian
influenza and foreign animal diseases. Drug resistance is growing and
ASM applauds the additional $22 million requested to address this
problem in humans and livestock. Two million Americans have drug
resistant illnesses every year and more than 23,000 die. The increase
will support vaccines to help reduce nontherapeutic antibiotics in food
animals, studies on the gut microbiome and its effects on immune
development and identification of specific nutrients with immune
benefits. A recent report from the Food and Drug Administration
reiterated that US sales of medically important antibiotics approved
for livestock use rose by 23 percent between 2009 and 2014, reinforcing
concerns about risks to humans. The fiscal year 2017 funding will
facilitate much needed research on possible connections and solutions.
usda research protects food security and food safety
USDA regulates the nation's supply of domestic and imported meat,
poultry, catfish and processed eggs, to ensure products are wholesome,
safe and properly labeled. Each year, there are new reminders of the
potentially serious consequences of contaminated food supply systems.
One in six Americans gets sick with foodborne illnesses each year, with
about 128,000 hospitalized. USDA partners with numerous public health
stakeholders to reduce the societal and economic costs of these
illnesses.
USDA research that provides science based strategies to stop
foodborne threats, preserve productivity and safeguard food security.
USDA food guidelines and rules depend upon science; examples are the
new Federal standards to further reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter
bacteria in certain poultry products. Based on risk assessments, the
agency estimates that implementation could prevent an average of 50,000
illnesses annually.
FSIS coordinates its far flung activities, including inspections of
food production establishments, with other USDA and non-USDA programs
to ensure an integrated farm to table approach. Annual FSIS budgets
support approximately 8,000 Federal in plant and field personnel, many
of them stationed at about 6,400 slaughtering and processing
establishments, import houses and other facilities. FSIS also supports
state inspection programs and helps strengthen data infrastructure for
nationwide food safety. FSIS relies upon the latest scientific
knowledge and capabilities, especially screening technologies that
detect contaminants faster and more accurately, are field ready and
real time and provide more quantitative data. Currently, USDA is
seeking techniques that identify all contaminants in a sample, whether
microbiological or chemical. Sample analyses are increasingly reliant
upon cutting edge genetics. The fiscal year 2017 request includes USDA
implementation of a whole genome sequencing initiative to identify
pathogens with great precision and improve the speed and accuracy of
outbreak investigations. This also is relevant to USDA's role in the
national antimicrobial resistance initiative.
Protecting animal and plant health from threats inside the United
States and beyond consistently improves both food safety and food
security. The fiscal year 2017 budget proposes additional support
against the threat of avian influenza and other animal diseases found
in other nations that could enter US agriculture, decimating production
and export markets. The 2015 outbreak of highly pathogenic avian
influenza was the worst animal disease outbreak in US history, costing
the Federal government over $1 billion in eradication efforts and the
industry huge losses in poultry flocks and export income. More than 400
USDA staff and nearly 3,000 USDA contracted personnel worked with
states and industry to eliminate infected flocks at more than 200
locations, killing 50 million birds.
Facing the specter of foot and mouth disease (FMD) is one AFRI
supported effort that showcases the need for robust research funding.
This highly contagious viral disease is considered the most important
animal disease in the world. The US eradicated FMD in 1929, but its
persistence around the world makes it very difficult to control. A 2001
outbreak in the United Kingdom cost an estimated $6 billion. FMD in the
United States would shut down our exports of fresh beef, pork and dairy
products. When US beef exports dropped in 2003 due to a single case of
mad cow disease, the cumulative loss to the economy was an estimated
$16 billion. Some estimates of possible US economic impacts from an
uncontrolled FMD outbreak approach $200 billion. The fiscal year 2017
budget includes additional funds for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to acquire FMD vaccines for the FMD Vaccine
Bank. FMD vaccines must be matched to the specific type and subtype of
virus causing the outbreak and available vaccines are not adequate to
respond effectively to an outbreak of FMD in the US.
Long term investments in agriculture R&D programs benefit the
producers on US farms and ranches, our expansive food industry and
individual consumers. USDA food safety programs directly protect the
public daily. The ASM asks Congress to fully support the fiscal year
2017 budget requested to guarantee the health and productivity of US
agriculture.
[This statement was submitted by Public and Scientific Affairs
Board, American Society for Microbiology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology (FDA)
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) recommends that
Congress appropriate at least an additional $100 million for the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) in the fiscal year 2017 budget. This
increase would fund the FDA at $2.8 billion, instead of the $2.7
billion, or 1 percent increase, proposed by the Administration.
Although the total FDA budget, which relies heavily upon user fees, is
$4.8 billion, $80 million over fiscal year 2016, the Administration's
proposed budget would result in flat or lower funding for numerous FDA
programs that continue to grow in order to protect the public health
and safety and because of legislated responsibilities. FDA regulated
products account for about 20 cents of each consumer dollar. FDA
oversees all drugs, vaccines, medical devices and cosmetics as well as
80 percent of the nation's food supply. Every year, these product
sectors are increasing in volume, diversity and global sourcing and
intensifying FDA's regulatory role. The ASM believes it is critical to
appropriate additional Federal appropriations for the FDA.
The ASM appreciates that the FDA request does include funding
earmarked for important efforts like food safety, the Cancer Moonshot
and precision medicine. However, we are disappointed by the lack of
substantial increased support for public health related problems under
FDA purview, such as the threat of growing drug resistance among
infectious diseases and a more forceful implementation of the 2011 Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) passed by Congress.
The ASM asks that Congress provide FDA with the resources needed to
fulfill its mission to safeguard the public health, contribute to the
discovery of new healthcare and consumer products, and boost US global
competitiveness in science and technology.
fda actions protect and serve public health
In the past year, FDA efforts have targeted Zika and Ebola viruses,
infections acquired in healthcare settings and nontherapeutic
antibiotic use in food animals. Contaminated cucumbers, cilantro, ice
cream and salad greens were among the newsworthy causes of foodborne
outbreaks reminding us that foodborne illnesses require rapid FDA
responses. FDA has unique input into the healthcare continuum, by
evaluating the safety and efficacy of new and marketed drugs, vaccines,
medical devices and other products for human and animal use. As of
February, the agency's evaluation of Ebola related products had
included at least ten diagnostics and three vaccine candidates,
clinical trials of the ZMapp therapeutic and review of unsuccessful
drug candidates and blood donor Ebola guidance issued in December. The
agency had fast tracked evaluation of ZMapp, granting it an ``orphan
drug'' designation to accelerate testing of the experimental drug. Its
collaborative efforts with other stakeholders stimulated R&D on
possible countermeasures and broadened patient access to better
healthcare. FDA has begun work on improved Zika diagnostics, including
assays built upon reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-
PCR). FDA is also evaluating proposed vector control through
genetically engineered mosquitoes. When new candidate vaccines and
drugs have been developed, the FDA will be ready to expedite their
review as well.
In 2015, FDA issued approvals for 56 new drugs and biologics,
compared to 50 in 2014. Among the approved products are treatments for
hepatitis C, multiple myeloma, HIV infection and plague as well as a
vaccine for use after anthrax exposure. Two other drugs were the fifth
and sixth approved under the Qualified Infectious Disease Product
protocol for rare but serious infections, aimed at stimulating drug R&D
through priority review. Also approved were a diagnostic test to
differentiate among types of HIV infection and an improved duodenoscope
design to reduce infection risk during medical procedures.
In the United States, nearly 40 percent of our finished drugs and
80 percent of active ingredients used in drug manufacture are imported.
The heightened global sourcing of US consumer products is clear to any
shopper, but the chore of FDA oversight is far more complex. FDA
regulated products originate from more than 200 countries, entering
through more than 300 US ports. FDA estimates that shipments have more
than tripled in the past decade, from 8 million import entry lines per
year to more than 29 million today. At present, fewer than 2 percent of
incoming shipments are inspected by the available FDA staff, often
cited as proof of FDA budget shortfalls.
The ASM recognizes the monumental task of guaranteeing our food
supply's safety and security. Chronically understaffed, FDA foods
inspection, regulatory and investigation programs are challenged daily.
FDA registered food producing and manufacturing sites comprise 133,000
foreign and 97,000 domestic facilities. FDA currently has resources to
inspect about 1,000 foreign facilities per year. The Department of
Agriculture (USDA) estimates that foods grown or processed outside the
country account for about 20 percent of the US food supply, including
about half of fresh fruits, 20 percent of fresh vegetables and 80
percent of seafood.
Last fall, FDA finalized five of the seven major rules that
implement the core mandates of the FSMA legislation. Following huge
effort by the agency, interagency partners and public comment, the
rules address both domestic and foreign sources. Two of the preventive
controls rules focus on modern food manufacturing processes for both
human and animal foods, holding food companies more accountable for
monitoring facilities. The third rule establishes science based
standards to reduce contamination in produce, a frequent source of
foodborne illnesses. The others specifically target imports through the
Foreign Supplier Verification Program and accreditation of third party
certification bodies to audit foreign foods and facilities. The ASM
acknowledges the effort leading to these crucial food safety measures.
However, the most effective implementation of FSMA goals depends upon
both cutting edge FDA science and adequate fiscal support.
fda science advances product safety
In September, the advisory FDA Science Board released its in depth
report on the current state of FDA science, Mission Possible: How FDA
Can Move at the Speed of Science. Report authors were tasked to
evaluate how FDA can best review products from emerging and future
trends in science and technology, elevate its own scientific culture,
and leverage collaborations with other stakeholders. Also included was
assessment of intra-agency progress made since the Board's 2007 report,
FDA Science and Mission at Risk. The report commended proactive moves
like the new Office of the Chief Scientist and FDA offices in other
countries, plus the effort to better regulate cutting edge technologies
like genome sequencing, computing and stem cells.
The ASM agrees with the report's warning that some serious problems
persist, indictments of ongoing funding shortfalls. Noted examples are
failures to allocate the substantial amounts of FDA funding needed for
the FSMA mandate's complete implementation and FDA's own scientific
methods and technologies too often lagging behind industry and others.
As the agency responsible for the safety and efficacy of huge consumer
sectors, FDA clearly must have routine access to the latest science and
technologies to best serve the public. The US responses to the 2014-
2015 Ebola epidemic, and now the Zika virus, rely upon FDA science to
help guide policy development, facilitate clinical trials and undertake
fast track reviews of candidate drugs, diagnostics and vaccines. More
broadly, next-generation diagnostics now being developed by industry
often are based upon metagenomic sequencing that FDA must be prepared
to evaluate. Another instance of FDA activities that must be based on
sound science is reviewing foods from genetically engineered (GE)
plants and animals. In November, FDA announced its approval of GE
salmon, the agency's first for a GE animal for human consumption, as
well as related guidance documents on labeling. It also released a
final guidance for labeling foods derived from GE plants. Beyond the
needed laboratory expertise, FDA regulatory actions increasingly
require newer types of highly sought technical personnel like
bioinformaticians.
Since 2008, the FDA foods program has utilized whole genome
sequencing (WGS) to identify the microbial causes of foodborne
illnesses faster and more accurately. Continued WGS improvements are
dramatically reducing times required for identification from 14 days to
just a few days, as well as pinpointing the source of outbreaks down to
the farm or facility level. Last year, WGS was used extensively in
outbreak investigations, linking contaminated imported cucumbers to a
few specific firms and Listeria infections to certain ice cream
manufacturers. FDA established the first national lab network of whole
genome sequencers, called GenomeTrakr, which has accumulated more than
43,000 sequenced microbial isolates since 2013. FDA scientists are also
using other next generation technologies like flow cytometry and
fluorescence. FDA recently reduced the average number of days to
serotype food pathogens to three days.
fda partnerships support national initiatives, legislation
Under its regulatory role, FDA reinforces multiple national efforts
against threats to our collective health and quality of life. Some,
like FSMA implementation, require extensive FDA actions that seriously
stretch agency resources. Another example is FDA's participation in the
National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB)
and other efforts to address rising drug resistance among pathogens.
Related FDA efforts encompass the areas of drugs, biologics, medical
devices, and veterinary medicine. In 2015, the agency published its
final Veterinary Feed Directive rule and an industry guidance to
further promote judicious use of antimicrobials in food producing
animals, placing their use under veterinary supervision.
To support the newly launched National Cancer Moonshot Initiative,
FDA will develop a virtual Oncology Center of Excellence, to leverage
collective expertise in drugs, biologics and medical devices to
expedite R&D of novel products. The Center additionally will contribute
to FDA's current support of the 2015 Precision Medicine Initiative,
under which FDA has already approved a targeted therapy and companion
diagnostic test for certain lung cancers.
The ASM appreciates that some FDA responsibilities would receive
earmarked funding in the fiscal year 2017 budget, but we urge Congress
to increase Federal appropriations for the FDA, which includes so many
programs that have needs and are critical to public health and safety.
[This statement was submitted by Public and Scientific Affairs
Board, American Society for Microbiology.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Society for Nutrition
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) respectfully requests that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/National Institute of Food
and Agriculture/Agriculture and Food Research Initiative receive $700
million and that the Agricultural Research Service receive $1.161
billion in fiscal year 2017, the Administration's proposed funding
levels. ASN has more than 5,000 members working throughout academia,
clinical practice, government, and industry, who conduct research to
advance our knowledge and application of nutrition.
agriculture and food research initiative
The USDA has been the lead nutrition agency and the most important
Federal agency influencing U.S. dietary intake and food patterns for
years. Agricultural research is essential to address the ever-
increasing demand for a healthy, affordable, nutritious and sustainable
food supply. The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
competitive grants program is charged with funding research, education,
and extension and integrated, competitive grants that address key
problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance in
sustaining all components of agriculture. These components include
human nutrition, farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable
energy, forestry (both urban and agro forestry), aquaculture, food
safety, biotechnology, and conventional breeding. AFRI has funded
cutting-edge, agricultural research on key issues of timely importance
on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis since its establishment in the
2008 Farm Bill. Adequate funding for agricultural research is critical
to provide a safe and nutritious food supply for the world population,
to preserve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global
marketplace, and to provide jobs and revenue crucial to support the
U.S. economy.
In order to achieve those benefits, AFRI must be able to advance
fundamental sciences in support of agriculture and coordinate
opportunities to build off of these discoveries. Therefore, ASN
requests that the AFRI competitive grants program receive $700 million,
the Administration's proposed funding of AFRI, in fiscal year 2017,
which would double AFRI funding. Current flat and decreased funding for
AFRI hinders scientific advances that support agricultural funding and
research.
agricultural research service
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the Department of
Agriculture's lead scientific research agency. The ARS 7conducts
research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of
high national priority. USDA's program of human nutrition research is
housed in six Human Nutrition Research Centers (HNRCs) across the
nation, that link producer and consumer interests and form the core for
building knowledge about food and nutrition. HNRCs conduct unparalleled
human nutrition research on the role of food and dietary components in
human health from conception to advanced old age, and they provide
authoritative, peer-reviewed, science-based evidence that forms the
basis of our Federal nutrition policy and programs. Funding for ARS
supports all of the USDA/HNRCs and ensures that these research
facilities have adequate funding to continue their unique mission of
improving the health of Americans through cutting-edge food, nutrition
and agricultural research.
Nutrition monitoring conducted in partnership by the USDA/ARS with
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a unique and
critically important surveillance function in which dietary intake,
nutritional status, and health status are evaluated in a rigorous and
standardized manner. (ARS is responsible for food and nutrient
databases and the ``What We Eat in America'' dietary survey, while HHS
is responsible for tracking nutritional status and health parameters.)
Nutrition monitoring is an inherently governmental function and
findings are essential for multiple government agencies, as well as the
public and private sector. Nutrition monitoring is essential to track
what Americans are eating, inform nutrition and dietary guidance
policy, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nutrition
assistance programs, and study nutrition-related disease outcomes.
Because of past funding deficiencies, some food composition database
entries do not reflect the realities of the current food supply, which
may negatively impact programs and policies based on this information.
It is imperative that needed funds to update USDA's food and nutrient
databases and the ``What We Eat in America'' dietary survey, both
maintained by the USDA/ARS, are appropriated to ensure the continuation
of this critical surveillance of the nation's nutritional status and
the many benefits it provides.
It is the job of ARS to ensure high-quality, safe food, and other
agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of Americans;
sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance the natural
resource base and the environment; and provide economic opportunities
for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole. Therefore, ASN
requests that ARS receive at least $1.161 billion in fiscal year 2017,
with Congress directing the use of some of these funds for both intra-
and extramural human nutrition research. Resources above current
funding levels are necessary to ensure the critical surveillance of the
nation's nutritional status and to continue the many other benefits
that ARS provides. With such funding, the ARS will be able to support
its vision of leading America towards a better future through
agricultural research and information.
[This statement was submitted by Patrick J. Stover, Ph.D.,
President, American Society for Nutrition.]
______
Prepared Statement of 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 funding for
agricultural research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
ASPB supports the fiscal year 2017 requested level of $700 million for
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), which administers
competitive funding for innovative research on issues such as food
security, global health, and renewable energy. ASPB also supports the
fiscal year 2017 requested level of $1.286 billion for the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS).
This testimony highlights the critical importance of plant biology
research and development to addressing vital issues including:
achieving a sustainable food supply and food security; energy security,
attaining reduced reliance on all petrochemical products through game-
changing sustainable renewable biomass utilization approaches; and
protecting our environment.
food, fuel, environment, and health: plant biology research and
america's competitiveness and self-sufficiency
We often take plants for granted, but they are vital to our very
existence, competitiveness, and self-sufficiency. New plant biology
research is now addressing the most compelling issues facing our
society, including: identifying creative and imaginative approaches to
reaching Congress's goals of achieving domestic fuel security/self-
sufficiency; environmental stewardship; sustainable and secure
development of even better foods, feeds, building materials, and a host
of other plant products used in daily life; and improvements in the
health and nutrition of all Americans.
Our bioeconomy and Federal partnership is based upon foundational
plant biology research--the strategic research USDA funds--to make
needed key discoveries. Yet limited funding committed to basic
discovery now threatens our national security and leadership. Indeed,
Bill Gates wrote, ``Given the central role that food plays in human
welfare and national stability, it is shocking--not to mention short-
sighted and potentially dangerous--how little money is spent on
agricultural research.'' \1\ This is especially true considering the
significant positive impact crop and forest plants have on the nation's
economy (the agricultural sector is responsible for one in 12 American
jobs \2\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gates, Bill. (Jan 2012). 2012 Annual Letter from Bill Gates.
Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2012/Pages/
home-en.aspx.
\2\ Vilsack, Tom. (Mar. 9, 2012). Public Comments Before PCAST.
Retrieved from http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/pcast/120309/
globe_show/default_go_archive.cfm?gsid=1977&
type=flv&test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these concerns and our nation's fiscal situation, the plant
science community has been working toward addressing our nation's
looming challenges. With funding from USDA, the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute, ASPB brought together representatives from across the full
spectrum of plant science research to develop a community agenda
document, Unleashing a Decade of Innovation in Plant Science: A Vision
for 2015-2025 (plantsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/
plantsciencedecadalvision10-18-13.pdf). The report, part of an ongoing
and iterative process, puts forth a ten-year consensus plan to fill
critical gaps in our understanding of plant biology toward addressing
the grand challenge of sustainably feeding the world and providing
other useful plant products in the face of burgeoning population
growth, diminishing natural resources, and climate change.
immediate recommendations
The ASPB membership has extensive expertise and participation in
the academic, industry, and government sectors. Consequently, ASPB is
in an excellent position to articulate the nation's plant science
priorities and standards needed as they relate to agriculture. Our
recommendations are as follows:
--Since the establishment of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) and AFRI, interest in USDA research has
increased dramatically--a trend ASPB hopes to see continue in
the future. However, an increased, strategic and focused
investment in competitive funding and its oversight is needed
if the nation is to continue to make ground-breaking
discoveries and accelerate progress toward resolving urgent
national priorities and societal needs. ASPB encourages the
Committee to fund AFRI at the requested $700 million level in
fiscal year 2017.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides vital strategic
research to serve USDA's mission and objectives and as well as
the nation's agricultural sector. The need to bolster and
enhance ARS efforts to leverage and complement AFRI is great
given the challenges in food and energy security. ASPB is
supportive of a strong ARS and recommends a congressional
appropriation of the requested $1.286 billion in fiscal year
2017.
--USDA has focused attention in several key priority areas, including
water for food production, food safety, childhood obesity,
climate variability and change, and sustainable energy.
Although ASPB appreciates the value of such strategic focus, we
give our most robust support for AFRI's Foundational Program.
This program provides a basis for outcomes across a wide
spectrum, often leading to groundbreaking developments that
cannot be anticipated in advance. Indeed, it is these
discoveries that are the true engine of success for our
bioeconomy.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
agricultural scientific workforce as the demographics of the
U.S. workforce change.\3\ For example, there is a clear need
for additional training of scientists in the areas of
interdisciplinary energy research and plant breeding. ASPB
applauds the ongoing support of the NIFA Fellows program and
calls for additional funding for specific programs (e.g.,
training grants and fellowships) to provide this needed
workforce over the next 10 years and to adequately prepare
these individuals for careers in the agricultural research of
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
(Dec. 2012). Report to the President on Agricultural Preparedness and
the Agricultural Research Enterprise, p. 41.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/pcast_agriculture
_20121207.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Considerable research interest is now focused on the use of plant
biomass for energy production. However, if we are to use crops
and forest resources to their full potential, we must expend
extensive effort to improve our understanding of their
underlying biology and development, their agronomic
performance, and their subsequent processing to meet our goals.
Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding targeted at
efforts to increase the utility and agronomic performance of
bioenergy crops using the best and most imaginative science and
technologies possible.
--ASPB encourages some flexibility within NIFA's budget to update and
improve its data management capabilities.
[This statement was submitted by Tyrone C. Spady, PhD, Director of
Legislative and Public Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals
On behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (ASPCA) and our 2.5 million supporters nationwide, thank you
for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. Founded in 1866,
the ASPCA was the first humane organization in North America. Our
mission, as stated by founder Henry Bergh, is ``to provide effective
means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United
States.'' As you craft the fiscal year 2017 Agriculture Appropriations
bill, the ASPCA asks that you please consider the following provisions.
continue the current ban on federal funding for horse slaughterhouse
inspections
Congress included in the fiscal year 2016 Consolidated
Appropriations Act a provision continuing the long-standing ban on
Federal funding for USDA inspections at domestic horse slaughterhouses.
Americans do not eat horse meat, and national polling indicates
that 80 percent of American voters oppose the slaughter of horses for
human consumption. Cruelties associated with horse slaughter are well-
documented. Whether in the U.S. or over the border, horses are forced
into cramped trailers and trucked long distances to slaughter with
insufficient food, water, or rest. Many horses are injured, trampled,
and even killed during the journey. Horses that survive endure an
inherently cruel slaughter process. As extreme flight animals, horses
are ill-suited for stunning. In USDA-regulated plants, many endured
repeated blows, sometimes remaining conscious during dismemberment.
USDA documented rampant violations and cruelty in domestic horse
slaughter facilities, including photos of protruding broken bones,
eyeballs hanging by a thread of skin, and open wounds.
As American horses are not raised for food, throughout their lives
they are routinely given numerous drugs prohibited by the FDA for use
in animals intended for human consumption. A 2010 Food and Chemical
Toxicology Journal article detailed the ubiquitous use of
phenylbutazone in race horses subsequently sent to auction and then to
slaughter only days after medication.\1\ A New York Times investigation
revealed a virtual arms race of illegal drug use in horses to mask pain
and evade drug tests including ``cobra venom, Viagra, blood doping
agents, stimulants, and cancer drugs,'' and the resulting food safety
threats.\2\ The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) cannot test
for these harmful substances without a system to track horses' health
histories, and trainers are constantly experimenting with new
stimulants to gain a competitive edge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dodman, N., Blondeau, N., Marini, A.M., ``Association of
Phenylbutazone Usage with Horses Bought for Slaughter: A Public Health
Risk.'' Food and Chemical Toxicology: May 2010.
\2\ ``Death and Disarray at America's Racetracks.'' The New York
Times: March 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union (EU) announced a ban on imports of horse meat
from Mexico to the EU as of January 1, 2015, following a scathing audit
of EU-certified Mexican horse slaughter plants, which kill tens of
thousands of American horses each year. The report stressed that
because horses are not raised as food-producing animals in Mexico or
the United States, they are routinely given many medications that are
illegal for use in food animals. U.S. tax dollars should not be used to
prop up an industry that has no regard for animal welfare or human
health.
The ASPCA requests that the Subcommittee continue the prohibition
on Federal funding for horse slaughterhouse inspections by the USDA by
including the following language:
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay the
salaries or expenses of personnel--
(1) to inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603);
(2) to inspect horses under section 903 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 note; Public Law 104-
127); or
(3) to implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code of
Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
ensure that ars research complies with the animal welfare act
A 2015 New York Times expose revealed appalling abuse of animals at
USDA's U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC).\3\ The article
revealed a shocking array of animal experiments occurring at the USMARC
with little regard for welfare, e.g., a live, unanaesthetized pig
dissected and then improperly euthanized, and lambs left to die of
exposure to extreme weather and predation in order to develop ``easy-
care'' sheep. The research at the USMARC inflicts terrible suffering on
animals at taxpayer expense. Since 2006, USDA's Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) has spent nearly $200 million at USMARC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for
Profit.'' The New York Times: January 19, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cows, sheep, and pigs used in these experiments are exempt, by
statute, from the basic standards of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA),
which exempts animals used in agriculture production research. Though
exempted by statute, USDA's internal policies mirror some of these
basic protections. However, investigative reports from USDA last year
noted that USMARC filed to follow its own animal welfare standards.\4\
\5\ \6\ In particular, these reports showed a need for further review
of internal animal welfare policies and that USMARC's Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) was not properly constituted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Findings and Recommendations on the Animal Care and Well-
Being at the U.S. Meat
Animal Research Center to the Secretary of Agriculture and the REE
Under Secretary.''
Agricultural Research Service--Animal Handling and Welfare Review
Panel.
Pre-Public Hearing Report. March 9, 2015.
\5\ ``Findings and Recommendations on the Phase II Review of the
Animal Care and Well-Being at the Agricultural Research Service to the
REE Under Secretary.'' Agricultural Research Service--Animal Handling
and Welfare Review Panel. Pre-Public Hearing Report. July 6, 2015.
\6\ ``ARS: U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Review--Interim Report''
USDA Office of Inspector General. Audit Number: 02007-0001-31 (1).
September 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ASPCA appreciates the Subcommittee's continued attention to
this important issue. We supported the inclusion of language in the
fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act which compels USDA to
provide written certification to Congress that its animal welfare
policies have been updated to comply with the AWA--including properly
constituting IACUCs--and provides funding to facilitate inspection of
ARS facilities by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS).
The ASPCA requests that the Subcommittee continue to include
language to ensure that all ARS facilities comply with the Animal
Welfare Act, including regular APHIS inspections, and we encourage the
continuation of funding to support these inspections.
increase awa enforcement funding for the inspection of licensed
breeders
One of the functions of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) is to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals
by enforcing the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Included
in this mandate is the inspection of large-scale commercial dog
breeding operations. Dogs raised in these facilities typically spend
their entire lives in small, crowded cages, continually producing
litters of puppies for the pet trade. Although the AWA provides very
minimal standards which should be improved, those operations not in
compliance with even the very limited Federal requirements must be held
accountable. When facilities fall out of compliance, dogs can suffer
for extended periods in deplorable conditions, without veterinary care,
exercise, food, water, and socialization.
In September 2013, USDA issued a final rule that, for the first
time, required commercial breeders who sell puppies directly to the
public--sight unseen over the Internet or mail--to be licensed and
inspected. At the time, the Department estimated that 2,600-4,640
additional dog breeders, as well as 325 cat breeders, would require
licensure. With already limited resources, the addition of thousands of
new licensees will make it nearly impossible for USDA to provide the
necessary enforcement without an increase in funding.
The ASPCA requests that the Subcommittee increase the current
funding for APHIS's AWA enforcement.
prohibit increased line speeds for poultry slaughter plants
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Modernization of
Poultry Slaughter Inspection Rule, finalized in 2014, stopped short of
increasing already-too-fast line speeds for certain poultry slaughter
plants from 140 to 175 birds per minute. Faster slaughter speeds will
lead to more live birds entering the scalding tank. As noted in a
recent Washington Post article, nearly 1 million chickens are
unintentionally boiled alive each year because already-fast-moving
slaughter lines fail to kill the birds before they are dropped into
scalding water to facilitate defeathering.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``USDA Plan to Speed Up Poultry-Processing Lines Could Increase
Risk of Bird Abuse.'' The Washington Post: October 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ASPCA requests that the Subcommittee prohibit FSIS from
increasing line speeds at poultry slaughter plants.
exceed the statutory funding cap for horse soring enforcement
APHIS is also charged with protecting horses through its
enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) of 1970. Since passage of
the HPA in 1970, a $500,000 statutory funding cap on activities under
the Act has hampered USDA's effective enforcement of horse soring
activities. Congress can choose to ignore the cap and fund the program
at higher levels, which it did in the fiscal year 2016 Consolidated
Appropriations Act by funding HPA enforcement at $697,000.
The ASPCA requests that the Subcommittee continue to exceed the
statutory funding cap to allow the USDA to better enforce the Horse
Protection Act and prevent the cruel practice of horse soring.
[This statement was submitted by Nancy Perry, Senior Vice
President, Government Relations.]
______
Prepared Statement of Animal Welfare Information Center
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on fiscal year
2017 funding priorities for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS).
usda-ars-national agricultural library--animal welfare information
center
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) serves as a training
and education resource for those who use animals for research, testing,
and teaching, and the need for its services continues to outstrip its
resources. AWIC's activities are vitally important, as they facilitate
science-based decisionmaking and compliance with Federal animal welfare
regulations. We request that AWIC funding remain consistent with the
fiscal year 2017 budget proposal.
usda-aphis-animal welfare
APHIS's Animal Welfare activities are critical to the proper
regulation and care of animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2131-2159, and the Horse Protection Act
(HPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1821-1831. We request that, consistent with
the Department's request, $29 million be allocated to Animal Welfare
activities.
usda-aphis-animal welfare--animal welfare act enforcement--class b
dealers
We are grateful that Congress maintained in the fiscal year 2016
omnibus a provision prohibiting the renewal of existing licenses or the
issuance of new licenses to Class B dealers who sell random source dogs
and cats for use in research, experimentation, teaching, and testing.
One existing license doesn't expire until December, so it will be
necessary to continue this prohibition into fiscal year 2017. Moreover,
it will also be needed to ensure that there is no lapse during which
these dealers try to get back into business or others are tempted to
apply for new licenses. It is true that very few of these dealers
remain--all the more reason to head off challenges to the progress that
has been made in shutting down this abuse-ridden industry that has
trafficked in stolen pets, consigned animals to misery, and was found
to be ``not necessary'' to NIH-related research. Therefore, we ask you
to include the following language in the agriculture appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2017: None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to carry out any activities or incur any expense related to
the issuance of licenses under section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7
U.S.C. 2133), or the renewal of such licenses, to class B dealers who
sell random source dogs and cats for use in research, experiments,
teaching, or testing. Nothing in this provision, however, should be
construed as preventing the Department from carrying out all necessary
oversight, inspection, compliance, and enforcement activities with
respect to any entity holding a valid class B license who sells random
source dogs and cats for use in research, experiments, teaching, or
testing, or with respect to any entity doing so without a license as
required under 7 U.S.C. 2133.
usda-aphis-animal welfare--horse protection act enforcement
We support and incorporate by reference the testimony submitted by
The Humane Society of the U.S. on behalf of AWI and our partner
organizations concerning fiscal year 2017 funding for HPA enforcement.
The HPA was enacted to end soring, the cruel practice of applying
chemical and mechanical irritants to the legs and hooves of horses to
produce an exaggerated gait. Yet soring, condemned as ``one of the most
significant welfare issues affecting any equine breed or
discipline,''\1\ has continued as limited funding has hampered
enforcement. Because USDA inspectors are able to attend a mere fraction
of Tennessee Walking Horse shows, monitoring responsibility often falls
to ``Designated Qualified Persons'' (DQPs), usually industry insiders
willing to ignore violations. Reliance on DQPs has been an abysmal
failure. Statistics show that USDA inspectors' presence at shows
results in a far higher rate of violations than occurs when DQPs are
present. For example, at the 2013 Tennessee Walking Horse National
Celebration, 86 of 128 horses tested positive for soring agents.\2\ We
ask that Congress appropriate $705,000 for HPA enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Association of Equine Practitioners, Putting the Horse
First: Veterinary Recommendations for Ending the Soring of Tennessee
Walking Horses (2008).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda-aphis-wildlife services--wildlife damage management
APHIS's Wildlife Services (WS) program allocates millions of
dollars each year to lethal wildlife management, relying on methods
that are cruel, ineffective, costly, and outdated. WS uses poisons,
traps, snares, and firearms to indiscriminately kill animals--including
endangered species, family pets, and countless non-target animals--
while ignoring humane and cost-efficient alternatives. WS'
irresponsible practices even threaten public safety and national
security (e.g., the use of Compound 1080). Last year, two individuals
died during an aerial gunning operation that WS was conducting to
exterminate coyotes in New Mexico; unfortunately, this most recent
fatal accident is not the first such case. In view of the most recent
fatal plane crash, as well as the overall lack of transparency
surrounding WS's activities, we urge the Subcommittee to include report
language requiring the agency to provide detailed information about its
aerial gunning operations. Specifically, WS should identify any
additional safety measures the agency has instituted since the most
recent fatal accident; the dollar amount spent per operation (e.g., for
aircraft rental or lease, fuel costs, personnel costs including fees
paid for pilots if not agency personnel, and other payments made to
private aerial companies or individuals contracted by WS); funding
received from outside sources to carry out aerial gunning activities
(whether through cooperator agreements or from state agencies, local
governments, or private landowners); specific locations where
operations were conducted; the number and species of animals killed per
operation; and information regarding whether targeted animals were
identified in a specific conflict or were part of a preemptive shooting
mission.
usda-aphis-investigative and enforcement services
APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) handles
investigations related to APHIS programs, which involves: evidence
collection; civil and criminal investigations; and investigations in
collaboration with Federal, state and local enforcement agencies. IES
also works with USDA's Office of General Counsel to handle stipulations
and administrative proceedings. Consistent with the fiscal year 2017
budget proposal, we request $16,410,000 so that the Service may fulfill
its responsibilities, particularly its increasing HPA and AWA
investigatory demands.
usda-ars--animal welfare for farm animals used in agricultural research
Last year the New York Times released an investigation that
revealed shocking instances of animal abuse at the U.S. Meat Animal
Research Center (MARC). Experiments at this Federal facility over the
last several decades were the subject of a year-long investigation by
the Times, involving the review of thousands of pages of internal
records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. MARC has
received almost $200 million in Federal funding since 2006, and it is
one of approximately 40 Agricultural Research Service facilities that
conduct agricultural research involving animals. The Committee took
seriously the allegations raised by the Times piece and responded by
making 5 percent of the ARS budget for fiscal year 2016 contingent on
ARS updating its animal care policies and requiring that all ARS
facilities at which animal research is conducted have a fully
functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to
ensure compliance with animal welfare standards. The Committee also
provided $400,000 to APHIS to conduct inspections consistent with the
AWA at each ARS facility that uses animals in research. We request a
continuation in fiscal year 2017 of that $400,000 to APHIS, as well as
a renewed requirement for a fully functioning IACUC at each ARS
facility where animal research is conducted, along with the following
bill language: ``Provided further, That the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service and Agricultural Research Service shall work
together to ensure an effective animal welfare inspection program for
ARS facilities and ensure that these facilities are in full compliance
with the Animal Welfare Act.''
usda-fsis--humane methods of slaughter act enforcement
USDA allots an extremely small portion of its resources to Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) enforcement. In fiscal year 2015, for
instance, only 2.6 percent of all FSIS verification procedures were
performed for activities related to humane handling and slaughter.
Uneven enforcement among districts, repeat violators, and inadequate
training and humane slaughter expertise among inspectors remain serious
problems. The problems of inadequate and inconsistent enforcement can
be resolved by increasing the number and qualifications of personnel
assigned to humane handling and slaughter duties. We request that no
fewer than 160 full-time equivalent positions be dedicated to
inspections and HMSA enforcement. In addition, a minimum of two
District Veterinary Medical Specialists should be assigned per district
to provide for increased auditing and training to help uncover problems
before they result in egregious humane handling incidents.
usda-fsis--horse slaughter facility inspections
For years, Congress has approved language to prevent the use of tax
dollars to fund horse slaughter facility inspections. This language is
critical to protect horses, taxpayers, communities and public health.
We strongly support the continued inclusion of this prohibition in
fiscal year 2017.
[This statement was submitted by Christopher J. Heyde, Deputy
Director, Government and Legal Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of Catholic Relief Services
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) requests a minimum of $1.716 billion
in fiscal year 2017 appropriations for the Food for Peace program, and
of this urges $375 million be designated for non-emergency development
programs. CRS also requests $201 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education program, and $80 million for the USDA Local and Regional
Procurement program.
crs and the u.s. catholic church
CRS is the international relief and development agency of the U.S.
Catholic Church. We are one of the largest implementers of U.S. funded
foreign assistance. Our work reaches millions of poor and vulnerable
people in over 100 countries. CRS works with people and communities
based on need, without regard to race, creed, or nationality. CRS often
partners with the local Catholic Church within the countries we operate
in. This engenders substantial trust in us by local populations and
gives us an expansive reach no other aid organization can duplicate.
food for peace--agile, responsive, and impactful
The Food for Peace (FFP) program is the flagship international food
aid program of the US government. It provides funding for emergency
food aid programs that assist communities in acute need and funds long-
term development programs to address underlying causes of hunger, both
of which CRS currently implements. FFP programs are subject to
comprehensive reporting requirements and are targeted to meet specific
and measurable goals. More importantly though, FFP directs resources to
the most vulnerable people and communities. As such, few other US
foreign assistance resources are as important for poverty alleviation
and saving lives. The following provides a brief snapshot of the
critical work that CRS accomplishes in its FFP-funded projects.
ethiopia--joint emergency operation
Ethiopia, a country with over 90 million people, has been
particularly hard hit by the El Nino weather phenomena, leading to the
most severe drought the country has faced in decades. About 80 percent
of Ethiopia's population are subsistence farmers and 95 percent of
farms are rain-fed. Due to El Nino, some regions have not seen rain in
over a year, leading to steep declines in crop yields and hundreds of
thousands of livestock deaths. Presently, over 10 million Ethiopians
are in need of emergency food assistance. Further, while there are
expectations that rains will return to dry areas during this year's
rainy season (July-September), it is also projected that emergency
conditions will persist in drought effected areas through at least
September 2016 (see Chart 1).
Chart 1--Projected Food Insecurity Levels, Ethiopia,
June-Sept 2016. Source: FEWS Net.
Catholic Relief Services manages the Joint Emergency Operation
(JEOP), an emergency food aid program funded by FFP. JEOP is
implemented through a consortium of international and national NGOs.
Its current operational service area includes 76 woredas (counties).
Activities are coordinated with the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) and
the World Food Program (WFP). In addition to the emergency food
distributions targeting the most vulnerable, the JEOP has implemented a
Behavior Change Communication strategy to improve nutrition for
children, supported the formation of savings and internal lending
communities (i.e., microfinance), and has trained community members to
regularly provide information on food security indicators that feed
into national food security warning systems.
With the onset of the El Nino-driven drought, JEOP has ramped up
food distribution operations (see Chart 2). By December 2015, JEOP
served almost 2.6 million beneficiaries throughout Ethiopia.
Beneficiaries generally receive a ration of wheat or sorghum, yellow
split peas and vegetable oil, sourced largely from the United States.
JEOP also provides Corn Soy Blend+ and vegetable oil to organizations
implementing emergency supplementary feeding. Between September 2015
and January 2016, Food for Peace has supplied the JEOP with three
separate commitments for commodities totaling over 360,000 metric tons.
Chart 2--JEOP Beneficiary level 2015.
The JEOP has provided much needed stability for millions of
Ethiopians at a critical time. During this same period the GoE and WFP
have devoted significant resources to address the country's acute food
emergency needs. While the world community has come up short in
answering GoE and WFP's calls for additional funding, the U.S.,
primarily through the JEOP, has remained steadfast in its support to
Ethiopia. Despite overall resource constraints, the worst case scenario
has thus far been avoided in Ethiopia, thanks in no small measure to
the JEOP. Many Ethiopians are alive today thanks to this program. The
JEOP presently has enough resources to continue operations through July
2016, and we expect FFP to continue to help Ethiopia get over this
hurdle.
south sudan--jonglei food security program
South Sudan, bordering Ethiopia to the southwest, is the newest
country in the world, having secured independence from Sudan in 2011.
To support the new country, USAID awarded Catholic Relief Services
funding for a multi-year FFP development program, the Jonglei Food
Security Program (JFSP). Operating in Jonglei State, the largest and
most populous state in South Sudan, the program was to address root
causes of food insecurity through food for work programs to build
community assets and support for small farmers, among other things.
However, in 2013 the country was plunged into a civil war.
Jonglei was one of the epicenters of the conflict. The ensuing
insecurity prevented CRS from continuing JFSP development activities
and ultimately damaged or destroyed much of the community assets and
farming improvements made through the program. Fleeing for their
safety, many residents of Jonglei state left their homes for the safety
of camps both inside South Sudan and in neighboring countries. Given
the radically different nature of the needs in Jonglei, CRS worked with
the Office of Food for Peace to convert JFSP into an emergency response
program. From 2014-2015, JFSP funding was used to provide emergency
food assistance to nearly 140,000 people. Some areas in need were
impossible to reach by land because of the fighting. Partnering with
WFP, food supplies were airlifted into remote areas of Jonglei to CRS
staff, who then continued emergency food distributions to those hardest
hit.
In August 2015, government and opposition forces signed a peace
agreement. While fighting continues in some places in the country, the
peace has largely held in Jonglei State and staff and officials on the
ground credit JFSP in part. The calm has allowed resumption of
development activities in some areas, and relief convoys to enter other
regions for the first time in over 2 years. Most people and officials
in these areas did not believe aid convoys would be allowed in. When
convoys began arriving earlier this year, they were met by people
cheering and dancing. One local official commented that ``this is not
food for work but food for hope.'' Our staff noted that ``at least in
Jonglei, the food convoys have brought a feeling that real peace might
be feasible.'' We have already seen a number of internally displaced
people coming back to Jonglei, and it is our expectation that continued
engagement through JFSP will direct most people's energy and focus back
to preparing for the planting season instead of fighting.
Building a dike through Food for Work in South Sudan
malawi--wellness and agriculture for life advancement
In 2014, CRS completed Wellness and Agriculture for Life
Advancement (WALA), a five-year development Food for Peace project in
Malawi. As with most Food for Peace development projects, WALA took a
multi-sectoral approach to food security. The project included helping
farmers adopt new and better techniques and technology, connecting them
to markets, addressing the nutritional needs of young children and
expecting mothers, providing better access to water for agriculture and
hygiene, helping communities build productive assets, and among other
interventions. While most program success indicators showed strong
results, one standout area was in watershed rehabilitation and
management.
Heavy rains characterize the wet season in Malawi. Communities
targeted by WALA are prone to soil erosion from rushing water running
off their land during these rains. In the lean season, many water
sources for these communities would dry up and most small farmers could
not produce enough food over the year to get them through this period.
Given these circumstance, through food for work, WALA introduced a
number of communities to techniques, like water absorption trenches,
that slow and reduce run off and help water percolate into the soil.
Check damns were constructed in areas where run-off had formed gullies.
Native cover crops, grasses, and trees were introduced in key areas of
farm land to help with soil retention and to improve nutrient content.
The results of these efforts have been dramatic. The water table
has risen, resulting in more water availability in wells. Wells and
streams that would dry up during the lean season now flow year round.
Water clarity in streams has increased also. Over just one or 2 years,
check damns have filled gullies, helping farmers reclaim farmland. With
more moisture and nutrients in the soil, and more land to cultivate,
agricultural yields have increased. Neighboring communities not in the
WALA program noted these successes and on their own adopted the
knowledge and techniques used in WALA.
These programs demonstrate huge successes--addressing the acute
needs of people griped by severe drought in Ethiopia, being able to
shift between emergency and development work as needs change and to
capitalize on opportunities for peace in South Sudan, and in making a
foundation for a better life more resilient life for people in Malawi.
Unfortunately, needs are expanding. The world is seeing more people
being impacted by shocks like conflict and weather patterns like El
Nino, and potentially La Nina later in the year. The funding requested
for FFP, $1.716 billion, will be critical for the US to respond to the
growing emergency needs around the world. Further, directing more than
the minimum level of funding to FFP development programs will help more
communities get ahead, so that when shocks to strike, they are better
prepared to meet their own needs.
mcgovern-dole and usda lrp
McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs provide food for school
lunch programs. In many cases, the lunch provided through McGovern-Dole
is the only meal children receive all day. Parents who would not
otherwise send their children to school are motivated to do so because
they know their children will be fed. This has been especially true for
girls, whose education is not traditionally encouraged in many parts of
the world. Catholic Relief Services currently implements five McGovern-
Dole programs. In addition to school feeding, we also use McGovern-Dole
resources to strengthen teacher training and to make improvements to
schools.
The USDA Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) program, made
permanent by the 2014 Farm Bill, is intended to be used in conjunction
with McGovern-Dole programming and we view it as critical to the
sustainability of school lunch programs. Specifically, we believe these
funds can be used to establish the systems needed to source food used
in school lunches from local farmers. This will entail helping these
farmer grow the quality and quantity needed for school lunches and
organizing parent groups to manage school canteens. Ultimately, once
these systems are in place, local governments can assume responsibility
for these programs.
improving food aid
Catholic Relief Services supports several improvements to the
current food aid system, including the phasing out of requirements to
monetize food aid commodities, reducing the burden of agricultural
cargo preferences on food aid, and giving implementers greater
flexibility to determine how food aid resources are used. We refer you
to testimony Catholic Relief Services submitted to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in April 2015 and the House Agriculture Committee
in September 2015 for more details concerning these improvements.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Carolyn Woo, President and
Chief Executive Officer.]
______
Prepared Statement of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops'
Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International
Justice and Peace, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services and
Catholic Rural Life, we wish to address the moral and human dimensions
of fiscal year 2017 Agriculture Appropriations. We urge you to support
robust funding for both domestic and international food aid, and for
conservation and rural development programs, and to resist cuts to
them. Many of these program areas have already been subject to
reductions. Further cuts would be harmful to vulnerable people and
communities.
In For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food, the U.S. bishops wrote,
``The primary goals of agricultural policies should be providing food
for all people and reducing poverty among farmers and farm workers in
this country and abroad.'' Adequate nutrition is essential to protect
human life and dignity. We must also promote good stewardship of the
land and natural resources. In our soup kitchens and parish food
pantries, we see the faces of poor and hungry people every day. As a
faith community, we feed those without work, pregnant women and
children, and seniors on limited incomes.
We acknowledge the difficult challenges Congress and the
Administration face to match scarce resources with real needs. But a
just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential
services to poor and vulnerable people.
The nation continues to see historic levels of food insecurity that
have persisted well beyond the end of the Great Recession, and this
reality is confirmed by the experience of our food banks, pantries, and
congregate meal sites. Catholic Charities agencies continue to provide
food services well above pre-recession levels, with agencies reporting
10.4 million food services delivered to clients, a 64 percent increase
from 2007. Despite our increased efforts, more than 48 million
Americans (nearly 1 in 6) live in food insecure households. With this
reality, our nation must prioritize programs that assist poor and
hungry people and promote good stewardship. In addition to refraining
from making cuts that impact programs like SNAP, which provide greater
levels of food security to millions of people, it is vital to provide
robust funding for the following programs:
WIC.--Fund the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program at
$6.37 billion to ensure that all qualified families receive vital
nutritional support, investments are made in technology to improve
program operations, and sufficient reserves are built to prepare for
economic volatility. In particular, we urge investment of $75 million
in management information systems and technology to assist with the
transition to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems to help
streamline operations.
TEFAP.--Provide full funding levels as required by the 2014 Farm
Bill for the Emergency Food Assistance Program and food distribution
grants in local communities. Cuts to the program could force some of
our parishes and other charities and food pantries to turn away hungry
people when they continue to need our help.
CSFP.--Fund the Commodity Supplemental Food Program at $236 million
to ensure adequate food assistance is provided to the growing
population of low-income seniors. Faith communities and other charities
are essential in providing food packages to hungry seniors in their
local communities and, as the population continues to age, our
ministries are experiencing increasing demand for food services from
seniors that must be addressed.
CSP.--Provide adequate funding for the Conservation Stewardship
Program to help farmers better conserve and care for farm land for
future generations. Strong conservation programs are necessary to
promote good stewardship of creation and provide needed support to
family farms.
VAPG.--Maintain current funding for the Value Added Producer Grants
program to help farmers and ranchers develop new farm and food-related
businesses to increase rural economic opportunity and help farm and
ranch families thrive.
We also ask you to prioritize international food security programs.
With an estimated 805 million people chronically undernourished
globally (UN-FAO), our nation must support:
International Food Assistance.--The Administration has proposed
funding Food for Peace at $1.35 billion in fiscal year 2017, $350
million less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2016. Food
for Peace provides emergency assistance to people in crises, and is
essential to the U.S. response to civil strife around the world as well
as to the severe drought in many countries brought on by El Nino. Now
is not the time to make drastic cuts to this program. We ask Congress
to maintain Food for Peace funding at $1.716 billion for fiscal year
2017. Similarly, we encourage Congress to reverse the Administration's
proposed cut to school feeding and maintain funding for the McGovern-
Dole program at $201.6 million in fiscal year 2017.
Developmental Food Aid.--Congress must protect and direct an
adequate amount of Food for Peace funding to development food
assistance programs. These programs build resilience, strengthen
agricultural capacity, and improve livelihoods for the most vulnerable,
reducing the need to provide future emergency assistance. Pursuant to
the 2014 Farm Bill, a minimum of $350 million of Food for Peace
resources must be used in development programs, but more may be
directed for this purpose. We request that Congress direct a total of
$375 million of Food for Peace resources to development purposes, and
that USAID have the flexibility to use Development Assistance resources
to reach part of this total.
Reforms to Food Aid System.--A key reform in the 2014 Farm Bill is
the USDA Local and Regional Procurement program, to be implemented in
conjunction with McGovern-Dole, which will help responsibly transition
school feeding programs to local governments. We request that the full
authorized level of $80 million be provided to the USDA LRP program.
Further, we support making food aid programs like Food for Peace more
efficient by allowing them to use local and regional procurement when
appropriate to local circumstances and efficiency gains should also be
reinvested in programs to expand their reach and not used to justify
funding cuts. We also encourage Congress to explore changes to
agricultural cargo preferences to reduce costs to food aid programs, as
a means to achieve greater efficiencies.
At a time of continuing budgetary constraints and competition for
agricultural resources, the needs of those who are hungry, poor and
vulnerable should come before assistance to those who are relatively
well off. With other Christian leaders, we urge the committee to draw a
``circle of protection'' around programs that serve those in greatest
need and to prioritize their needs first. We urge you to protect and
fund programs that feed hungry people, help the most vulnerable
farmers, strengthen rural communities and promote good stewardship of
God's creation.
Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski
Archbishop of Miami
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
Most Reverend Oscar Cantu
Bishop of Las Cruces
Chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace
Sr. Donna Markham, OP, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Catholic Charities USA
Dr. Carolyn Y. Woo
President
Catholic Relief Services
Mr. James Ennis
Executive Director
National Catholic Rural Life
______
Prepared Statement of Central Arizona Water Conservation District
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I am writing to ask that you include at least $15.2 million
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality
Incentive Program Financial Assistance (EQIP FA) for the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program in the fiscal year 2017 Appropriation
bill. Funding for the salinity control program will help protect the
water quality of the Colorado River that is used by approximately 40
million people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to
irrigate approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States.
CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a multi-purpose
water resource development and management project that delivers
Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest
supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP delivers an average of more
than 1.5 million acre-feet of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado
River entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users,
agricultural irrigation districts, and Indian communities.
Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
state. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
occurs within CAP's service area. The canal provides an economic
benefit of $100 million annually, accounting for one-third of the
entire Arizona gross state product. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and
maintaining these water management objectives is critical to the long-
term sustainability of a state as arid as Arizona.
negative impacts of concentrated salts
Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
sources. With the significant Federal ownership in the Basin, most of
this comes from federally administered lands. Human activity,
principally irrigation, adds to the salt load of the Colorado River.
Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts
in the River.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated damages
at about $382 million per year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that
damages will rise to approximately $614 million per year by the year
2035 without continuation of the Program. These damages include:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--Increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--An increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector, and
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
Funding for salinity control will prevent the water quality of the
Colorado River from further degradation and significant increases in
economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
history of the usda's colorado river basin salinity control program
Recognizing the rapidly increasing salinity concentration in the
Lower Colorado River and its impact on water users, Arizona joined with
the other Colorado River Basin States in 1973 and organized the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). In 1974, the Forum
worked with Congress in the passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (Act) to offset increased damages caused by
continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
In implementing the Act, Congress directed that the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program should be implemented in the most cost-
effective way. The Program at the United States Department of
Agriculture is currently funded under the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and under Reclamation's Basinwide Program.
Congress authorized a salinity control program (Program) for the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through an amendment of
the Act in 1984. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), Congress directed that the
Program should continue to be implemented as part of the newly created
EQIP. Since the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(FSRIA) in 2002, there have been, for the first time in a number of
years, opportunities to adequately fund the Program within EQIP.
In 2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
(FCEA). The FCEA addressed the cost sharing required from the Basin
Funds. In so doing, the FCEA named the cost sharing requirement as the
Basin States Program (BSP). The BSP will provide 30 percent of the
total amount that will be spent each year by the combined EQIP and BSP
effort. With the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 the
authorities for USDA to implement salinity control activities in the
Colorado River Basin were continued.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from the sources of salinity
in the Upper Basin. The salinity of Colorado River waters increases
from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower
Basin. There are very significant economic damages caused downstream by
high salt levels in the water. EQIP is used to improve upstream
irrigation efficiencies which in turn reduce leaching of salts to the
Colorado River. There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved agricultural production, improved water
efficiencies, lower fertilizer and labor costs, and water distribution
and infrastructure improvements. The mix of funding under EQIP, cost
sharing from the Basin States and efforts, and cost sharing brought
forward by local producers have created a most remarkable and
successful partnership.
The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
States and Mexico. In 2012, a five-year agreement, known as Minute 319,
was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future management of
the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in Minute 319
included an agreement to maintain salinity standards. The CAWCD and
other key water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
conclusion
Implementation of salinity control practices through EQIP has
proven to be a very cost-effective method of controlling the salinity
of the Colorado River. CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include at least
$15.2 million from the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentive Program
Financial Assistance for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program in the fiscal year 2017 Appropriation bill. Additionally, there
is needed sufficient Technical Assistance dollars to adequately
implement the program. Continuation of EQIP at the requested funding
level will prevent the further degradation of water quality of the
Colorado River, and significantly increased damages from the higher
salt concentrations to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
[This statement was submitted by Theodore C. Cooke, General
Manager, Central Arizona Project.]
______
Prepared Statement of Center for Progressive Reform
A national network of advocates including Oxfam America, the
National Employment Law Project, and Nebraska Appleseed have called
your attention to the dangerous conditions that workers face in poultry
slaughter facilities, owing to the speed with which young chickens and
turkeys are processed. The stories presented in their testimonies and
comments, along with the data they have provided, should be enough to
warrant rejection of any proposal to allow line speeds to increase at
those facilities through the appropriations process as it relates to
the Food Safety Inspection Service's New Poultry Inspection System.
These comments approach the issue from a slightly different
perspective, but arrive at the same conclusion: using the
appropriations process to increase line speeds at poultry slaughter
facilities violates principles of good government and will cause
lasting damage to workers, their families, and their communities.
On both sides of the aisle, Members of Congress for years have
derided the use of ``earmarks'' to direct government spending toward
favored projects and policies. As explained below, such derision should
apply with greater force to the abuse of the appropriations process to
direct spending away from projects and policies that are opposed by a
determined minority of members of Congress. Such actions upend the
normal legislative process and entrench a system of policymaking that
undermines core principles of representative democracy. Last summer,
the Center for Progressive Reform published a report on the misuse of
appropriations riders to direct agency policymaking.\1\ The report's
length precludes inclusion in these comments, per the committee's
rules, but its key findings are worth noting here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Earmarking Away the Public Interest: How Congressional
Republicans Use Antiregulatory Appropriations Riders to Benefit
Powerful Polluting Industries'' by CPR Member Scholars Thomas McGarity
and Richard Murphy, and CPR Senior Policy Analyst James Goodwin (July
2015), available at http://progressivereform.org/articles/Anti-
Reg_Riders_1503.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Prohibiting agencies from taking actions disfavored by the rider's
sponsors is legislating by extortion
Appropriations bills offer ideal vehicles for the use of
extortionate riders, because they must be enacted on an ongoing
and periodic basis or else the government will cease
functioning. As the deadline for completing appropriations
bills approaches, the leverage that proponents of particular
riders wield to coerce acquiescence in their demands grows
greater. With the threat of government shutdown looming, other
legislators will feel increasingly compelled to vote in favor
of the bill even though they are opposed to a particular rider
and would not support it as a stand-alone measure. Similarly,
the president may find it difficult to veto an appropriations
bill simply because of the antiregulatory riders it contains.
--Negative riders enable secret sabotage of popular safeguards
In contrast to the procedures that govern traditional
authorizing legislation, a distinct lack of transparency and
accountability marks the appropriations process. In particular,
the process of adding riders to appropriations bills is clouded
in secrecy, which can make it nearly impossible for the public
to hold legislators accountable for sponsoring especially
controversial proposals. Because antiregulatory riders are
often buried in appropriations bills that run hundreds of pages
in length, it is easy for them to slip past the scrutiny of
concerned citizens and lawmakers. These bills thus offer the
proponents of antiregulatory riders an ideal opportunity to
conceal their attacks on popular protections.
The caps on poultry slaughter line speeds, for instance, were a
major point of contention when the Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) developed the New Poultry
Inspection System. The rulemaking process that FSIS followed,
rooted in the Administrative Procedure Act, ensured that the
final safeguards reflected the views of stakeholders ranging
from workers to experts from the Department of Labor's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. No such process
for engaging experts, much less the workers who would be
affected by a line-speed increase, is in place here.
--Riders lobotomize the deliberative process that should govern
lawmaking
The use of antiregulatory riders also enables lawmakers to
engage in a powerful form of substantive policymaking but
without the due deliberation that normally accompanies the
enactment of authorizing legislation. Broadly speaking,
Congress divides the labor of preparing bills for full
consideration between the authorization committees--which are
responsible for considering substantive legislation creating,
modifying, or eliminating Federal programs--and the budget and
appropriations committees--which are responsible for funding
authorized programs. The institutional design and processes of
authorization committees renders them far more suitable to
engage in substantive policymaking. Antiregulatory riders
generally do not receive anywhere near the same level of
deliberative consideration from appropriations committees that
usually takes place in authorization committees for the
provisions of substantive legislation.
--Antiregulatory riders encourage pandering to corporate interests
Because they are adopted with little transparency or
deliberation, antiregulatory riders are uniquely well designed
to provide individual lawmakers with the ability to confer
benefits on favored special interests. Much like traditional
earmarks, which Congress has effectively banned, antiregulatory
riders are thus highly susceptible to abuse by Members of
Congress looking for an easy way to curry favor with
politically powerful businesses or industries.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
[This statement was submitted by Matthew Shudtz, Executive
Director, Center for Progressive Reform.]
______
Prepared Statement of Choose Clean Water Coalition
The undersigned members of the Choose Clean Water Coalition request
continued support for clean water in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
through the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) conservation
programs. There are 87,000 farms in the six-State Chesapeake region;
those that are well run protect their water resources and add much to
our landscape, environment and economy. We want to ensure that these
responsible farms and farmers remain economically viable. Stopping cuts
to these conservation programs is critical to maintain and restore
clean water to the rivers and streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay
region, and for the Bay itself. These programs are essential for
regulated agricultural operations to meet Federal regulations under the
Clean Water Act and help farmers meet state regulations that address
both farm health and water quality.
We urge you to maintain full funding for mandatory agricultural
conservation programs in fiscal year 2017. The 2014 Farm Bill set us on
a new path toward clean water in our region, but only if key
conservation programs are funded as Congress intended. With the support
of much of the conservation community and clean water advocates, the
2014 Farm Bill eliminated nearly a dozen conservation programs
(including the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative) and reduced
mandatory funding overall to save American taxpayers approximately $6
billion.
Two-thirds of the 18 million people in the Chesapeake region get
their drinking water directly from the rivers and streams that flow
through the cities, towns and farms throughout our six State, 64,000
square mile watershed. The quality of this water is critical to both
human health and to the regional economy. Much of the work and funding
necessary to achieve and maintain clean and healthy water in this
region would be accomplished through the Farm Bill's new Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). The President's fiscal year
2017 budget proposes full funding for mandatory conservation programs
that are critical to maintaining a fully funded RCPP. In particular, we
urge you to fund the Environmental Quality Incentives Program at $1.65
billion to help willing producers implement conservation practices on
their farms.
In May 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed was designated as one of
eight Critical Conservation Areas under the new RCPP. For the first 3
years of RCPP funding, the Chesapeake received $27.6 million, with a
few million more going to other projects partially in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. This is a precipitous drop from the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Initiative where our region's producers received $47.6
million annually for conservation practices. This is a huge shortfall
for conservation in our region and any further cuts to the RCPP will
exacerbate this funding drop off. We urge you to maintain the 2014 Farm
Bill's negotiated mandatory funding levels for all conservation
programs, including the RCPP.
In order to follow a common sense path to maintain economically
viable well run farms and to have healthy local water and a restored
Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we request
full funding for all conservation programs in the Farm Bill for fiscal
year 2017.
Thank you for your consideration on this very important request to
maintain funding for these programs which are critical to both our
agricultural community and for clean water throughout the mid-Atlantic
region.
American Rivers
Anacostia Watershed Society
Audubon Naturalist Society
Blue Heron Environmental Network Inc.
Blue Ridge Watershed Coalition
Blue Water Baltimore
Cecil Land Use Association
Chapman Forest Foundation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Smarter Growth
Conservation Pennsylvania
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Delaware Nature Society
Earth Forum of Howard County
Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Environment America
Environment Maryland
Environment Virginia
Friends of Accotink Creek
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
Green Muslims
Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake
Izaak Walton League of America
James River Association
Lackawanna River Conservation Association
Lynnhaven River NOW
Maryland Conservation Council
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Mattawoman Watershed Society
Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association
National Aquarium
National Parks Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
Otsego County Conservation Association
Otsego Land Trust
PennEnvironment
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Piedmont Environmental Council
Potomac Conservancy
Potomac Riverkeeper
Potomac Riverkeeper Network
Rivanna Conservation Society
Rock Creek Conservancy
Sassafras River Association
Savage River Watershed Association
Shenandoah Riverkeeper
Shenandoah Valley Network
Sidney Center Improvement Group
Sierra Club--Maryland
Sierra Club--Pennsylvania
Sierra Club--Virginia
Sleepy Creek Watershed Association
South River Federation
St. Mary's River Watershed
Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna
Trout Unlimited
Upper Potomac Riverkeeper
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Water Defense
West & Rhode Riverkeeper
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
[This statement was submitted by Peter J. Marx, Federal Affairs,
Choose Clean Water Coalition.]
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 40 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has
estimated the currently quantifiable damages at about $382 million per
year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages
will rise to approximately $614 million per year by the year 2035
without continuation of the Program. Congress authorized the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) in 1974 to offset
increased damages caused by continued development and use of the waters
of the Colorado River. The USDA portion of the Program, as authorized
by Congress and funded and administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), is an essential part of the overall effort. A funding
level of $15.2 million in EQIP FA in 2017 is in keeping with the
Program's Plan of Implementation and is required to prevent further
degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increases in
downstream economic damages.
In enacting the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974,
Congress directed that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way. The
Program is currently fundedunder EQIP through NRCS and under
Reclamation's Basinwide Program. The Act requires that the Basin States
cost share 30 percent of the overall effort. Historically, recognizing
that agricultural on-farm improvements were some of the most cost-
effective strategies, Congress authorized a program for the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through amendment of the Act in
1984. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), Congress directed that the Program should
continue to be implemented as part of the newly created Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. Since the enactment of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) in 2002, there have been, for the
first time in a number of years, opportunities to adequately fund the
Program within EQIP. In 2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation
and Energy Act (FCEA). The FCEA addressed the cost sharing required
from the Basin Funds. In so doing, the FCEA named the cost sharing
requirement as the Basin States Program (BSP). The BSP will provide 30
percent of the total amount that will be spent each year by the
combined EQIP and BSP effort. With the passage of the Agricultural Act
of 2014 the authorities for USDA to implement salinity control
activities in the Colorado River Basin were continued.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from the sources of salinity
in the Upper Basin. The salinity of Colorado River waters increases
from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower
Basin. There are very significant economic damages caused downstream by
high salt levels in the water. EQIP is used to improve upstream
irrigation efficiencies which in turn reduce leaching of salts to the
Colorado River. There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved agricultural production, improved water
efficiencies, lower fertilizer and labor costs, and water distribution
and infrastructure improvements. Local producers submit cost-effective
applications under EQIP in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and offer to
cost share in the acquisition of new irrigation equipment. The mix of
funding under EQIP, cost share from the Basin States and efforts and
cost share brought forward by local producers has created a most
remarkable and successful partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the States and directives from
Congress, NRCS has recognized that this Program is different than small
watershed enhancement efforts common to EQIP. In the case of the
Colorado River salinity control effort, the watershed to be considered
stretches more than 1,400 miles from the Colorado River's headwaters in
the Rocky Mountains to the Colorado River's terminus in the Gulf of
California in Mexico. Each year the NRCS State Conservationists for
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming prepare a 3-year funding plan for the
salinity efforts under EQIP. The Forum supports this funding plan which
recognizes the need for $15.2 million in EQIP FA allocations in fiscal
year 2017. Additionally, there is needed sufficient TA dollars to
adequately implement the program. State and local cost-sharing is
triggered by the Federal appropriation. The Forum appreciates the
efforts of NRCS leadership and the support of this Subcommittee in
implementing the Program.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Forum
is charged with reviewing the Colorado River's water quality standards
every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation
consistent with these standards. The level of appropriation requested
in this testimony is in keeping with the adopted Plan of
Implementation. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant
damages from the higher salinity concentrations in the water will be
more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$382 million annually in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector; and
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
Over the years, NRCS personnel have developed a great working
relationship with farmers within the Colorado River Basin. Maintaining
salinity control achieved by implementation of past practices requires
continuing education and technical assistance from NRCS personnel.
Additionally, technical assistance is required for planning and design
of future projects. Lastly, the continued funding for the monitoring
and evaluation of existing projects is essential to maintaining the
salinity reduction already achieved.
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
EQIP has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling the
salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component to the
overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of
EQIP with adequate funding levels will prevent the water quality of the
Colorado River from further degradation and significantly increased
economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
[Testimony Submitted by Don A. Barnett, Executive Director,
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.]
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year (FY) 2017 funding for
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) associated with the activity that
assists Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974 (Public Law 93-320). This long-standing and cost-effective
salinity control program in the Colorado River Basin is being carried
out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the
Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500). Congress authorized the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) in 1974 to offset
increased damages caused by continued development and use of the waters
of the Colorado River. The USDA portion of the Program, as authorized
by Congress and funded and administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), is an essential part of the overall effort. A funding
level of $15.2 million in EQIP Financial Assistance (FA) annually is
required to prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado
River and increased downstream economic damages.
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 participates along with the other six
Colorado River Basin states in the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for
coordinating the Basin States' salinity control efforts. In close
cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged
with reviewing the Colorado River's water quality standards every 3
years. The Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
water quality standards. The level of appropriation being supported in
this testimony is consistent with the Forum's 2014 Plan of
Implementation. The Forum's 2014 Plan of Implementation can be found on
this website: http://coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/
2014%20Final%20REVIEW%20-%20complete.pdf. If adequate funds are not
appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in
the United States and Mexico.
The Program benefits both the Upper Basin water users through more
efficient water management and the Lower Basin water users through
reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water. The salinity of
Colorado River waters increases from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to
more than 700 mg/L in the Lower Basin. There are very significant
economic damages caused downstream by high salt levels in the water.
There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado River Basin from
the Program in the form of soil and environmental benefits, improved
agricultural production, improved water efficiencies, lower fertilizer
and labor costs, and water distribution and infrastructure
improvements. Local producers submit cost-effective applications under
EQIP in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and offer to cost share in the
acquisition of new irrigation equipment. The mix of funding under EQIP,
cost share from the Basin States and efforts and cost share brought
forward by local producers has created a most remarkable and successful
partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the states and directives from
Congress, NRCS recognized that this Program is different than small
watershed enhancement efforts common to EQIP. In the case of the
Colorado River salinity control effort, the watershed to be considered
stretches more than 1,400 miles from the Colorado River's headwater in
the Rocky Mountains to the Colorado River's terminus in the Gulf of
California in Mexico. Each year the NRCS State Conservationists for
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming prepare a three-year funding plan for the
salinity efforts under EQIP. The Colorado River Board supports this
funding plan which recognizes the need for $15.2 million in EQIP FA
allocations in fiscal year 2017. Additionally, there is needed
sufficient Technical Assistance dollars to adequately implement the
program.
Over the thirty-two years since the passage of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of
salts in the Colorado River system. Currently, the salinity
concentration of Colorado River water causes about $382 million in
quantifiable damages in the United States annually. Economic and
hydrologic modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable
damages could rise to more than $614 million by the year 2035 without
the continuation of the Salinity Control Program. For example, damages
can be incurred related to the following activities:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector,
--increased in the amount of imported water,
--an increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycling
water in the municipal sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--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.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
River water quality through an effective salinity control program will
avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the
other states that rely on Colorado River water resources.
[This statement was submitted by Tanya Trujillo, Executive
Director, Colorado River Board of California.]
______
Prepared Statement of Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
On behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the approximately
30,000 people with cystic fibrosis (CF) in the United States, we are
pleased to submit the following testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2017. In
order to encourage efficient review of drugs for cystic fibrosis and
other rare diseases, we urge the Committee to prioritize the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) by providing at least $2.85 billion in fiscal
year 2017. We encourage special consideration and support for the
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), its Office of New Drugs
(OND), and the Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD).
Drug approvals by the FDA reached an 18 year high in 2014, and more
than 400 rare disease drugs and biologics have been approved in the
last 30 years. As the agency's responsibilities continue to grow and we
enter an unprecedented era of innovation in drug development for rare
diseases, even more needs to be done.
Cystic fibrosis is a rare genetic disease that causes the body to
produce thick mucus that clogs the lungs and other bodily systems,
resulting in life-threatening infections and other complications. There
are nearly 2,000 mutations of the CF gene that can impact those with
CF, and with the advent of precision medicine, therapies are being
customized to treat a patient's specific genetic makeup.
As this new concept in drug development quickly becomes a reality,
it opens the door for the advancement of new targeted therapies in many
important areas of medicine, including cancer and rare diseases like
CF.
There are currently two therapies that have been approved to treat
the underlying cause of CF in more than 30 percent of those with the
disease. One such therapy, Kalydeco, was approved in 2012 to treat 4
percent of patients with CF based on their underlying CF-causing
mutation. The approval was subsequently expanded to treat 8 percent of
those with the disease soon after. Kalydeco's initial review time was 3
months, one of the fastest in the FDA's history. A second targeted
therapy, Orkambi, was approved in 2015 to treat the most common
mutation that causes cystic fibrosis. Orkambi was the first drug to
receive the FDA's breakthrough therapy designation, and it underwent a
six-month expedited review.
This success is a testament to what can be achieved when
stakeholders collaborate across sectors to ensure a swift review of
critical drugs for patients. Throughout the review processes for
Kalydeco and Orkambi, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and renowned CF
experts worked closely with the drugs' sponsor Vertex Pharmaceuticals
and the FDA to provide valuable insight on specific issues related to
CF, clinical research on CF treatments, and other issues related to the
product and its review. We believe that the collaboration and
efficiency displayed throughout these trials can serve as a model for
best practices in clinical trials for rare diseases.
Since its creation, the Breakthrough Therapy Designation at the FDA
has been widely successful at accelerating the approval of new
treatments that demonstrate substantial improvement over existing
medications. Cystic fibrosis treatments were the first designated as
breakthrough therapies, and the process has effectively increased
efficiency and communication between the FDA and drug sponsors.
Unsurprisingly, sponsor requests for the Breakthrough Therapy
Designation have increased dramatically since the program's inception
in 2012. In the program's first 2 years alone, CDER received more than
200 requests for breakthrough designation, and more than half of the
therapies that were granted an expedited review through this program
were for rare or orphan diseases, like cystic fibrosis. Sponsor
requests for breakthrough therapy designation are expected to increase
further in the coming years, and expanded funding and support for this
program is critical to ensure that new breakthrough therapies receive
an efficient yet rigorous review.
As new, more advanced personalized treatments like Kalydeco and
Orkambi move through the pipeline, it is critical that the FDA has the
resources necessary to further develop innovative methods for reviewing
and evaluating the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies. The CF
Foundation has significantly expanded its research investments with
leading companies to accelerate the discovery and development of new
genetically-targeted treatments. The Foundation is supporting 45
studies in 2016, including examination of several new targeted
therapies. One series of studies planned for 2016 has the potential to
treat the underlying cause of the disease in more than 85 percent of
those with CF. It is crucial that the FDA have sufficient funding to
provide a swift and efficient review of new treatments for rare, life
threatening conditions, where there is an urgent need for new, targeted
therapies.
A number of clinical trial design issues have been identified that
may arise in review of rare and precision medicine therapies. As
precision medicine continues to develop, robust funding is particularly
crucial as the FDA will need to find new, innovative ways to handle
unprecedented challenges in drug development and review.
For example, recruiting sufficient numbers of participants to
support a classic clinical trial design for a rare disease population
is often not possible, simply because there is a smaller pool of
patients. This issue becomes even more significant with the advent of
precision medicine as therapies become targeted to smaller populations
based on unique genetic mutations within the CF population. As
potential new therapies come under review, it may be necessary to test
combinations of drugs in populations that include patients with several
different CF mutations and develop and test single and combination
therapies in n of 1 trials (those that consist of a single patient).
The FDA needs adequate funding to develop new regulatory pathways and
approaches to handling variations in trial design that both maintain
safety and efficacy standards while facilitating the development of
treatments for patients with rare diseases.
Researchers and clinicians are also concerned about the challenges
inherent in executing placebo-controlled trials for genetically-
targeted treatments when successful, genetically-targeted drugs are
already approved and on the market. In addition to the ethical question
of asking trial participants to suspend their use of the best available
therapies, there is also a concern that such a request would dissuade
participation in clinical trials for the next generation of targeted
therapies.
As evaluating the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies becomes
more challenging, there is also greater need for the use of biomarkers
and the development of additional outcome measures. Biomarkers with the
potential to reasonably predict clinical outcomes could play a
tremendous role in accelerating drug development and review. However,
the FDA needs adequate funding to accelerate classification of
biomarkers and ensure that they are being examined throughout the
clinical trials process. Similarly, Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs)
are a largely untapped source of valuable data and information that can
help advance understanding of efficacy throughout a clinical trial. As
the FDA is looking at new and innovative ways of evaluating treatments,
the agency needs the resources to consider new sources of valuable data
to further inform and accelerate the review process.
Overall, as drug development advances, the FDA must be supplied
with the proper resources to balance the need for an efficient and
rigorous review process with the flexibility required to accommodate
deviations from the standard clinical trial process.
To this end, we commend the regulatory science initiative formed by
the NIH and the FDA, which aims to accelerate the development and use
of new approaches to evaluate drug safety, efficacy, and quality. With
additional funding, the FDA will have greater ability to partner with
key stakeholders to promote discussions and workshops of study designs
that will maximize the progression of multiple effective and safe
therapies through the development pipeline. Continued collaboration of
the FDA with the NIH as well as external stakeholders offers immense
promise for helping to expedite the drug development process and put
safe and effective drugs in the hands of patients. However, this type
of collaboration cannot move forward without adequate funding.
In addition, the CF Foundation is enthusiastic about the potential
for clinical trial, clinical care, claims, and other healthcare-related
data to be utilized to improve drug discovery, development, and
delivery. The Foundation has been a pioneer in the development and
utilization of a robust data repository through the CF patient
registry, and our therapeutics development network (TDN) has
successfully encouraged clinical trial partners to share data. We ask
that Congress support efforts by the FDA to explore strategies and
guidelines for clinical trial data sharing. As drug development
research advances, data sharing is vital to the acceleration and
efficiency of new discovery.
This is a time of great hope and optimism for the cystic fibrosis
community and those with other rare diseases as more therapies that
treat the underlying cause of CF move through the pipeline. However,
the FDA faces critical challenges as targeted therapies are being
brought up for review, including small patient populations and the need
for greater flexibility in trial design. Additional funding to foster
stakeholder collaboration to find solutions to these challenges and
encourage clinical trial data sharing will help move much-needed
treatments more efficiently to those who need them most.
Once again, we urge the Committee to make funding for the Food and
Drug Administration a priority in fiscal year 2017 by providing at
least $2.85 billion in funding for the agency through the
appropriations process. The CF Foundation stands ready to work with the
Committee, FDA, and Congressional leaders on the challenges ahead.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Preston W. Campbell, III, MD.,
President and CEO, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.]
______
Prepared Statement of Entomological Society of America
The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
this statement for the official record in support of funding for
agricultural research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ESA
requests discretionary appropriations of at least $1.884 billion in
fiscal year (FY) 2017 for USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), including at least $700 million for the Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The Society also supports a
discretionary funding level of at least $1.286 billion for the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), including funding for the ARS Crop
Protection budget at a minimum of the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of
$195 million to preserve valuable pest management research programs in
fiscal year 2017.
The international stature of the United States as a producer and
exporter of food, fiber, and other agricultural commodities has long
been associated with innovation-fueled increases in productivity.
Steady growth in agricultural output over the past half-century has
been accompanied by substantially smaller increases in inputs1, so that
today fewer farmers are producing more food, without expanding land in
cultivation, at lower costs to consumers. Increased productivity has
been achievable through improved technology, spurred by Federal
investment in research and development. There are signs, though, that
longstanding growth in productivity may be slowing, at a time when
demands on the agricultural sector are steadily increasing. Ensuring
food safety, security, quality, and environmental sustainability are
among today's greatest challenges to U.S. agriculture--yet the U.S.
global share of public investment in agriculture and food research and
development has declined significantly in the past three decades.
Cutting-edge agriculture science, including entomology, is critical
to meeting these challenges. Globalized trade has led to major
redistribution of pest species, from indigenous areas where they are
kept in check by natural enemies to new areas where they can rapidly
expand their ranges. Beyond competing directly with humans by consuming
crop plants, invasive insect pests also threaten food security by
acting as vectors of plant diseases. The Asian citrus psyllid, the
principal vector of the invariably fatal bacterial citrus greening
disease, for example, has already caused over $9 billion in losses to
citrus growers in Florida alone.\1\ Moreover, by outcompeting and
displacing native species, invasive arthropods compromise ecosystem
services provided by biotic communities, including pollination,
nutrient cycling, and water regulation and purification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academy of Sciences, 2014. Spurring Innovation in Food
and Agriculture: A Review of the USDA Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative Program. Washington: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As NIFA's premier competitive research program, AFRI funds a wide
range of agricultural research, education, and extension projects at
universities and research institutions nationwide. In addition, AFRI's
Education and Literacy Initiative supports more than 2,000 trainees
annually that will become the next generation workforce of agricultural
and food scientists. ESA appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts to
increase the AFRI budget since the program's establishment and
enthusiastically supports the requests for $700 million for AFRI in
fiscal year 2017, the full amount authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. ESA
also supports the proposed inclusion of pollinator health as a special
area of emphasis within the AFRI Foundational Program, including plans
to allocate $10 million for new grants in the area of pollinator health
to continue to support the government-wide initiative. America's insect
pollinators contribute to the production of over 90 fruit, vegetable,
nut, and fiber crops; collectively, pollination services of managed and
wild pollinators in the US have been valued at more than $17 billion
annually. Populations of many of these pollinators, however, have been
declining even as demand for pollination services for expanding
acreages of fruit, nut, and vegetable crops has increased.
To maximize its limited resources, AFRI supports projects that
address key societal challenges and build foundational knowledge in
high-priority areas of the food and agricultural sciences, such as food
safety and food security. For example, annual honey bee colony losses
due, in part, to infestation by the varroa mite have created enormous
problems for U.S. beekeepers and for the growers dependent on honey
bees for pollination services. Scientists funded by AFRI have used
genomic resources to identify receptor targets in the nervous system
unique to the mite and are designing and testing synthetic analogues of
the neuropeptides that interact with those receptors for mite control,
thereby sparing honey bees and other non-target species.\2\ In addition
to AFRI, other NIFA grants support programs to study and implement
scientifically based approaches to reduced-risk integrated pest
management (IPM), which has implications for human health, the
environment, and the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AFRI Competitive Grant, 2016, ``Development of honey bee-safe
acaricidal peptidomimetics,'' http://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/
crisprojectpages/1009168-development-of-honey-bee-safe-acaricidal-
peptidomimetics.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As USDA's intramural research agency, ARS funds research of broad
consequence to our nation's agriculture enterprise, including in the
areas of crop and livestock production and protection, human nutrition,
food safety, and environmental stewardship. The ARS Crop Protection
research program builds knowledge and develops approaches that are made
available to crop producers, enabling better control of pest and
disease outbreaks as they occur. In addition, the ARS Crop Production
research program develops and approves safe and effective strategies
for reducing crop loss and providing a dependable food supply. ESA
supports maintaining level funding with President's fiscal year 2016
budget request, with $195 million for the Crop Protection account and
$218 million for the Crop Production account. In addition to the
additional funding proposed within AFRI and ARS, ESA supports USDA's
participation in multi-agency activities to investigate pollinator
health and develop implementation plans to prevent, slow, or reverse
pollinator population decline.
ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
1889, ESA has over 7,000 members affiliated with educational
institutions, public health agencies, private industry, government
laboratories, the U.S. military, and many nonprofit organizations.
Members include academic scientists, teachers, extension service
personnel, administrators, marketing representatives, research
technicians, consultants, students, pest management professionals, and
hobbyists, among others.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice support from the
Entomological Society of America for USDA research programs.
[This statement was submitted by May Berenbaum, PhD, President,
Entomological Society of America.]
______
Prepared Statement of Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology (FASEB)
department/office addressed in testimony: usda afri and ars
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) is composed of 30 societies with 125,000 members, making it the
largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United
States. FASEB enhances the ability of scientists and engineers to
improve health, well-being, and productivity through research and is
recognized as the policy voice of biological and biomedical
researchers.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds research
through a competitive grants system, the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI), and an ``in-house'' effort administered by the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). These programs support research
that addresses some of the grand challenges of our time: food
production, global food security, human nutrition, agriculture
economics, and sustainable bioenergy. Grants are awarded to state
agricultural experiment stations, colleges, university research
foundations, and other research institutions, as well as private
organizations. AFRI funded over 1,200 research projects in all 50
states between 2009 and 2011. ARS currently supports more than 2,000
scientists at 90 laboratories throughout the country.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/ARSImpacts/ARSImpacts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since AFRI was established in 2008, the program has supported
research to develop new varieties of wheat and barley that will better
tolerate changes in climate and lettuce that requires less water, which
will allow farmers to conserve resources and save money. Other projects
established methods to improve communication, analysis, and data
sharing about corn farming practices in order to ensure production can
be sustained despite the threat of extreme weather events. In addition,
a USDA-funded team of engineers and scientists created a mobile
application to help farmers comply with Environmental Protection Agency
regulations that mandate the collection and submission of data on soil,
crops, and nutrient management plans. ARS scientists have discovered
genes and molecular markers in honey bees that have led to the breeding
of new bees that are resistant to the adverse effects of mites and
chalkbrood disease, as well as the application of technologies to help
reduce exposure of the bees to pesticides.
Examples of promising USDA-funded research include:
--Laser Tool Detection of Salmonella: Scientists funded by USDA at
Purdue University have developed a new method for the detection
of Salmonella bacterial contamination in food. By using a laser
to scan bacteria isolated from food samples, the new technology
can identify potential contamination about three times faster
than traditional methods. This rapid screening could ultimately
lead to more thorough and rapid food inspections, thus reducing
morbidity from Salmonella food poisoning.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q1/laser-tool-
speeds-up-detection-of-salmonella-in-food-products.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Molecular Mechanisms of Herbicide Resistance: Compounds called
safeners are routinely applied to cereal crops to protect them
from weed-killing herbicides. However, the precise mechanism by
which these safeners work remained largely unknown. Recently,
USDA-supported researchers at the University of Illinois have
discovered that specific molecules for detoxifying herbicides
in cereal plants are upregulated when safeners are applied.
This insight will aid in the management of herbicide use, and
similar detoxification processes in plants may prove to be
useful traits for resistance to other stressors, including
drought, pests, or disease.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.grainnet.com/articles/University-of-Illinois-
Researchers-Learn-More-About-Herbicide-Defense-Switch-in-Cereal-Crops-
146822.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Computer Modeling of Food-borne Pathogen Growth: One of the
greatest challenges in food safety is to ensure that different
foods are handled properly to prevent the growth of harmful,
contaminating microbes. In order to enhance the ability of food
companies to ensure the safety of their products, ARS
scientists at the USDA Eastern Regional Research Center have
developed a software package that models the growth and
proliferation bacteria in different environments. These models
can then be used to develop effective management practices that
reduce the instance of foodborne illness.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://portal.errc.ars.usda.gov/PMP.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Uncovering the Links between Maternal Traits and Fetal Development:
An important area of ongoing research seeks to understand how
mothers' health during pregnancy might affect children's growth
and development. Using advanced imaging techniques, USDA ARS-
funded researchers at the Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center
have discovered a relationship between maternal obesity during
pregnancy and brain structure in newborns. This study is part
of a growing literature suggesting previously unknown ways in
which maternal health has profound neurological effects on
fetal development. Such studies therefore not only shed light
on fundamental mechanisms of human brain development, but also
could help with design of dietary and exercise interventions
for expecting mothers that improves infant health.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25919924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Development of Drought and Disease Resistant Corn: Drought
represents a major threat to crop production. To begin to
address this problem, USDA-funded researchers at Texas A&M
University have been exploring the genetics of corn varieties
grown in different regions of the United States. Through this
work, the team has begun to breed more productive varieties of
corn that show greater resistance to drought and opportunistic
infections. These efforts will be especially important for
growers in the most drought prone regions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://nifa.usda.gov/blog/breeding-program-brings-better-safer-
corn-south.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Improving the Safety of Leafy Green Vegetables: Bleach, hydrogen
peroxide, or other toxic chemicals are often used to remove
bacteria from leafy vegetables. Researchers at the University
of Arizona supported by the USDA have discovered that non-toxic
plant antimicrobial and other organic compounds can be just as
effective in cleaning produce. Pursuing these alternative
strategies has the potential to both increase food safety and
reduce the adverse health and environmental impacts of using
harsh cleaning agents on food plants.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://nifa.usda.gov/blog/improving-safety-leafy-greens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Combating the Spread of Antimicrobial Resistance: The proliferation
of antibiotic-resistant microbes poses a significant threat to
both human and animal health. However, scientists are only
beginning to understand the details of how antibiotic
resistance emerges and spreads, both within agricultural and
non-agricultural settings. To address this, AFRI-funded
scientists are playing an integral role as part of broader
national efforts to deal with this critical challenge. For
example, researchers at the University of Minnesota have begun
to study the evolution of antibiotic resistant E. coli and
Salmonella on poultry farms in the hopes of developing better
management strategies that will improve both food safety and
public health.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1005062-
systems-approach-to-identifying-targeted-interventions-for-minimizing-
antibiotic-resistance-in-the-poultry-production-system.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
new investments will accelerate the pace of agricultural research
New technologies and improved techniques are needed to address
serious agricultural-related crises facing our country including the
ongoing drought in California, childhood obesity, pollinator collapse,
and citrus greening. Other challenges include changing weather patterns
that shift growing seasons and threats posed by increasing varieties of
invasive weeds, pests, and pathogens. Investment in USDA will help us
to better understand the relationship between food consumption and
behaviors, dietary patterns, and various health outcomes, including
those related to obesity and the development of chronic diseases. USDA-
funded research leads to nutrition education and obesity prevention
strategies and interventions that advance public health.
Federal funding for competitive agriculture research can provide
the answers that will build the foundation of knowledge to help solve
current and future societal problems. Harnessing this potential would
generate new knowledge in the food, nutrition, and agricultural
sciences, and translate those fundamental discoveries into practical
solutions that benefit all sectors of society and every geographic
region in the country. Sustaining a competitive agriculture economy is
also critical in order to respond to new and emerging problems, such as
identifying ways to better manage the avian flu epidemic.
Accelerating the pace and productivity of agricultural research
will require sustained increases for AFRI and ARS. A National Research
Council (NRC) review of the AFRI program concluded that, ``ARFI plays a
critical and unique role in the nation's overall research and
development (R&D) portfolio because its mandated scope, mission, and
responsibilities are focused on the most important national and
international challenges facing food and agriculture. But it has not
been given the adequate resources needed to meet contemporary and
likely future challenges.'' \9\ The NRC report further recommended that
the U.S should strengthen its public investment in agricultural R&D to
ensure that it continues its ability to remain a global leader in
innovation, food production, and health promotion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Academies Press. Spurring Innovation in Food and
Agriculture: A Review of the USDA Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities for agricultural research are growing, as Congress
recognized by expanding USDA's research mandate in the 2014 Farm Bill
to include diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans and
the effectiveness of conservation practices in addressing nutrient
losses. Despite receiving increased funding over the last few years,
AFRI's budget is still only half of the level authorized in the 2014
Farm Bill, limiting the program's capacity to satisfy the expanded
research focus areas mandated by Congress. In addition, inadequate
funding combined with AFRI's multi-year commitments to existing
projects have reduced the availability of funds for individual,
investigator-initiated grants.
AFRI's continued success will depend on securing additional funding
to meet the recommended authorization level. With a budget of $700
million (an increase of $350 million over fiscal year 2016), AFRI could
support more than 500 new research grants. An ARS budget of $1.2
billion ($60 million above fiscal year 2016) will allow for the
continued growth of agricultural research efforts.
FASEB recommends a minimum of $700 million for AFRI and $1.2
billion for ARS in fiscal year 2017. These funding levels represent a
first step toward a longer-range commitment to sustain the vital field
of agricultural research.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our support and
recommendations for USDA research programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Food for Peace Title II (FFP)
As you prepare appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2017, we
thank you for your past leadership in protecting poverty-focused
international development and humanitarian assistance accounts
specifically related to food security and nutrition. As a group of
organizations that are supportive of these programs, we would like to
thank Congress for the increase to Food for Peace Title II (FFP)
funding we saw in fiscal year 2016, and call upon Congress to continue
to provide similarly robust funding for Food for Peace in fiscal year
2017. Further, we request that Congress direct at least $375 million of
Food for Peace funding to long-term development oriented non-emergency
programs.
For over 60 years, Food for Peace has enabled the United States to
reach more than 3 billion people with food assistance, addressing not
only food security needs, but helping to build stability in regions
that might otherwise pose greater national security concerns. As we
consider the protracted conflicts in Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, and
Iraq, as well as ongoing cyclical weather patterns like El Nino and a
potential La Nina, projected global needs in fiscal year 2017 will be
significant. Providing robust funding of FFP as was done in fiscal year
2016 will allow the U.S. to reach over 47 million people with
lifesaving food aid and maintain its global leadership.
As the largest U.S. government food aid program, Food for Peace
Title II also provided funding for non-emergency development programs
that focus on the underlying sources of chronic hunger through
multiyear investments in nutrition, agricultural productivity, and
diversification of household incomes. These programs help poor
communities build resilience to droughts and floods, improve farming
practices and integrate into local markets, allowing them to better
withstand shocks and reduce the need for emergency assistance. These
programs move poor farmers away from poverty and help them realize the
dignity of providing for their families. In parallel with robust
funding to the overall Food for Peace budget, we request at least $375
million of FFP funding--a small increase over the minimum level of $350
million required by the Farm Bill--be directed to development, non-
emergency programming. Additionally, we remain supportive of the
Community Development Fund including its use within non-emergency food
assistance programming.
We look forward to continuing to work with you in advancing efforts
that address food insecurity, and we once again thank you for your
leadership in protecting international humanitarian and development
assistance accounts including Food for Peace Title II.
1.) Mercy Corps
2.) Food for the Hungry
3.) ADRA International
4.) Catholic Relief Services
5.) CNFA
6.) World Vision US
7.) PCI
8.) ACDI/VOCA
______
Prepared Statement of Food for Peace (Public Law 480)
The undersigned organizations support sustained funding for the
Food for Peace (Public Law 480) and Food for Progress international
food aid programs and oppose proposals to reduce funding or to shift
these resources to overseas commodity procurement and cash assistance.
These bedrock food aid programs have enjoyed strong bipartisan support
for over 60 years because they share America's agricultural bounty with
those who need it most.
Our food aid programs have constantly evolved and improved over the
years. They provide well-honed and dependable systems for identifying
the appropriate commodities for targeted populations, and for procuring
and shipping these commodities through an aid pipeline that is second
to none. The transparency, accountability, and reliability of this
system are the result of decades of cooperation through a uniquely
sustainable public-private partnership among tens of thousands of
committed Americans at faith-based and other non-governmental
organizations, and in agriculture, labor, industry, and government.
Growing, manufacturing, bagging, and shipping nutritious U.S.-grown
food creates jobs and economic activity here at home, provides crucial
cargo for our U.S. Merchant Marine, which is essential to our national
defense sealift capability, and sustains a robust domestic constituency
for these programs not easily replicated in alternative foreign aid
programs. Overseas, Food for Peace has an established track record of
preventing childhood starvation and providing life-saving tools that
families need to work their way out of the most dire poverty. Food for
Progress fights hunger by promoting free enterprise in emerging
democracies through development of the agricultural sector. Both of
those programs are proven methods for tackling food insecurity head-on
with concrete results.
In addition to feeding the hungry and facilitating developmental
programs to end the cycle of hunger, U.S. food aid programs are also
some of our most effective, lowest-cost national security and
diplomatic tools. Bags of U.S.-grown food bearing the U.S. flag and
stamped as ``From the American People'' serve as ambassadors of our
Nation's goodwill, which can help to address the root causes of
instability. In a time of growing global food insecurity and extremism,
these programs need to be expanded, not eliminated or slashed to fund
dubious proposals.
We therefore oppose shifting food aid resources to overseas
commodity procurement and cash assistance, and strongly encourage
sustained funding for Food for Peace and Food for Progress, preserving
the unique qualities that have made them the world's most successful,
most dependable humanitarian assistance programs.
American Association of Port Authorities
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
American Great Lakes Ports Association
National Potato Council
American Maritime Congress
National Sorghum Producers
American Maritime Officers
Navy League of the United States
American Maritime Officers' Service
North American Millers' Association
American Soybean Association
Potomac Maritime, LLC
APL Limited
Potomac Shipping International, LLC
Central Gulf Lines, Inc.
Sailors' Union of the Pacific
Euro-America Shipping & Trade, Inc.
Schuyler Line Navigation Company, LLC
Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC
Seafarers International Union
Intermarine, LLC
Teras Cargo Transport (America), LLC
International Organization of Masters,
Transfer Logistics LLC
Mates & Pilots
Transportation Institute
Liberty Maritime Corporation
US Dry Bean Council
Maersk Line, Ltd.
US Rice Producers Association
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council
Maritime Institute for Research and
USA Maritime
Industrial Development
USA Rice
National Association of Wheat Growers
Virginia Port Authority
National Barley Growers Association
Waterman Steamship Corporation
National Corn Growers Association
[This statement was submitted by Bryant E. Gardner, Partner,
Winston & Strawn LLP.]
______
Prepared Statement of Food & Water Watch
On behalf of the non-profit consumer advocacy organization Food &
Water Watch, I welcome this opportunity to express our views on the
fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill under your jurisdiction.
food safety and inspection service
We remain opposed to the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) that
is being implemented for several reasons: 1) there is still no proof
that this privatized inspection model will make poultry safer. In fact,
when we asked agency officials at a recent meeting for testing
statistics from plants that have actually shifted to NPIS to
demonstrate that poultry that is slaughtered under this new system is
safer, they could not do so; 2) the agency still has not addressed the
issue of designating certain strains of Salmonella and Campylobacter as
adulterants. It is baffling to us that the Obama Administration has
failed to request this authority from the Congress; 3) we remain
concerned that the company sorters who are taking over inspection
responsibilities on the slaughter lines have not received proper
training; 4) the reticence of the poultry industry to shift to this new
system illustrates to us that it is not confident that NPIS will work.
The excuses that the agency lists in its fiscal year 2017 Explanatory
Notes for not achieving its salary savings goals for fiscal year 2016
are not accurate; 5) the agency still seems to be interested in
increasing line speeds in poultry facilities. There are rumors that
there might be a rider attached to the fiscal year 2017 Agriculture
Appropriations bill to revoke the 140 birds per minute cap for young
chicken plants shifting to NPIS. We strongly oppose any such efforts.
The one remaining USDA inspector left on the slaughter line in NPIS
plants is responsible for inspecting 2.33 birds every second. This is
an impossible task. To increase the line speed to 175 is totally
irresponsible. We urge the subcommittee to provide vigorous oversight
over the implementation of NPIS because it is not achieving the food
safety goals that the agency touted when the rule was finalized.
We support the agency's $4.5 million funding request so that it can
perform genomic sequencing in its pathogen identification work, and its
$3 million request to expand laboratory analysis. We do not support its
$1 million request for advanced analytics for its Public Health
Information System (PHIS). As we have alerted the subcommittee on
several occasions in the past, the implementation of PHIS has been
problematic. Our concerns were corroborated by the USDA Office of
Inspector General in its August 2015 audit report of the IT system.
When we recently asked agency officials what this additional money
would be used for, they were equivocal. Instead of giving the agency
additional money to prop up a failed IT system, we strongly urge that
the subcommittee get concrete answers from the agency regarding this
funding request. We should not be throwing good money after bad for a
system that has already cost substantially more than originally
estimated.
We also urge the subcommittee to request from the agency a detailed
plan on how it intends to deal with the chronic staffing shortages in
the inspection workforce across the country. There are some FSIS
regions that continually have double-digit vacancy rates. This is
impacting the ability of the remaining inspectors to complete their
inspection tasks. Food & Water Watch published an analysis of the
impact of the staffing shortages in September 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/usda-records-reveal-
staffing-shortages-undermining-food-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food & Water Watch supported the rule to transfer the inspection of
siluriformes from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to FSIS. We
were disappointed with the length of time for the final rule to be
published and with the interference of the Office of U.S. Trade
Representative in the development of that rule. We are concerned with
the length of the transition period contained in the rule, especially
for exporting countries. We did not see in the agency's budget request
additional funding for more import inspection personnel to deal with
imported siluriformes. We urge the subcommittee to ask the agency how
intends to deal with the inspection of imported siluriformes at our
ports-of-entry.
We are concerned with the agency's recent publication of audit
reports for the poultry inspection system in the People's Republic of
China (PRC), in which it has concluded that it intends to move forward
with rulemaking to permit the PRC to export its own poultry to the U.S.
The food safety system in the PRC is weak at best and corrupt at worst.
On March 7, a story appeared in a food trade publication in which the
head of the PRC's Food and Drug Administration admitted that his agency
could not keep up with investigating all of the cases of adulterated
food that had entered into that country's food supply.\2\ We have
always been suspicious that the PRC poultry equivalency determination
has had a nexus with the re-opening of the Chinese market to U.S. beef.
Trade cannot trump food safety and we urge the subcommittee to insert
statutory language in the fiscal year 2017 bill to require the agency
to provide regular reports to Congress on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Policy/Food-safety-chief-
FDA-struggling-to-cope-with-scale-of-adulteration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we urge the subcommittee to continue to prohibit USDA
from purchasing poultry products from the PRC for the various nutrition
programs it administers, including the National School Lunch Program.
grain inspection packers and stockyards administration
We urge the subcommittee to exclude any legislative riders that
limit the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers &
Stockyards Act (P&SA) of 1921. The P&SA is a vital Federal statute that
protects livestock farmers and ranchers from unfair, deceptive,
fraudulent and anticompetitive business practices by the meatpacking
and poultry companies. The 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to write rules
to address the market power and predatory business practices of the
highly consolidated and vertically integrated meatpacking and poultry
industries that were finalized in a considerably diminished form in
2011, but previous agricultural appropriations provisions have hindered
USDA from providing basic protections and safeguards for U.S. farmers
and ranchers. The 2014 Farm Bill did not revisit these provisions and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2016 did not include
any version of the prior policy riders. The subcommittee should
continue to exclude any policy riders that undermine the work of the
Secretary and the Agriculture Committees.
food and drug administration
We are concerned that the funding request made by the
administration for the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization
Act (FSMA) is not adequate. The administration, again, is relying on
user fees to fund most of the implementation work for fiscal year 2017
even though it knows that Congress will not enact such fees. We urge
the subcommittee to work with the agency to determine a realistic
appropriations request so that the implementation of FSMA can continue.
We are requesting $10 million to help small and mid-size farms and
small processing facilities comply with new proposed food safety
regulations. This training program, authorized in FSMA, is one of the
best and least costly ways to improve food safety outcomes without
resorting to excessive farm regulation. The program received $5 million
in fiscal year 2016. The President's fiscal year 2017 budget requests
$5 million. We are requesting $10 million for fiscal year 2017, because
food safety training for family-scale operations is critical at this
stage of FSMA implementation.
[This statement was submitted by Wenonah Hauter, Executive
Director, Food & Water Watch.]
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville
Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement supporting funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and
especially for its flagship research facility, The Henry A. Wallace
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland. We
strongly recommend full fiscal-year 2017 funding for the Beltsville
center.
The world-famous agricultural research center has led national
agricultural progress for well over a century. A national and world
treasure--home to the world-famous Beltsville Small White Turkey--the
center generates enormous benefits for our country.
notable recent accomplishments
The American Chemical Society recently named Beltsville a National
Historic Chemical Landmark for the discovery and isolation of the
light-sensitive plant pigment phytochrome. Hailed as a leading plant
science discovery of the 20th century, the research required 41 years
of intensive research effort.
A natural nitrogen-fixing strain of Rhizobium bacteria identified
and patented at Beltsville is used to inoculate some 55 million acres
of soybeans in the United States. A reduced reliance on petroleum-based
nitrogen fertilizer remains an essential goal for our country.
The Food Components and Health Laboratory of the Beltsville Human
Nutrition Research Center recently found that tree nuts have lower
calorie content than currently listed on food labels. These findings
improve food labeling and help consumers make better food choices.
Dr. Hyun Soon Lillehoj, a Beltsville senior research molecular
biologist, received a 2015 Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal in
Career Achievement (``the Sammies''), for her research to reduce the
use of antibiotics in commercial poultry.
Yet, Beltsville faces devastating decline and obsolescence from
long-deferred essential maintenance and repairs to buildings, roadways,
and its electrical grid infrastructure. Roadways are in great need of
repairs and an independent assessment of some of the bridges revealed
such disrepair as to become ``life safety issues.''
These issues cry out for attention. We estimate and recommend that
a dedicated annual appropriation of $3 million is needed to address
long-delayed repairs and maintenance. The Beltsville campus consists of
approximately 6,000 acres and 308 buildings containing laboratories,
offices, greenhouses, animal facilities, repair shops, farm buildings,
and other specialized facilities. There are 37.6 miles of paved
roadways, many of which are in an urgent need of repair. Most buildings
were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, the oldest in 1805.
we turn now to selected items within the president's fiscal year 2017
budget proposal
First, we would confirm our sincere appreciation and gratitude that
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 includes $37.1 million in
Federal funding to modernize research laboratories at the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center. As mentioned before many Beltsville
laboratories were built in the 1920s, 1930s 1950s and 1960s and are now
more than 60 years old. This funding will be used to modernize Building
307, which has been largely vacated because its space is no longer
functional for research activities.
We also are very pleased that the President's fiscal year 2017
budget includes increases in critically important research initiatives,
which would lead to creating new jobs, enhancing American agriculture
competitiveness in the global economy, assuring future food security,
protecting crops and animals from diseases and reducing their
vulnerability to climate change, while improving the economic and
environmental sustainability of American agriculture. The scientists of
the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center are
recognized world leaders in the scientific disciplines that are
necessary to successfully execute the President's proposed research
initiatives. Specifically, we would like to highlight the following
initiatives that will enhance the Center's research programs.
climate change-resilience crops that respond and adapt to climate
change
The proposed budget provides $292,500 for the Henry A. Wallace
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center to identify and evaluate
management practices that maximize plant genetic potential to achieve
optimal yield. This will be achieved by determining how rising
temperatures and carbon dioxide alter physiological processes, growth,
and crop quality and how genetic make-up makes plants adaptable or
resistant to environmental changes. Also, these additional funds will
be used to advance our understanding of the effects of climate change
on pests and beneficial insects, so crops can be better protected
against insect pests.
climate change-reduce vulnerability of agro-ecosystems to climate
change
The budget proposes $90,000 in new funding to the Henry A. Wallace
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center to model the impact of long-
term weather, using Long-Term Agro-Ecosystem Research (LTAR) data, on
crop and livestock productivity. In 2012, ARS organized ten of its
existing research watersheds, ranges, and farms into a LTAR network to
conduct research to support sustainable agricultural production. In
fiscal year 2014, ARS added eight additional LTAR sites, thereby
increasing coverage in key agricultural production regions, while
strengthening ties between USDA science and the Nation's land grant
university system. Thus ARS began to transform existing long-term
research infrastructure, both within and outside of USDA, to address
all components of agricultural sustainability (i.e., productivity,
economics, environmental quality, ecosystem services, and human and
social well-being). The fiscal year 2017 $90,000 increase will fund the
newly designated unfunded site in the Chesapeake Bay.
combating antimicrobial resistance
The budget proposes $2,890,800 of new funding for the Henry A.
Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center to create new tools to
combat antimicrobial resistance in animals and the environment. Among
expected benefits are novel approaches to boosting animal natural
immune systems for resistance to parasitic infections, gut
stabilization against pathogens, or novel strategies using
antimicrobial growth promoters to limit the consequences of host
reactivity to pathogens and protection of public health.
safe and abundant water supplies
A $225,000 increase is provided for the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center to develop safe and abundant water
supplies to support U.S. agricultural production by using non-
traditional water sources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. Thank you for
consideration and support for the educational, research, and outreach
missions of The Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center.
[This statement was submitted by Allan Stoner, Ph.D., President,
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, Inc.]
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Statistics and Analysis
The undersigned groups, which include various members of the
Friends of Agricultural Statistics and Analysis, strongly support
Federal investment to advance agricultural statistics and research in
the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Economic Research
Service (ERS) and the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). We support funding for these agencies in fiscal year 2017
(fiscal year 17) at levels that are at least $91.3 M for ERS and $176.6
M for NASS.
USDA produces valuable data that directly informs decisions by food
and agricultural market participants; agricultural input and food
businesses; banks and other credit institutions; and those who make
food, farm, economic development, and trade policy. American
agriculture, rural America, food, and resource-based industries depend
on the reliable production of timely, accurate, and objective food,
agricultural, rural economic, and resource statistics and market
information. Additionally, the statistics and analysis made possible by
these agencies provides a greater understanding of farm household
dynamics, advances evidence-based policy approaches, and gives insight
into the health of the farm economy.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is committed to
providing timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S.
agriculture. The agency conducts hundreds of surveys every year and
prepares reports and information to communicate the survey results.
Production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and received by
farmers, farm labor and wages, farm finances, chemical use, and changes
in the demographics of U.S. producers are only a few examples of the
information gathered. NASS reports the facts on American agriculture,
facts needed by people working in and depending upon U.S. agriculture.
A primary concern of NASS is to ``safeguard the privacy of farmers,
ranchers, and other data providers, with a guarantee that
confidentiality and data security continue to be our top priorities.''
The mission of the Economic Research Service (ERS) is to inform and
enhance public and private decisionmaking on economic and policy issues
related to agriculture, food, the environment, and rural development.
To accomplish this mission, ERS manages a comprehensive program of
economic research and analysis (including development of economic and
statistical indicators), which is coordinated with NASS efforts. ERS
also works with NASS to develop the content of and covers the cost of
more than half of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS),
NASS's largest farm operator survey. Also, ERS independently conducts
its own National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey.
Connecting with and working closely with researchers across the U.S.,
ERS issues cooperative agreements and grant awards and works with land-
grant partners on many projects. These essential collaborations could
be threatened if support waivers. Finally, the ERS is a primary source
of economic information and research in USDA; the work it does improves
the Department's program effectiveness.
USDA's data products and analytical programs provide the U.S. with
an important edge against increasingly fierce global agricultural
competition. These programs benefit the entire supply chain, starting
at the farm gate and enhancing decisions throughout national and
international food, feed, fiber, and fuel economies. Public data
products and projections serve to improve the accuracy of the
expectations of market participants, reducing market pricing errors.
The U.S. agricultural data information and analysis system is second to
none, worldwide. Today, NASS is experiencing increased demand for its
statistical products and reports. Similarly, ERS is experiencing
significant requests for its research, data products, and services. To
continue to build future trade and finance capacity in an increasingly
competitive marketplace, the U.S. must invest in and leverage all of
its strengths, including the food and agricultural data and information
system.
We encourage you to support these agencies so that they can
continue to provide essential information to farm and agribusiness,
government agricultural program, and food policy decision makers.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this
information.
Agricultural & Applied Economics Association
American Association of Mycobacterial Diseases
American Dairy Science Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Animal Science
American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers
American Statistical Association
American Sugar Alliance
Consortium of Social Science Associations
Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics
Crop Science Society of America
Deere & Company
FASS
Global Cold Chain Alliance
International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses
Mycobacterial Disease of Animals Multistate Initiative
National Association for the Advancement of Animal Science
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research
National Farmers Union
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
North American Regional Science Council
Poultry Science Association
Restaurant Services, Inc.
Soil Science Society of America
The Fertilizer Institute
[This statement was submitted by Steve Pierson on behalf of the
undersigned members of the Friends of Agricultural Statistics and
Analysis.]
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States
On behalf of the undersigned horse industry, veterinary, and animal
welfare organizations, and former Senator Joseph Tydings, we submit the
following testimony seeking funding for the USDA/APHIS Horse Protection
Program of $705,000 for fiscal year 2017. We recognize that Congress is
focused on the imperative of cutting Federal spending. But we believe
that it should be possible to achieve meaningful reductions in the
overall budget while still addressing shortfalls in very specific
accounts that are vital and have been seriously underfunded. This
$705,000 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 ``big lick''
segment of the Tennessee Walking Horse show industry. Caustic
chemicals--such as mustard oil, diesel fuel, and kerosene--are painted
on the lower front legs of the horse, then the legs are wrapped for
days in plastic wrap and bandages to ``cook'' the chemicals deep into
the horse's flesh. This makes the horse's legs extremely painful and
sensitive, and when ridden, the horse is fitted with chains that slide
up and down the horse's sore legs, forcing him to produce an
exaggerated, high-stepping gait in the show ring. Additional tactics
include inserting foreign objects such as hard acrylic between a heavy
stacked shoe and the horse's hoof; pressure shoeing--cutting a horse's
hoof down to the sensitive live tissue to cause extreme pain every time
the horse bears weight on the hoof; and applying painful chemicals such
as salicylic acid to slough off scarred tissue, in an attempt to remove
evidence of soring.
The Horse Protection Act authorizes the USDA to inspect horses,
including the three specific breeds known to be involved in soring--
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses--in
transport to and at shows, exhibits, auctions and sales--for signs of
soring, and to pursue penalties against violators. Unfortunately, since
its inception, enforcement of the Act has been plagued by underfunding.
As a result, the USDA has never been able to adequately enforce the
Act, allowing this extreme and deliberate cruelty to persist on a
widespread basis.
To eliminate soring and meet the goals of the Act, USDA officials
must be present at more shows. However, limited funds allow USDA
attendance at less than 20 percent of the approximately 400 Tennessee
Walking Horse shows held annually. So the Agency set up an industry-run
system of certified Horse Industry Organization (HIO) inspection
programs, which are charged with inspecting horses for signs of soring
at the majority of shows. These groups license examiners known as
Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs) to conduct inspections. To perform
this function, some of these organizations hire industry insiders who
have an obvious stake in preserving the status quo. Statistics clearly
show that when USDA inspectors are in attendance to oversee shows
affiliated with these organizations, the numbers of noted violations
are many times higher than at shows where industry inspectors alone are
conducting the inspections. By all measures, the overall DQP program as
a whole has been a failure--the only remedy is to abolish the
conflicted industry-run inspection programs charged with self-
regulation and have USDA oversee a legitimate inspection program.
USDA appears to have attempted to step up its enforcement efforts
in recent years, and has begun to work with the Department of Justice
in prosecuting criminal cases as provided for under the Act. In 2011, a
Federal prosecutor sought the first-ever criminal indictments under the
Act and as a result, a well-known, winning trainer in the Spotted
Saddle Horse industry served a prison sentence of over 1 year. A former
Walking Horse Trainers' Association Trainer of the Year and winner of
the Tennessee Walking Horse World Grand Championship, Jackie McConnell,
was indicted in 2012 on 52 counts (18 of them felony) of violating the
Act and pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to violate the Act. He was
sentenced to 3 years of probation and a $75,000 fine in Federal court.
In 2013, another Tennessee trainer, Larry Wheelon, and three of his
employees were indicted on 19 counts of aggravated animal cruelty
charges under state law in a case flowing from a USDA Office of
Inspector General investigation. While Wheelon's case was dismissed on
a technicality, evidence of soring in his barn was plentiful and
horrifying.
These are significant actions that should have a deterrent effect,
but there are many other violators who go undetected and many cases
that go unprosecuted due to a lack of resources. USDA needs enhanced
resources to carry out its responsibilities under this Act as Congress,
and the public, expects.
In years past, inspections were limited to physical observation and
palpation by the inspector. Protocols for the use of new technologies,
such as thermography and ``sniffer'' devices (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry--or GC/MS--machines), have been implemented, which can
help inspectors identify soring more effectively and objectively. The
results of USDA's recent GC/MS testing for prohibited foreign
substances used by violators on the legs of horses (either to sore
them, or to mask underlying soring and evade detection by inspectors)
are staggering: 175 of the 200 random samples (87.5 percent) taken by
the USDA at the industry's pinnacle event--the 2015 Tennessee Walking
Horse National Celebration--tested positive for illegal foreign
substances including soring, masking, and numbing agents.
Effective though this inspection protocol may be, due to budget
constraints, USDA has been unable to purchase and put enough of this
testing into use in the field, allowing for industry players to
continually evade detection. In 2015 and 2014, USDA was able to afford
to collect and test samples at only 11 of the Big Lick industry's
largest shows; in 2013, only 17; and in 2012, only 24. With increased
funding, the USDA could purchase more equipment and dispatch more
inspectors to use it properly, greatly increasing its ability to
enforce the HPA.
Currently, when USDA inspectors arrive at shows affiliated with
some industry organizations, many of the exhibitors load up and leave
to avoid being caught with sored horses. While USDA could stop these
trailers on the way out, Agency officials have stated that inspectors
are wary of going outside of their designated inspection area, for fear
of harassment and physical violence from exhibitors. Armed security is
frequently utilized in the designated area to allow such inspections,
at additional expense to this program. The fact that exhibitors feel
they can intimidate government officials without penalty is a testament
to the inherent shortcomings of the current system.
Lack of a consistent presence by USDA officials at events featuring
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses has
fostered a cavalier attitude among industry insiders, who have not
stopped their abuse, but have only become more clandestine in their
soring methods. The continued use of soring to gain an advantage in the
show ring has tainted this segment of the horse industry, and creates
an unfair advantage for those who are willing to break the law in
pursuit of victory. Besides the indefensible suffering of the animals
themselves, the continued acceptance of sored horses in the show ring
prevents those with sound horses from competing fairly for prizes,
breeding fees and other financial incentives, while those horse owners
whose horses are sored may unwittingly suffer property damage and be
duped into believing that their now abused, damaged horses are
naturally superior.
The egregious cruelty of soring is not only a concern for horse
industry and animal protection organizations, but also for
veterinarians. In 2008, the American Association of Equine
Practitioners (AAEP) issued a white paper condemning soring, calling it
``one of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine
industry.'' It called for the abolition of the DQP Program, saying
``the acknowledged conflicts of interest which involve many of them
cannot be reasonably resolved, and these individuals should be excluded
from the regulatory process.'' The AAEP further stated, ``The failure
of the HPA to eliminate the practice of soring can be traced to the
woefully inadequate annual budget . . .allocated to the USDA to enforce
these rules and regulations.''
The USDA Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of the
Horse Protection Program, and issued its final report in September of
2010. The report recommends the abolition of the DQP program, and an
increase in funding for APHIS enforcement of the Horse Protection Act.
The Agency concurred with the findings and recommendations in the
report, specifically Recommendation 2: ``Seeking the necessary funding
from Congress to adequately oversee the Horse Protection Program,''
indicating that it would develop a budgeting and staffing plan to phase
in the resources needed to adequately oversee the Horse Protection
Program.
It is unacceptable that more than 40 years after passage of the
Horse Protection Act, the USDA still lacks the resources needed to end
this extreme form of abuse. It is time for Congress to give our public
servants charged with enforcing this Act the support and resources they
want and need to fulfill their duty to protect these horses as
effectively and safely as possible.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views about this serious
problem, and thank you for your consideration of our request.
Keith Dane, Senior Advisor, Equine Protection
The Humane Society of the United States
Former U.S. Senator Joseph Tydings
Original sponsor of the Horse Protection Act
Teresa Bippen, President
Friends of Sound Horses, Inc.
W. Ron DeHaven, DVM MBA
Executive Vice President
American Veterinary Medical Association
Kathleen Anderson, DVM, President
American Association of Equine Practitioners
Chris Heyde, Deputy Director, Government and Legal Affairs
Animal Welfare Institute
Nancy Perry, Senior Vice President, Government Relations
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Robin Lohnes, Executive Director
American Horse Protection Association
Donna Benefield, Vice President
International Walking Horse Association
Angie Biddison, President
Plantation Walking Horses of Maryland
Jayme Clark, President
National Plantation Walking Horse Association
Susan Crotty, President
Plantation Walking Horse Association of California
Ian Walker, President
United Pleasure Walking Horse Association
Lucy Rangel, President
Gaitway Walking Horse Association, Inc.
Bonnie Yeager, President
International Pleasure Walking Horse Registry
Penny Austin, President
One Horse At a Time, Inc. Horse Rescue
Kristin Herman, M.D., Vice President
Northern California Walking Horse Association
Raydene Walker
Tennessee Walking Horse Association of Oklahoma
Wayne Eastman, President
New York State Plantation Walking Horse Club
Libby Wright
San Francisco Bay Area Tennessee Walking Horse Club
Burl Latshaw, President
Pennsylvania Pleasure Walking Horse Association
David Green, Director
Tennessee Walking Horse Exhibitors' Association of Oregon
[This statement was submitted by Keith Dane, Vice President of
Equine Protection, The Humane Society of the United States.]
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on fiscal year
2017 funding for the following USDA accounts of great importance to The
Humane Society of the United States:
--FSIS/Horse Slaughter--language mirroring fiscal year 2016 omnibus
provision
--APHIS/Animal Welfare Act Enforcement--$28,696,000
--APHIS/Horse Protection Act Enforcement--$705,000
--ARS/Animal Welfare for Farm Animals Used in Agricultural Research--
language maintaining APHIS inspections of ARS facilities to
ensure AWA compliance, including fully functioning IACUCs for
each facility at which animal research is conducted
--APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement Services--$16,410,000
--FSIS/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Enforcement--language to
ensure compliance with humane handling rules for live animals
as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes,
and stunning areas; robust national training in humane handling
and inspection techniques; and annual program evaluation for
humane handling inspections
--OIG/including Animal Fighting Enforcement--$100,998,000
--NIFA/Veterinary Medical Services Act--$6,500,000
--APHIS/Emergency Management Systems/Disaster Planning for Animals--
$969,000
--APHIS/Animal Welfare Act Enforcement--language to maintain bar on
licensing Class B dealers of ``random source'' dogs and cats
At this time of intense budget pressure, we appreciate your
outstanding past support for enforcement of key animal welfare laws by
USDA and urge you to sustain this effort in fiscal year 2017. While we
understand the focus on reducing Federal spending, we believe there
should be room for careful decisionmaking within the budget to achieve
macro-level cuts and at the same time ensure adequate funding for
specific accounts that are vital and have previously been underfunded.
We therefore request the following for fiscal year 2017:
fsis/horse slaughter
We request inclusion of the same language barring USDA from the
expenditure of funds for horse slaughter inspections as was included in
the fiscal year 16 omnibus. This provision is vital to prevent renewed
horse slaughter activity in this country, particularly given
discoveries of horsemeat in other food products in the EU and U.S.
Horse slaughter is cruel and poses serious public health risks.
American horses are raised to be companions, athletes and work horses,
and they are often treated with drugs, both legal and illegal, that can
endanger the food supply. There is currently no system in the U.S. to
track drugs and veterinary treatments given to horses to ensure that
their meat is safe for human consumption. Horse slaughter is also
inherently inhumane and cannot be made humane for horses. The methods
used to kill horses rarely result in quick, painless deaths, as horses
are skittish animals and often endure repeated blows to make them
unconscious, sometimes remaining conscious during the slaughtering
process. USDA reports show that over 92 percent of horses going to
slaughter are healthy and could have gone on to lead productive lives.
However, ``kill buyers'' profit by selling horsemeat from healthy
horses that bring the best price per pound for their meat, and they
frequently outbid rescue groups at auctions. Inclusion of language to
bar the expenditure of funds on horse slaughter inspections would
protect consumers and horses, and would prevent the needless waste of
American taxpayer dollars (particularly at a time when budget pressures
are so great) on a practice that 80 percent of the American public
opposes.
aphis/animal welfare act (awa) enforcement
We request $28,696,000 for AWA enforcement under APHIS. We commend
the Committee for responding in recent years to the urgent need to
properly fund the Animal Care division to improve its inspections of
approximately 10,399 sites, including commercial breeding facilities,
laboratories, zoos, circuses, and airlines, to ensure compliance with
AWA standards. In May 2010, USDA's Office of Inspector General released
a report criticizing the agency's history of lax oversight of dog
breeders--finding that inhumane treatment and horrible conditions often
failed to be properly documented and yielded little to no enforcement
actions. Secretary Vilsack called for more inspections and a tougher
stance on repeat offenders and the agency must have the resources to
follow through on that commitment. USDA is also implementing new
regulations to cover large-scale commercial dog breeders selling
puppies directly to the public via the Internet and other means, and to
end imports from foreign puppy mills where puppies are mass produced
under inhumane conditions and forced to endure harsh long-distance
transport. Animal Care is actively licensing new facilities that now
require USDA regulatory oversight under the retail pet store rule.
Animal Care currently maintains 112 inspectors (with 12 vacancies) who
perform and oversee animal welfare compliance inspections, compared to
64 inspectors at the end of the 1990s. Animal Care also maintains
cadres of species specialists (6) who support inspectors with complex
regulatory compliance issues and compliance specialists (9) who support
the pre-licensing process and other aspects of compliance assurance. An
appropriation at the requested level would allow the agency to continue
to address the concerns identified by the OIG, enforce the new rule on
direct sales and the puppy import ban, and provide adequate oversight
of the many licensed/registered facilities.
aphis/horse protection act (hpa) enforcement
We request $705,000 for strengthened enforcement of the Horse
Protection Act. Congress enacted the HPA in 1970 to make illegal the
abusive practice of ``soring,'' in which unscrupulous trainers
deliberately inflict pain on Tennessee Walking Horses' hooves and legs
to create an exaggerated, high-stepping gait and gain unfair
competitive advantage at horse shows (e.g., applying caustic chemicals,
using plastic wrap and tight bandages to ``cook'' those chemicals deep
into the horse's flesh for days, attaching heavy chains to strike
against the sore legs and heavy, stacked horseshoes that force the
horse's legs into unnatural angles, jamming hard objects into the
sensitive areas of the feet, cutting the hooves down to expose the live
tissue, and using salicylic acid or other painful substances to slough
off scarred tissue or numbing agents in an attempt to disguise the
sored areas). A report released in October 2010 by USDA's OIG documents
significant problems with the industry self-monitoring system on which
the APHIS inspection program currently relies, and calls for funding to
enable the agency to more adequately oversee the law. Several horse
show industry groups, animal protection groups, and the key
organization of equine veterinarians have also called for funding to
enable USDA to do a better job enforcing this law. With the current
level of funding, Animal Care has been able to attend less than 20
percent of the approximately 400 Tennessee Walking Horse shows held
annually. Sustained support is essential to ensure that this program
doesn't lose ground now that it is finally beginning to address the
need for additional inspectors, training, security (for threats of
violence against inspectors), and advanced detection equipment
(thermography and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry machines).
ars/animal welfare for farm animals used in agricultural research
We request language to ensure that Federal dollars are not used for
agricultural research without conforming to AWA standards. An
investigation last year by the New York Times revealed shocking
instances of animal mistreatment and neglect associated with
experiments conducted on farm animals at the USDA/ARS U.S. Meat Animal
Research Center, and repeated disregard for objections raised by the
Center's own veterinary staff. We appreciate that the Committee took
these concerns seriously and commend the Committee for its ongoing
oversight. In the omnibus, 5 percent of the ARS budget for fiscal year
2016 was made contingent on ARS updating its animal care policies and
requiring that all ARS facilities at which animal research is conducted
have a fully functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to
ensure compliance with standards and principles of scientific integrity
equivalent to the AWA. In addition, $400,000 was allocated to APHIS to
conduct inspections at each ARS facility using animals in research. We
request a continuation in fiscal year 2017 of that $400,000 to APHIS
(included in the request above for $28,696,000), as well as a renewed
requirement for a fully functioning IACUC at each ARS facility where
animal research is conducted, along with the following bill language:
``Provided further, That the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
and Agricultural Research Service shall work together to ensure an
effective animal welfare inspection program for ARS facilities and
ensure that these facilities are in full compliance with the Animal
Welfare Act.''
aphis/investigative and enforcement services (ies)
We request $16,410,000 for APHIS Investigative and Enforcement
Services. 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, and an appropriation at the
requested level would enable the agency to keep pace with the
additional enforcement workload.
fsis/humane methods of slaughter act (hmsa) enforcement
We request language to ensure strengthened HMSA enforcement. We
appreciate the committee's inclusion of language in the fiscal year 16
committee report regarding humane slaughter. USDA oversight of humane
handling rules for animals at slaughter facilities is vitally important
not only for animal welfare but also for food safety. Effective day-to-
day enforcement can prevent abuses like those previously documented in
undercover investigations, and reduce the chance of associated food
safety risks and costly recalls of meat and egg products. We therefore
urge inclusion of language directing FSIS to ensure that inspectors
hired with funding previously specified for HMSA enforcement focus
their attention on overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for
live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens,
chutes, and stunning areas, and that all inspectors receive robust
national training in humane handling and inspection techniques. In
addition, past OIG and GAO audits have revealed inconsistent
enforcement and documentation, and recommended that USDA develop more
objective criteria and metrics for determining HMSA enforcement
actions. We therefore also request that the agency develop an annual
program evaluation for its humane handling inspections program that
includes document review, field staff surveys, and monitoring to assess
the degree of consistency and objectivity of implementation of the HMSA
by all levels of inspection staff.
oig/animal fighting enforcement
We request $100,998,000 for the Office of Inspector General 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, established felony penalties in 2007, and strengthened the law
as part of the Farm Bills enacted in 2002, 2008, and 2014. 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 AWA, HPA, HMSA
and downed animal rules.
nifa/veterinary medical services act
We request $6,500,000 to continue implementation of the NVMSA
(Public Law 108-161). We appreciate that Congress is working to address
the critical maldistribution of veterinarians practicing in rural and
inner-city areas, as well as in government positions at FSIS and APHIS.
A 2009 GAO report identified that an inadequate number of veterinarians
to meet national needs is among the foremost challenges facing
veterinary medicine. Having adequate veterinary care is a core animal
welfare concern. To ensure adequate oversight of humane handling and
food safety rules, as well as our nation's defense against bioterrorism
(the Centers for Disease Control estimates that 75 percent of potential
bioterrorism agents are zoonotic--transmitted from animals to humans)
and public health problems such as those associated with pet
overpopulation, parasites, rabies, chronic wasting disease, and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (``mad cow'' disease), USDA must be able to
fill vacancies in its veterinary positions. Educational debt has more
than doubled since 2003 when Congress authorized this program.
Veterinary school graduates face a crushing debt burden of $135,000 on
average (for 88 percent of them, the burden averages $170,000), with an
average starting salary of just $70,000. Nearly 1,000 veterinarians
have applied for assistance under this program since 2010; at current
funding levels, fewer than 60 awards can be made each year. We also
support the Veterinary Services Grant Program authorized in the 2014
Farm Bill to help address gaps in veterinary shortage situations by
preparing veterinarians for rural practice.
aphis/emergency management systems/disaster planning for animals
We request $969,000 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 develops infrastructure to help
prepare for and respond to animal issues in a disaster and incorporate
lessons learned from previous disasters. These funds are used to
support state and local governments' efforts to plan for protection of
people with animals, and to enable the agency to participate, in
partnership with FEMA, in the National Response Plan.
aphis/animal welfare act enforcement/class b dealers
We request language to maintain the bar on expenditures for
licensing of Class B dealers who sell ``random source'' dogs and cats
for use in research, teaching, or testing. We commend the Committee for
including language to protect pet owners and animals from Class B
dealers who sell ``random source'' dogs and cats for use in research
and are notorious for subjecting animals to shocking cruelty and using
fraudulent means (including pet theft) to acquire them. This language
also protects taxpayers, since overseeing Class B dealers has been an
unjustifiable drain on USDA resources and the National Academy of
Sciences determined that there is no scientific need for these dealers.
We urge inclusion of the following language: ``None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to carry out any activities or incur
any expense related to the issuance of licenses under section 3 of the
Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133), or the renewal of such licenses, to
class B dealers who sell random source dogs and cats for use in
research, experiments, teaching, or testing. Nothing in this provision,
however, should be construed as preventing the Department from carrying
out all necessary oversight, inspection, compliance, and enforcement
activities with respect to any entity holding a valid class B license
who sells random source dogs and cats for use in research, experiments,
teaching, or testing, or with respect to any entity doing so without a
license as required under 7 U.S.C. 2133.''
We are very 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.
[This statement was submitted by Mimi Brody, Director of Federal
Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States.]
______
Prepared Statement of Izaak Walton League of America
funding for farm bill conservation programs & natural resources
conservation service technical assistance
The Izaak Walton League of America thanks the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the opportunity to submit
testimony regarding fiscal year (FY) 2017 appropriations. With 43,000
members in nearly 240 chapters nationwide, the League is one of the
most established conservation organizations in the United States. Our
membership recognizes the important role of conservation initiatives in
maintaining and enhancing both the environmental integrity and economic
viability of agricultural landscapes.
Securing full mandatory funding for Farm Bill conservation programs
in fiscal year 2017 is an appropriations priority for the League.
Additionally, a modest increase in discretionary technical assistance
funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is
essential to meet the demand from producers who voluntarily seek to
incorporate conservation planning on their farms and ranches.
Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to support full mandatory
conservation program funding in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations
cycle, and support the President's budget request to fund Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA), part of the Private Lands Conservation
Operations account, at $761.7 million.
Mandatory Conservation Program Funding
The 2014 Farm Bill provides mandatory funding for critical existing
conservation programs--including the Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--as well as
new conservation initiatives, such as the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP) and Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP). These programs offer essential opportunities for
farmers and ranchers to voluntarily implement valuable conservation
practices on their land with financial and technical assistance.
However, the funding levels set in the most recent Farm Bill amount to
$6 billion in cuts to conservation programs when accounting for
sequestration,\1\ making it impossible for these programs to meet the
demand from the many farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, 2014 Farm Bill
Drill Down: The Bill by the Numbers, published February 4, 2014. http:/
/sustainableagriculture.net/blog/2014-farm-bill-by-numbers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after these reduced funding levels were agreed to in the
Farm Bill, the fiscal year 2015 appropriations cycle cut nearly $600
million more from programs like CSP and EQIP through direct funding and
acreage reductions.\2\ Both programs serve as covered programs for
RCPP, meaning these cuts effectively reduced funding for this popular,
innovative program early in its implementation. While the League was
encouraged that cuts were not made to CSP in fiscal year 2016, the
substantial $321 million cut to EQIP will further limit access to
conservation funding for producers and, in turn, reduce the
environmental benefits delivered to the American public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Final Budget Bill
Guts Conservation Funding and Farming Protections, published December
11, 2014. http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/fy15-final-cromnibus/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first time in recent memory, the President's fiscal year
2017 budget proposes no cuts to Farm Bill conservation programs.\3\ We
urge the Subcommittee to follow suit and support full funding for these
programs. Changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS) have become
all too common, with disproportionate impacts on the Farm Bill's
Conservation Title.\4\ The more than five billion dollars cut from
conservation programs since the 2002 Farm Bill \5\ have had real
consequences for farmers interested in protecting natural resources on
their land. This is money that could help producers take voluntary
actions to improve wildlife habitat. It is money that could help
farmers install buffer strips along rivers and streams, protecting
water quality for rural residents and downstream municipalities. And it
is money that could promote soil health practices, such as cover crops,
that improve the long-term productivity of our nation's agricultural
lands--productivity that will be essential to feeding a growing
population and supporting rural economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Izaak Walton League of America, President's Budget Fully Funds
Agriculture Conservation Programs, published February 9, 2016. http://
www.iwla.org/news-events/news/2016/02/10/budget-fully-funds-
agriculture-conservation-programs.
\4\ From fiscal year 2003-2010, over 50 percent of all farm bill
CHIMPS targeted the Conservation Title. Between fiscal year 2007-2010,
that number increased to 83 percent. National Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition report using Jim Monke and Megan Stubbs, Reductions in
Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending, CRS Report for Congress
(Congressional Research Service, May19, 2010).
\5\ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition comparing budget
authority to appropriations bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Technical Assistance Funding
Farmers developing conservation plans for their operations rely on
assistance from NRCS staff. Funding for this technical assistance comes
from the CTA portion of the Conservation Operations account and also
supports implementation of the Farm Bill conservation programs. The
President's fiscal year 2017 budget proposes a modest increase in CTA
funding, setting aside $761.7 million for this critical agency
function.
Providing landowners with technical assistance to develop and
implement conservation plans promotes efficiency by helping producers
tailor best management practices to meet their needs, fit their
property, and address specific resource concerns. It is estimated that
the proposed increase in CTA funding will put an additional 8,300
conservation plans on as many as 2.9 million additional acres.\6\ The
League strongly supports this much needed increase in discretionary
spending for CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Office of Budget and Program Analysis, USDA. 2017 President's
Budget, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.obpa.usda.gov/27nrcs2017notes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Bill conservation programs are delivering tremendous benefits,
but have yet to reach their full potential due to consistent and
excessive cuts. In fiscal year 2017, the League urges the Subcommittee
to support full mandatory funding levels for conservation programs,
honoring the commitment to these programs agreed upon by Congress in
the 2014 Farm Bill. Furthermore, CTA provides critical assistance to
producers attempting to protect natural resources on their farm through
conservation planning and practice implementation. We urge the
Subcommittee to provide $761.7 million for CTA, which is consistent
with the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request.
[This statement was submitted by John Sisser, Conservation
Associate, Izaak Walton League of America.]
______
Prepared Statement of MEadvocacy.org
There is an urgent need for a systemic overhaul at the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the National Institute of
Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in regards to
its funding and handling of the disease myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is chronic, serious disabling,
neuroimmune disease that affects an estimated one million American men
women and children in the U.S. Yet, the past three decades, since the
major Lake Tahoe outbreak where the disease was defined, there have
been very little scientific advances and no FDA approved treatments for
this heavily burdened disease. This is due to the fact HHS, NIH and CDC
have marginalized, neglected, underfunded and mistreated this patient
community.
Advances in the science of the disease have been mostly squashed by
the gross lack of funding by NIH for this severely disabling disease.
In addition, misinformation and badly outdated information published by
the CDC, along with the lack of education about the disease in medical
schools, have caused a dearth of palliative care for patients
nationwide. Most importantly, after 30 years, we still are not any
closer to finding a possible treatment or cure to help the millions of
ME patients.
MEadvocacy.org is a growing grassroots movement of advocates and
patients who are rising up and saying it is time for a change. We are
lawyers, laborers, teachers, students, fathers, mothers, and children.
Our productive lives have been cut short by this debilitating disease
and we have no hope of treatment or cure. We have had enough and are
saying, ``No More!''
me incidence and prevalence
ME, also known in the U.S. as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and
myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), sickens an
estimated 850,000 to 2.5 million people in the U.S. and 17 million
worldwide. A majority of patients are disabled, unable to work, attend
school or participate in activities of daily life. A quarter are so
severely affected as to render them bedbound, unable to care for
themselves.
me history, criteria and name
ME has a long history, appearing worldwide in epidemic and endemic
forms. A 1955 outbreak in London resulted in Dr. A. Melvin Ramsay
describing it as an infectious neuromuscular illness and coining the
term ``myalgic encephalomyelitis.'' Disregarding this, the CDC broadly
redefined the disease and renamed it the marginalizing name, chronic
fatigue syndrome (CFS), in response to 1985 cluster outbreaks of the
disease in Incline Village, Nevada and Lyndonville, New York. This
redefinition resulted in three decades of confused research findings
rather than answers to the cause and treatment of this disease. In
addition, the undignified name and poor criteria caused stigmatization
and marginalization of patients.
disease burden and funding
Some ME patients have died prematurely from complications of ME.
Others have died at their own hands due to the severity and length of
their suffering without proper palliative care, as well as dismissal
and stigmatization by the medical community. If we do not act on behalf
of these severely affected patients, we are complicit in their
suffering and untimely deaths. The patients will not carry this burden
quietly any longer and we are looking at Congress to require HHS to
properly fulfill their duty to ME sufferers.
In 2009, Dr. Nancy Klimas, the director of AIDS research at the
Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center stated:
``My H.I.V patients for the most part are hale and hearty
thanks to three decades of intense and excellent research and
billions of dollars invested. Many of my CFS patients, on the
other hand, are terribly ill and unable to work or participate
in the care of their families. I split my clinical time between
the two illnesses, and I can tell you if I had to choose
between the two illnesses, (in 2009) I would rather have HIV.
But CFS, which impacts a million people in the United States
alone, has had a small fraction of the research dollars
directed towards it. ""(http://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/
10/15).
In the intervening 7 years, nothing has changed. It is very clear
that real change at HHS regarding this disease will not come about
naturally. We have come to you, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, for help in addressing this
dire need for oversight and investigation.
It is estimated that the burden to the economy for ME is between
$17 to 24 billion, yet NIH funding for research has stagnated at a mere
$5 million a year, less than funding for hay fever. HHS has placed
funding for ME at the rock bottom of their funding budget list. The
yearly allocation for ME/CFS is a fraction of what other similarly
burdened diseases receive.
HHS/NIH funding data for 2014 US patient population Funding per
patient--HIV/AIDS--$2 billion 978 million 1,200,000 $2,481;
M.S.--$102 million 400,000 $255; Parkinson's--$139 million
1,000,000 $139; Alzheimer's $564 million 5,300,000 $106; ME/
CFS--$5 million 1,000,000 $5.
The great divide between NIH funding for ME and other diseases
cannot be explained away. Simply advising and recommending that NIH
increase funding for ME, has not worked. The Secretaries of Health and
Human Services have not responded to most of the nearly 100
recommendations made by the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee
(CFSAC) during the past 10 years. It ignored specific requests by
CFSAC, medical experts, patient advocates, patients and their families
to adopt ME expert-authored, well-defined criteria for the disease.
The department did not heed the call by President Obama as a result
of a call out at a townhall meeting by the wife of a patient. It has
not listened to the many recommendations by this Appropriation
Committee over the past twenty years. In order to fund ME on par with
MS, a similarly serious disease, ME would need $250 million a year to
bring them on par with other similarly burdened diseases yet, gets a
mere $5 million.
We need a different approach and a complete overhaul at all agency
levels. We need an investigation by Congress into the mishandling and
neglect of ME by HHS, NIH and CDC and active, ongoing Congressional
oversight until HHS' negative bias is rectified. We are therefore
coming to you for help in this matter.
The following are the recommendations and goals that we at
MEadvocacy.org feel the Appropriations Committee needs to require that
HHS meet, in order to bring Myalgic Encephalomyelitis back on par with
other similarly burdened diseases:
1. Fund biomedical research for ME commensurate with its severity
and burden to patients and the economy. We are asking for specific
funding in the amount of $250 million, the amount we believe is needed
to bring ME on par with other similarly burdened diseases. HHS should
clearly allocate funds to study patients from past ME cluster outbreaks
as well as the study of the epidemiology of patients with severe ME.
The additional funding needed for ME might be accomplished by means of
a sliding scale of allocation from other diseases related to immune,
cognitive and nervous system dysfunctions.
2. Heed the ME stakeholders' request to adopt the diagnostic and
research criteria authored by those experienced in the disease, namely
the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC), which has been adopted by
the International Association of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic
Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME). In a letter to the Secretary of HHS, 50
experts in the disease declared their consensus agreement to adopt the
CCC. This was endorsed by a letter signed by 171 advocates as well as a
petition signed by over 6,000 patients. The 2011 revision known as the
International Consensus Criteria (ICC) would be an alternatively
acceptable criteria for adoption.
3. Retain the historical name for this disease, myalgic
encephalomyelitis, which has been coded since 1969 by the World Health
Organization under neurological disease with the code G93.3. In
addition, ME appears in the 2015 U.S. ICD Codes as U.S. ICD-10-CM with
the same coding. Additionally, we request that the Appropriation
Committee recommends HHS:
4. Return ME to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Disease (NIAID) or place it in the National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), which also manages similar neuroimmune
diseases such as MS, fibromyalgia, and Lyme Disease. The Office of
Research on Women's Health, where ME is currently housed, is entirely
inappropriate for disease, which also strikes men and children.
5. Provide opportunities for dissemination of information through
the development of a curriculum for all U.S.-based medical schools, as
well as physician continuing education, about ME as defined solely by
disease experts, in order to provide the tools needed for physicians
and other medical professionals to appropriately recognize and treat
this disease. Currently, this would mean using either the 2003 Canadian
Consensus Criteria or the 2011 International Consensus Criteria, not
the overly broad criteria developed by the non-expert IOM panel. In
addition, the CCC or ICCPrimer should be widely distributed and made
available to clinicians, particularly primary care physicians,
nationwide in order to facilitate the best care for their ME patients.
6. Partner openly and transparently with stakeholders within 1 year
to establish a comprehensive, aggressive and fully-funded cross-agency
strategy and implementation plan, with well-defined objectives and
milestones, and to develop a plan to monitor progress and provide for
Congressional oversight.
``We've documented, as have others, that the level of functional
impairment in people who suffer from CFS is comparable to multiple
sclerosis, AIDS, end-stage renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease. The disability is equivalent to that of some well known, very
severe medical conditions.''
[This statement was submitted by Dr. William Reeves, former CDC
Chief of Viral Diseases Branch MEadvocacy.org.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Association for the Advancement of
Animal Science (NAAAS)
As President of the National Association for the Advancement of
Animal Science (NAAAS), I am writing to request the subcommittee's
support for critical animal science research within the National
Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS). Specific programmatic requests for NIFA include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act............................................... $244,000,000
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative................ 700,000,000
Smith Lever, Section 3(b) and (c)....................... 300,000,000
Section 1433............................................ 10,000,000
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program.............. 5,000,000
Veterinary Services Grant Program....................... 2,500,000
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program.......... 2,500,000
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative................. 10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 farm bill includes an important expansion of Section 1433
to establish a new competitive research grants mechanism to address
critical priorities in food security, one health and stewardship. The
expanded authority came in response to a historic funding disparity for
the animal sciences and represents a strong opportunity to address
significant challenges facing animal agriculture.
The new competitive grants program in Section 1433 provides a
mechanism to focus resources on high priority areas to help animal
agriculture meet future challenges. It is important to get the new
competitive program started as soon as possible. We respectfully
request that $10 million for Section 1433 in fiscal year 2017, as an
important step toward the goal of meeting the program's authorized
level of $25 million.
For ARS, NAAAS recommends $1,286,000,000 for fiscal year 2017. ARS
has the potential to make significant progress towards solving problems
facing America's livestock and poultry producers but is consistently
receiving funding disproportionate to its contributions to the farm
economy. ARS intramural research is uniquely suited for projects that
require a long term investment leading to high-impact payoffs, while
maintaining the capacity and readiness to respond to emerging and
pressing problems. ARS also plays a critical role in partnering with
the universities and industry to advance science and address emerging
issues. NAAAS requests that the committee to provide funding at least
$1.286 billion for ARS in fiscal year 2017. Within this total, NAAAS
supports the President's budget request for $95 million for buildings
and facilities. This level would enable ARS to continue its work to
address high priority facility needs.
background and justification
As the world's population grows and natural resources become
limited, animal agriculture research is necessary now more than ever to
improve efficiency in order to continue providing safe and abundant
food supplies for the growing global community. It is imperative that
the increased food production be done in a manner that will protect our
natural resources while maintaining America's global competitiveness in
producing animals and animal products. Global demand for food is
expected to increase from 70 to 100 percent by 2050. Meat consumption
is estimated to increase by 73 percent, dairy consumption is estimated
to increase 57 percent, and per capita egg consumption in developing
countries is expected to rise by almost 40 percent.
Innovations in animal science will play an important role in the
future success of animal agriculture and the rural economy. Livestock
and poultry sales account for 40 percent of all farm income. When feed
crops consumed by livestock are included, the contribution to farm
income is 60 percent. The United States must step up its investments in
agricultural research to maintain its status as a leading producer of
safe, affordable and abundant food and meet increasing demands.
Unfortunately, current funding by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to support the animal sciences is not proportionate
with the economic contributions of animal agriculture. In fact,
investment in the animal sciences has been declining for many years,
even for programs such as the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI) that have received increased appropriations. This trend was
highlighted by National Academy of Sciences in its report ``Critical
Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability''
(see http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=19000) that was released
in January 2015. The report recognizes the historic underfunding of
animal sciences and calls for increased investments. This imbalance in
support for animal science puts U.S. animal agriculture at a major
disadvantage at a critical time when livestock and poultry producers
are striving for global competitiveness, improving sustainability and
working to feed a growing global population.
To address this shortfall in Federal investments supporting the
animal sciences, new resources must be dedicated to meet critical
priorities in animal science. The National Association for the
Advancement of Animal Science (NAAAS) has identified a series of value
propositions where additional Federal investments can drive innovation
in the high priority areas of Food Security, One Health and
Stewardship.
food security--challenges and opportunities
With a projected increase in global population by 2050, food
production must double which requires increased efficiency of the use
of limited natural resources to meet expected increases in meat and
milk consumption by 73 percent and 58 percent, respectively. With land,
water and other natural resources being limited relative to this
demand, maintaining or reducing the environmental impact of increased
production will be challenging. New knowledge and technology offers
meat and dairy producers and the allied pre- and post-harvest
industries that support them an opportunity to increase income using
sustainable production methods while meeting expanding demand.
Accelerated research in systems biology and genomics can provide
sustainable increases in overall production efficiency by 50 percent in
2025 through enhanced performance. Such applications will provide
abundant, safe, nutritious and affordable food from animal sources to
consumers across the world.
one health challenges and opportunities
The one health concept recognizes that animal, human and ecological
health are inextricably linked and are best addressed using a systems
approach as alluded to in the National Institutes of Health Roadmap
(see http://nihroadmap.nih.gov). The human and livestock genome
projects are providing revolutionary insights for improving human
health; however, the application of genomics biology to animal
agriculture offers much more for our global society. It is clear that
an abundant, affordable and safe food supply continues to be the
foundation for human health, economic stability and political stability
necessary for improved quality of life in the United States and
worldwide. A major opportunity of the One Health concept is to enhance
vital agricultural and biomedical capabilities that embrace functional
genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics to sequence, map and explore
genomes of important species of animals, crops and microbes. This is
essential for increasing profitability of livestock enterprises through
improved production efficiencies and approaches to enhance animal
health and wellbeing.
Modern transportation, global movement of animals and people, and
intensive livestock management systems create increased risks for
either accidental or intentional introduction of infectious diseases.
Zoonoses pose risk of disease transmission from animals to people and
vice versa, with both health and economic impacts. Some 58 percent of
new human diseases are zoonotic, and environmental conditions influence
the transmission of disease. The results of outbreaks of highly
infectious diseases in animals cause mortality and morbidity, as well
as catastrophic trade and other economic impacts. A major concern with
such outbreaks is the need to employ systems of containment and
eradication that ensure continuity of business operations during
intervention, especially in intensive livestock production systems.
Interdisciplinary research can help understand how pathways are
integrated in complex organisms, determine how disturbances in these
pathways lead to disease and disease resistance, and desired phenotypes
that enhance production agriculture and animal health, as well as
mitigate transmission of zoonotic diseases.
Through this approach of using systems biology to generate new
knowledge and technologies, major opportunities will be forthcoming to
improve human and animal health using sustainable management practices,
as well as advanced methods for early detection, prevention, and
recovery from outbreaks of disease and to produce safer foods of animal
origin.
stewardship challenges and opportunities
Livestock operations must continue to make major advances in the
efficiency and sustainable use of natural resources for both extensive
and intensive production systems. More effective use of land, water,
energy and other natural resources that generate inputs to animal
production as well as for animal production itself are needed.
Stewardship of the animals and their relationship to the communities in
which they exist are key elements of the total equation. As demand for
food increases, animal production will be increasingly forced to use
marginal lands where stewardship is even more challenging. New
innovations and technologies are urgently needed to meet future demands
for foods of animal origin, stewardship of natural resources, and
economic survival of food animal production. Science-based information
for appropriate policy and regulatory paradigms is required. Modern
science, ranging from basic research in plant and animal genomics,
transcriptomics and bioinformatics is essential to underpin genetic
selection for development of new and more drought-resistant feeds and
forages to improve overall food animal production efficiencies and
management practices. This approach is essential to realizing advances
in animal and plant agriculture required to meet demands and maintain a
healthy, natural resource base.
In order to realize the innovations and outcomes identified,
increased public funding of agricultural research will be needed. NAAAS
appreciates the opportunity share its views on the drivers for
innovation in animal science and the need for increased Federal
investments. Please let us know if you have any questions or if NAAAS
can be of any assistance as the committee continues its work on the
Federal investment in science.
[This statement was submitted by Ken Odde, President of the
National Association for the Advancement of Animal Science.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Association of Nutrition and Aging
Services Programs (NANASP)
On behalf of the National Association of Nutrition and Aging
Services Programs (NANASP), an 1,100-member nonpartisan, nonprofit,
membership organization for national advocates for senior health and
well-being, and on behalf of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a
76,000 member organization of food and nutrition professionals,
committed to improving the nation's health through healthy and safe
food choices, we thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in
support of the Department of Agriculture's proposed increases for the
following programs within the Food and Nutrition Services:
--$900 million for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), including $10 million to implement state options to
streamline application processes for older adults;
--$14 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
We also support the $20.6 million request for the Senior Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program.
One in six older Americans struggles with hunger and food
insecurity. These numbers continue to grow with the growth of the aging
population; more than 10,000 seniors turn 65 every day. However, only
39 percent of eligible seniors are enrolled in SNAP--meaning that
millions of seniors are going hungry.
One reason commonly given for lack of older adult enrollment in
SNAP is lack of ability to fill out the application. Therefore, the
President's request for $10 million to implement state options to
streamline application processes for seniors based on successful state
demonstrations in increasing senior participation in SNAP is incredibly
important. By streamlining the process, seniors will be able to apply
more easily, thus making it more likely that they will complete the
application and receive the benefits they desperately need.
We also support the proposed increase for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. It currently serves more than 600,000 low-
income people nationwide, and it is the only USDA nutrition program
that provides monthly food assistance specifically targeted at low-
income seniors. However, the program is funded at a set level annually
and therefore cannot serve all eligible seniors. It is also unavailable
in Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. This increase would
address current demand and fund new caseloads to a total of 639,000
participants.
Finally, at a minimum, we support the President's request for $20.6
million for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. This program
puts fresh produce into the hands of low-income seniors and supports
local markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture
operations (CSAs). However, fewer than 836,000 seniors were able to
participate in 2013 and received an average benefit of only $31/year in
groceries since the program is funded at a set level. Further, it is
unavailable in seven states. Thus, we support its expansion and higher
funding for this program if at all possible.
Investments in these nutrition programs are cost-effective because
many common chronic conditions such as hypertension, heart disease,
diabetes, and osteoporosis can be effectively prevented and treated
with proper nutrition. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics estimates
that 87 percent of older adults have hypertension, high cholesterol,
diabetes, or some combination of all of these. These seniors need
healthy meals to avoid serious medical care--and this care would place
an expensive burden on Medicare and Medicaid.
Older adults who are not receiving proper meals can also become
malnourished and undernourished. This makes it harder for them to
recover from surgery and disease, makes it more difficult for their
wounds to heal, increases their risk for infections and falls, and
decreases their strength that they need to take care of themselves.
Malnourished older adults are more likely to have poor health outcomes
and to be readmitted to the hospital--their health costs can be 300
percent greater than those who are not malnourished on entry to the
healthcare system.
As more than 10,000 seniors turn 65 every day, now is the time to
provide a greater investment in these proven and cost-effective
programs.
Thank you for your past and future support.
[This statement was submitted by Ann Cooper, Chair and Robert
Blancato, Executive Director National Association of Nutrition and
Aging Services Programs.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture
As Congress prepares legislation for fiscal year 2017
appropriations for Federal agencies, the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) encourages you to support important
programs to ensure a safe, affordable, and abundant food supply. NASDA
represents the Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of agriculture
in all fifty states and four territories. As elected and appointed
officials, our members are strong advocates for agriculture and partner
with a number of Federal agencies in regulating, marketing, and serving
the agricultural industry.
food and drug administration
Integrated Food Safety System: Increase for the Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) state implementation programs at $100 million
NASDA estimates state programs will need an investment of $100 million
annually. The requested amount is necessary for the development and
operation of programs which will implement the three major FSMA
programs (Preventive Controls: Human Food, Preventive Controls: Animal
Food, and Produce Safety). The sooner FDA's expenditures to states
reach the $100 million per year mark, the more systematic and timely
the implementation of FSMA will be at the state level. While the U.S.
arguably has the safest food system in the world we can do better if we
focus on prevention.
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM): Fund CVM program areas at
$196.7 million; National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
(NARMS) funding at $10.8 million; Combating Antibiotic Resistance
Initiative at $35 million for USDA CVM oversees the safety of animal
drugs, feeds and biotechnology-derived products. Further, we request
that the new user fees established by the Animal Drug User Fee Act
(ADUFA) of $22.977 million be included in the fiscal year 17
appropriations bill. ADUFA establishes a system of performance
standards to improve the new animal drug review process at CVM. NASDA
thanks Congress for increasing NARMS funding for meat testing by $3
million last year and supports the Administration's request for an
additional $35 million for the USDA and $1 million for the CVM for
research, monitoring, and surveillance under the CARB.
u.s. department of agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS): Fully fund the Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program at the authorized amount of $72.5 million; fully
fund the Specialty Crop Multi-State Program at the authorized amount of
$4 million. The SCBG Program is critical to the expanding the
availability of high quality, safe, and nutritious specialty crops to
consumers while adding value to producers through research and
extension activities.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS): Fully fund ARS at $1.426
billion; fully fund Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) at $3
million; fully fund National Agricultural Law Center (NALC). ARS works
towards solving problems facing America's crop, livestock and poultry
producers as well as natural resources, human nutrition, food
production and food processing. NASDA urges the committee to fully fund
the OPMP at $3 million as they provide crucial leadership in the
coordination of interagency activities between USDA, EPA, FDA, and
state agencies. NASDA encourages continued extramural funding for the
NALC and its partners in the Agricultural & Food Law Consortium through
the USDA-ARS National Agricultural Library. Requested report language:
The Committee expects USDA-ARS National Agricultural Library extramural
research consortium projects to be funded at no less than the fiscal
year 2014 levels.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): Fund APHIS
program areas at $901 million; fully fund Cooperative Agricultural Pest
Survey (CAPS) Program; fully fund Wildlife Services at $105 million;
fully fund Feral Swine Control at $20 million; new research funding for
National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). Any reductions to
APHIS' budget could result in deterioration of essential services and
impair the Agency from carrying out its fundamental mission, which is
``to protect the health and value of American agriculture and natural
resources.'' The CAPS program, WS programs and the national control
program for feral swine programs are crucial to state, industry and
Federal coordination in researching, detecting and resolving conflicts
with pests and animals. NASDA supports fully funding NAHMS for
antibiotic research which conducts studies on the health and management
of U.S. livestock populations.
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS): Remove Prohibitions on USDA
Horse Meat Inspections; fully fund State Food Safety and Inspection at
$63 million. We encourage the committee to resist attempts to include
language that would prohibit funding for USDA ante-mortem horse
inspection. Further, NASDA urges the committee to restore funding for
State Food Safety and Inspection programs to $63 million, which is
critical for states that provide state meat inspections under a variety
of programs regulated by FSIS.
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS): Market Access Program (MAP) at
$200 million; Foreign Market Development (FMD) program at $34.5
million. MAP and FMD encourage the development and expansion of
commercial agricultural export markets and assists small businesses in
accessing foreign markets.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS): Funding for NASS
of at least $176.6 million. NASS statistics provide the information
necessary for producers, agribusinesses, farm organizations,
economists, and others for critical decisionmaking in agricultural
marketing and investing. NASS data is vital to keeping agricultural
markets stable, efficient, and fair by making available objective data
to commodity market buyers and sellers.
National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN): Fully fund NAHLN
at $15 million. NAHLN is a cooperative effort between USDA-APHIS, NIFA,
university, and state veterinary diagnostic labs. NAHLN is an early
warning system for emerging and foreign animal diseases and we urge the
committee to fund NAHLN at the authorized amount.
National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA): Fund National
Agriculture in the Classroom (AIC) at $1 million; Fully fund
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) at $700 million;
Funding for Veterinary Medical Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) at $5
million; the Veterinary Services Grant Program (VSGP) at $2.5 million;
Fund Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD) at $2.5 million and
Section 1433 at $10 million. AIC is a critical educational tool in
inspiring our next generation of farmers, workforce members and
consumers. Further, NASDA is supportive of language directing AFRI to
address pollinators, antibiotic resistance and advancing drug approvals
to treat minor species. Also, the expanded Section 1433 maintains the
program for animal health and disease and adds a competitive grant
program focusing on priorities in food security, one health and
stewardship.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Fully fund--the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) at $1.65 billion; the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) at 10.34 million acres; the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), the Agriculture
Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) at $500 million. Farm Bill Title
II conservation programs are invaluable programs in helping farmers,
ranchers, and landowners address conservation concerns. Voluntary,
incentive-based conservation programs are the bedrock for agriculture's
efforts to improve water and air quality, soil health, and address
water quantity concerns and resist overly burdensome regulatory
efforts.
U.S. Forest Service: Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program at
$83 million. The FIA program surveys America's forests and provides
information for monitoring trends in habitat, wildfire risk, insect and
disease threats and other resource questions.
conclusion
NASDA asks that you give our requests careful consideration as work
to fund the nation's agricultural policy priorities in fiscal year 17.
NASDA is a partner and co-regulator with Federal agencies in the
implementation of a host of food, agricultural and natural resources
programs. NASDA Members have a unique wealth of information,
experience, and expertise. NASDA stands ready to work with you and your
staff to expeditiously pass the agriculture appropriations bill. Thank
you for your consideration, and please let us know if you have any
questions.
[This statement was submitted by Barbara P. Glenn, Ph.D., Chief
Executive Officer--NASDA.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Association of State Energy Officials
(NASEO)
Chairman Moran and Ranking Member Merkley, I am David Terry,
Executive Director of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO), and I am testifying in support of fiscal year'17
funding for the energy title of the Farm Bill. The mandatory levels of
the energy title of the Farm Bill should be preserved. Specifically, we
support funding of at least $19 million in additional discretionary
spending for the Rural Energy for America (REAP) program (Section 9007
of the last multi-year Farm Bill), in addition to $49 million in
mandatory funding for REAP. The REAP program was created in the 2002
Farm Bill and it has been a huge success. Over 10,000 energy efficiency
and renewable energy projects have been implemented in every state
since 2003. With a required $3 match of non-Federal funds for every
Federal dollar invested in REAP, over $1.6 billion in matching funds
have been provided. This program has specifically benefitted farmers,
ranchers and rural small businesses. NASEO's State Energy Office
members work directly with eligible entities, as well as state
agricultural agencies and rural interests to promote this successful
program. REAP is about rural economic development. The Biomass Crop
Assistance Program supports producers who will supply biomass
feedstocks for advanced biofuels. We urge the Subcommittee to provide
$50 million for this effort in fiscal year'17, $24 million above the
mandatory funding. Finally, we support $15 million in mandatory funding
and $4 million in discretionary funding, a total of $19 million for the
Rural Energy for America Loans program.
NASEO represents the energy offices in the states, territories and
the District of Columbia. The REAP program, and the other critical
programs in the energy title of the last multi-year Farm Bill, helps
create jobs, increases agricultural productivity, saves energy for
farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses, generates energy,
promotes use of alternative fuels, reduces our dependence on imported
petroleum and saves money in rural America. The cost is very low and
the payback is very high.
In fiscal year 2017, we urge your support for the REAP program, the
Rural Energy for America Loans program, the Biomass Crop Assistance
Program.
[This statement was submitted by David Terry, Executive Director,
National Association of State Energy Officials.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Association of Wheat Growers
The National Association of Wheat Growers joins the National Wheat
and National Barley Improvement Committees in urging the Committee to
provide an additional $3.3 million over the budget request for funding
the USDA-ARS US Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative (USWBSI). This increase
would provide the full $10 million authorized by section 7303 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014. We are also requesting an additional $3.44
Million to support a Small Grains Genomic Initiative within the
Agricultural Research Service.
Wheat is a very important crop and source of economic activity. As
USDA's Economic Research Service has reported, the United States is a
major wheat-producing country, with output typically exceeded only by
China, the European Union, and India. Almost half of the U.S. wheat
crop is exported. Wheat is the principal food grain produced in the
United States. In the last decade, wheat ranked third among U.S. field
crops in both planted acreage and gross farm receipts, behind corn and
soybeans. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service,
more than 2 billion bushels of wheat with a weighted average farm price
value of approximately $12 billion was harvested from more than 46
million acres across 42 states.
We appreciate that you have provided important support for scab
research over the past several years. Since fiscal year 2003, Congress
has annually provided $6.7 million. The mission of the USWBSI is to
enhance food safety and supply by reducing the impact of Fusarium Head
Blight (scab) on wheat and barley. The USWBSI is an organization of
grower, researcher, and industry stakeholders, providing annual
recommendations to ARS for a mission directed competitive grant
program. The USWBSI is the consortium of land-grant colleges and
universities authorized in farm bills over the years, in partnership
with USDA-ARS scientists and research locations throughout the US.
However, the increase of $3.3 million is necessary because scab is
an emerging threat in new regions of the country, including the Western
states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California and Washington.
Wet conditions throughout the US in 2014 resulted in widespread scab
outbreaks, negatively impacting yields and resulting in high levels of
the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol (DON, aka vomitoxin) in grain that was
rejected by elevators, mills, and maltsters, causing disruptions in
supply, economic losses to growers, and increased costs for end users.
The additional programmatic funding of $3.3 million requested is
proposed to be allocated 50 percent to the USWBSI and 50 percent in
permanent base funding increases to ARS units conducting scab and
supporting research.
For the $1.65 million increase proposed for the multi-institutional
and multi-discipline directed competitive grant program of the USWBSI,
we recommend the following allocations to enhance research in states
currently receiving funding and to expand to other states where
research is needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated Breeding.................................... $500,000
Scab Management......................................... 500,000
Genomic Selection....................................... 300,000
Research infrastructure in emerging areas............... 100,000
Additional DON testing.................................. 250,000
---------------
Total USWBSI Request.................................... 1,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose that ARS, in consultation with the USWBSI
Executive and Steering Committees (comprised of grower,
researcher, and industry stakeholders), determine how to
allocate the $1.65 million proposed for permanent base funding
increases to ARS locations conducting scab research or
supporting research.
We also request an additional $3.44 Million to Support a
Small Grains Genomic Initiative under the ARS Salaries and
Expenses Account. Those funds would be distributed as follows.
--Next Generation Genotyping--Funding of $1.5 million is needed so
that all four USDA-ARS Small Grains Regional Genotyping
Laboratories (Fargo, ND; Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Pullman,
WA) can meet their mission to facilitate application of genomic
information and DNA marker technologies for improvement and
breeding of wheat, barley, and oat varieties. Small grains
breeders must be equipped with genotypic data that give them
rapid access to traits of value so they can be incorporated
into improved varieties to counter threats to the crops from
diseases, insects, and climate; maintain grain quality;
increase yields, and improve other agronomic characters. Of
particular importance is the hiring of a bioinformatics support
scientist to analyze and interpret data to meet the needs of
scientists doing research on breeding and genetics of small
grains, and to integrate the enormous amounts of generated data
into the nationwide ``Big Data'' network being developed by the
USDA-ARS. The scientist will also oversee and maintain local
genotyping lab computing resources.
--Barley & Wheat Quality Phenotyping and Research--Funding of $1.79
million is needed so that all five USDA-ARS Barley and Wheat
Quality Laboratories (Madison, WI; Fargo, ND; Manhattan, KS;
Wooster, OH; Pullman, WA) can meet their missions to advance
the quality and utilization of barley and wheat grain in the
U.S. for the betterment of U.S. consumers, farmers, and the
brewing, milling, baking, and processing industries.
In this age of modern genomics, substantial resources have been
directed at cutting edge DNA technologies, but adequate resources for
the phenotyping (measurable characterization) of barley and wheat
quality have not been provided. Wheat and malting barley varieties
developed with the aid of genomic technology, but lacking the quality
characteristics required for domestic and export market end-users, are
of little value.
The remaining $150,000 of our request for the Small Grains Genomic
Initiative would be for barley doubled haploid work.
The National Association of Wheat Growers, working with its team of
22 state wheat grower organizations to benefit the wheat industry at
state and national levels, appreciates your consideration of our
requests.
[This statement was submitted by Gordon Stoner, President National
Association of Wheat Growers.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association
Mister 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 that the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee fund CSFP for fiscal year 2017 at
$236,120,000 as requested by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
NCSFPA would also like to thank the Subcommittee for providing
sufficient funding in fiscal year 2016 to bring on 1 additional new
state with a previously approved plan of operation by USDA. Low-income
seniors in the state of Virginia will begin receiving the nutritionally
balanced CSFP food packages this year.
CSFP is a unique program which brings together Federal and state
agencies, along with public and private entities. In fiscal year 16,
the CSFP provides services through 150 non-profit community and faith-
based organizations at 1,800 sites located in 47 states, the District
of Columbia, and two Indian Tribal Organizations (Red Lake, Minnesota
and Oglala Sioux, South Dakota). Each month 619,000 participants are
authorized to receive a nutritionally balanced food box. The program
has moved to serve exclusively elderly participants, as required by the
Agricultural Act of 2014. Our association thanks the Subcommittee for
funding that enables us to continue serving our vulnerable population.
Even though the budget request would provide assistance to an
additional 20,000 seniors, it is important to note that current
participating states have requested another 142,149 caseload slots to
meet the need in their service areas. We are sure the additional
caseload will be well used.
CSFP continues to be a testimony to the power of community
partnerships with 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 one of our nation's most
nutritionally vulnerable populations: low-income seniors.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of food packages tailored to
specific nutritional needs.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, directly supporting
American farmers. The average food package cost is estimated at
$23, while the retail value is approximately $50.00.
--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.
The 2013 supplemental report by Ziliak and Gundersen for the
National Foundation to End Senior Hunger; The State of Senior Hunger in
America 2011: An Annual Report demonstrated that seniors continue to
face ever increasing food insecurity challenges despite the end of the
Great Recession. The proportion of seniors age 60 or older facing
hunger increased by over 15 percent from 2010 to 2011. Additionally,
from 2001 to 2011, the number of seniors experiencing the threat of
hunger, the risk of hunger, and hunger has increased by 88 percent, 109
percent, and 200 percent, respectively.
The 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 healthcare dollars.
In a 2013 NCSFPA 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.
In 2012, an informal NCSFPA senior participant survey revealed
individual accounts of the value of CSFP benefits. An Arkansas
recipient tells us that they would not otherwise be able to eat the
balanced meals that CSFP provides each month. Arkansas program
operators talk about the importance of interaction between seniors and
program staff, saying this interaction is very important for the well-
being of recipients, and recipients are able to live more stable, self
sufficient lives as a result. Colorado participants say that they would
not be able to have juice and cereal without CSFP, and many appreciate
the program because they are homebound. Seniors in St. Louis, Missouri,
say that CSFP foods help them get through to their next checks.
Participants in Nebraska say that they don't know what they would do
without this food, calling the program a ``lifesaver''. New Hampshire
participants tell us that they use CSFP as a primary source of
nutrition each month and would see a dramatic loss in food availability
without the program. One Wisconsin recipient said that they would
starve without the program, while others said that CSFP on their
limited income meant that they could pay their telephone and electric
bills.
America is aging and CSFP is an integral part of senior nutrition
programming that is a cost effective and nutritionally sound way to
ensure that today's seniors remain productive, healthy, and independent
to maintain a good quality of life. It is of note that many seniors are
now continuing to work at least part-time beyond retirement age to
ensure that they can afford basic necessities. As such, CSFP is an
important tool for them to remain healthy so that they may continue to
be an active part of the work force.
The CSFP Local Agencies are committed grassroots operators with
dedicated volunteers fulfilling a mission to provide quality nutrition
assistance economically, efficiently, and responsibly. In cooperation
with USDA, NCSFPA seeks to meet the current and emerging needs of CSFP
participants. NCSFPA wishes to 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.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has consistently
supported CSFP, acknowledging it as a cost-effective way of providing
nutritious supplemental foods. We urge the Subcommittee to provide
$236,120,000 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program in
order to allow us to provide needed services.
Again, thank you for your continuing support. We look forward to
working with you on behalf of CSFP participants.
______
Prepared Statement of National Cotton Council
The NCC is the central organization of the United States cotton
industry. Its members include growers, ginners, cottonseed processors
and merchandizers, merchants, cooperatives, warehousers and textile
manufacturers. A majority of the industry is concentrated in 17 cotton-
producing states. The downstream manufacturers of cotton apparel and
home furnishings are located in virtually every state. Farms and
businesses directly involved in the production, distribution and
processing of cotton employ almost 200,000 workers and produce direct
business revenue of more than $27 billion. Annual cotton production is
valued at more than $6 billion at the farm gate, the point at which the
producer markets the crop. Accounting for the ripple effect of cotton
through the broader economy, direct and indirect employment surpasses
420,000 workers with economic activity well in excess of $100 billion.
In addition to the cotton fiber, cottonseed products are used for
livestock feed, and cottonseed oil is used as an ingredient in food
products as well as being a premium cooking oil.
The NCC welcomes the opportunity to provide the following
recommendations and requests for fiscal year 2017 appropriations for
programs which make important contributions to our industry's ability
to compete and prosper in a world market.
funding priorities
Cotton Pests (APHIS): The National Cotton Council requests $11.52
million (level with the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2015
appropriations) for the APHIS Cotton Pests Account. This will allow
APHIS to continue to provide coordination, technical assistance and
funds for Boll Weevil Eradication and Pink Bollworm Eradication
programs. Grower assessments provide the balance of program funds. As
these programs near completion, the Federal funding becomes even more
critical to ensure the complete eradication of these cotton pests for
the benefit of those in post eradication maintenance. Additional
details for the Boll Weevil Eradication Program and the Pink Bollworm
Eradication Program are provided below:
Boll Weevil Eradication (APHIS--Cotton Pests): The NCC requests
$8.1 million (level with the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2015
appropriations) for APHIS to provide Federal support to the National
Buffer Zone in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) in Texas, the last
``frontier'' for Boll Weevil Eradication efforts since 97 percent of
the U.S. cotton acreage is now free of boll weevils. This Zone is also
the only remaining active eradication zone in the U.S. APHIS funds are
only provided to this active eradication zone in keeping with a
commitment that grower assessments provide 100 percent of the cost of
maintenance programs once an area or region is declared ``weevil
free.'' The program continues to produce documented economic and
environmental benefits. Cotton in the United States is now produced
with an average of less than three annual applications of pesticides
per acre for all insects. This compares to the 15 to 20 applications
per acre prior to boll weevil eradication and adoption of cotton
varieties containing Bt technology for worm control.
Continuation of Federal funding is critical as the program strives
to complete eradication in the LRGV of Texas. The NCC recognizes that
the movement of boll weevils from Tamaulipas, Mexico, into the LRGV has
prolonged the eradication efforts of the U.S. However, the eradication
efforts in the LRGV continue to make progress and the area also serves
as the National Buffer, protecting the remainder of the U.S. cotton
acreage from re-infestation of the boll weevil. The NCC's Boll Weevil
Action Committee has created the International Technical Advisory
Committee to share and coordinate technical procedures with the
Tamaulipas, Mexico program in an effort to enhance their eradication
progress thereby ending this weevil migration. In addition, the NCC is
cooperating with APHIS in developing another liaison committee to
include Mexico program officials to identify additional resources and
technical assistance required by the Tamaulipas program.
We also respectfully request that APHIS be directed to make every
effort to minimize overhead and administrative expenses for boll weevil
eradication to ensure field operations are funded to the fullest extent
possible.
Boll Weevil Eradication (FSA)--The NCC requests sufficient funding
to allow FSA to make up to $60 million in loans to eligible producer-
controlled organizations carrying out Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm
eradication programs. This authority has existed since fiscal year 2005
and has been critically important to the success of the programs. There
has not been a forfeiture on any loan made by FSA for the purpose of
carrying out Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm eradication efforts.
Pink Bollworm Eradication (APHIS--Cotton Pests): The NCC requests
$3.42 million (level with the fiscal year 2016 and 2015 appropriations)
be provided to APHIS to continue support for the pink bollworm program.
The Pink Bollworm Eradication Program is based predominantly on the
mass release of sterile insects generated by a Phoenix, AZ rearing
facility.
The funds requested for fiscal year 2017 will enable the Pink
Bollworm Rearing Facility (PBRF) in Phoenix, AZ, to maintain a colony
of pink bollworm moths with the capability to provide sterile moths for
release if a wild moth is captured. The 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 area-wide aerial releases of millions of sterile
moths.
The Pink Bollworm Eradication Program did not document the
capture of any native pink bollworm moths in 2013 for the U.
S., which allowed the program to begin a confirmation phase in
2014. There was no documented capture of any native pink
bollworm moths in 2014 or in 2015. The density of monitoring
traps remained high for the 2014 year in order to verify that
no native populations are present. The trapping density will
gradually decline over the next several years before
eradication is confirmed. A response plan has been developed by
technical experts to respond to localized areas as needed if a
native capture is documented during this confirmation phase.
Growers contribute funds through assessments and incur
significant expense associated with purchasing and planting
biotech seeds during the active eradication period.
Market Access Program (MAP).--The NCC strongly supports the funding
level in the Agricultural Act of 2014 of $200 million for MAP. Cotton
Council International (CCI), the foreign market development arm of the
NCC, has the critical mission of maintaining and expanding exports of
US cotton and cotton products in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Central and
South America. The value of U.S. cotton fiber exports exceeds $5
billion, and exports of value-added cotton products contribute an
additional $3 billion to the overall value of cotton exports.
Activities carried out using MAP and Foreign Market Development (FMD)
funds have been documented as contributing to increased export sales of
cotton fiber and value-added manufactured cotton products. Independent
studies reveal that for every dollar spent by USDA cooperators,
including CCI, U.S. exports increase $35, a 35-to-1 return on
investment. For the cotton industry, this represents over one billion
dollars in export value or an additional 7,000 jobs to the U.S.
economy. The cotton industry believes CCI's programs are an effective
catalyst for private sector investments, with the industry investing
$2.02 for every dollar of MAP funds received.
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. These funds are used for
programs with detailed market assessments, strategic program
development and ongoing evaluations. These funds create unique market
development and trade servicing value and, like the MAP funds, are
closely monitored by USDA for compliance with U.S. laws. FMD is
currently funded at $34.5 million and requires at least a dollar-for-
dollar industry match. The industry requests that funding for FMD be
continued at the level authorized in the Agricultural Act of 2014. The
cotton industry believes CCI's programs are an effective catalyst for
private sector investments with industry investments totaling $1.31 for
every dollar of FMD funds received.
Foreign Agricultural 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. The industry supports the Presidential
initiative to streamline and make U.S. export programs more effective.
We believe FAS's market research and market development assistance
combined with the MAP and FMD programs serve as a model for successful
public-private partnerships. We believe it is important that U.S.
agriculture continue to have an agency like FAS with close links to
domestic USDA programs to promote U.S. exports, collect market data,
assist exporters, remedy trade disputes and assist in the development
of trade policy.
Farm Service Agency (FSA).--The NCC supports adequate funding so
that FSA can continue to deliver essential farm and conservation
programs and services.
Risk Management Agency (RMA).--The NCC supports adequate funding so
that RMA can continue to administer essential insurance products.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS).--The cotton industry continues
to be concerned with the financial support of this important intramural
research agency. ARS programs and facilities conduct vital research
programs in fiber quality, production agronomic systems and textiles
that ultimately support U.S. cotton production and post-harvest
processing as well as the U.S. textile industry's efforts to remain
competitive in global markets. We urge the Committee to instruct USDA
not to close any facilities or discontinue any projects without first
consulting with industry stakeholders.
The NCC specifically requests an increase of $1.68 million in
funding for the three cotton ginning research units to be distributed
as follows: Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Laboratory, Mesilla
Park, NM, $468,000; Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit,
Lubbock, TX, $752,000; and the Cotton Ginning Research Unit,
Stoneville, MS, $460,000. All three ginning research units need
additional funding immediately to address scientific personnel needs,
conduct research, and offset the impact of inflation after years of
flat or decreasing budgets.
We request that the Committee maintain funding for the research
units managing cotton programs conducted at the Southern Regional
Research Center in New Orleans, LA, and the various cotton breeding and
cotton entomology programs including support for the Cotton Germplasm
Collection managed by the Southern Plains Crop Germplasm Unit housed at
the Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center in College Station,
TX.
We agree with the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) December 2012 report, ``Agricultural Preparedness
and the Agricultural Research Enterprise,'' that significant additional
funding for agricultural research is warranted for maintaining a viable
U.S. industry. However, we differ with the report's emphasis on
increasing competitive funding of research. We continue to urge a
balanced approach among intramural, competitive and formula funding in
order to maintain an effective research infrastructure while
encouraging innovative research at the highest levels. For ARS to
continue its part in this research enterprise, additional funding is
needed. We urge the Committee to provide ARS with additional overall
funding as soon as economic conditions allow the Committee to respond
to the PCAST report's funding level recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations and of our
funding requests for fiscal year 2017. Please contact me with any
questions or if additional information is needed.
[This statement was submitted by Reece Langley, Vice President--
Washington Operations.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Employment Law Project
The National Employment Law Project (NELP) submits the following
testimony on the fiscal year 2017 Appropriations for the Food Safety
and Inspection Service regarding the New Poultry Inspection System
Program. NELP conducts research, education and advocacy to assure that
the basic protections afforded by our nation's labor and employment
laws extend to all workers, including low wage workers.
NELP opposes any amendment to the Appropriations bill that would
allow poultry plants entering the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) program to increase their
lines speeds in defiance of the recently promulgated USDA standard:
Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection. We strongly urge the
Committee to oppose this amendment that would rewrite the USDA's rule,
subverting the normal rulemaking process without any formal public
comment or input from the public, who along with poultry line workers,
will be negatively affected by any change to this rule.
In August of 2014, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) promulgated the final rule for the Modernization of the Poultry
Slaughter Inspection System. The final rule went through almost 2 years
of public comment. When the final rule was published, it did not permit
an increase in maximum line speeds in poultry plants.
When this rule was first proposed for public comment in 2012, it
contained a proposed increase in maximum line speeds in poultry plants.
FSIS asked for comment on this provision, specifically acknowledging
the potential for an increase in line speeds to effect employee health
and safety. According to USDA, this proposed provision increasing
allowable line speeds received the most comments from the public. The
comments were focused on the negative effects the increased line speeds
would have on the health and safety of workers in the poultry slaughter
establishments as well as consumer safety.
In response to all the comments received in the rule making, USDA
FSIS decided not to increase the line speed from 140 to 175 birds per
minute (bpm) in poultry slaughtering facilities. In the preamble to the
final rule, the agency further noted concerns regarding 20 plants that
are already in a pilot program (HIMP) that allowed these pilot
facilities to increase line speeds to 175 bpm. USDA noted that the data
from this existing pilot program found that the average line speed in
these plants is 131 bpm--well below the currently allowed 140 bmp and
far below the 175 permitted.
The primary concern echoed in the many comments from academia,
worker organizations and consumer organization was the detrimental
effect of increased line speed on the health and safety of the tens of
thousands of workers in the industry. Poultry slaughter and processing
workers face many serious job hazards that can lead to serious injury,
illness and death. In fact workers in poultry plants are injured at
almost twice the rate of workers in private industry. Further the
incidence rate of occupational illness cases reported by the industry
is more than six times the national average for all U.S. industries.
And it is well established, that these rates are under reported. As
USDA noted in the preamble to the final rule, and OSHA stated in its
new emphasis program in the poultry industry ``the literature suggests
the likelihood of substantial under-reporting of worker injuries and
illnesses by poultry industry employers.''
Poultry processing workers make thousands of forceful cuts a day,
using knives and scissors, in cold and damp conditions, with acidic
chemicals being sprayed over the meat, and incidentally their bodies,
as it moves down the line. Work related musculoskeletal disorders
(MSD's) are of significant concern among poultry processing workers.
These disorders, including carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, and
epicondylitis, affect the nerves, tendons and muscles. Poultry workers
face incidence rates seven times higher than other manufacturing
workers for work related carpal tunnel syndrome. In 2014 and 2015, in
cooperation with the USDA, the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted studies at two different poultry
processing facilities and found high prevalence rates among production
workers for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS): 42 percent and 34 percent,
respectively of CTS among workers.
USDA acknowledged the danger to workers of increased line speeds in
the preamble of its final rule, and also acknowledged that more study
and review was needed before any change in line speed would be made.
There has been no such study or review done since this rule was
promulgated. Such a review would have to be prospective and take
years--to assure that the safety of the tens of thousands of workers is
not sacrificed on the altar of decreased government spending.
Just last month, OSHA sent a hazard alert letter to a poultry
company in Ohio for exposing workers to hazardous campylobacter
bacteria. Workers at the poultry processing plant had contracted the
infection--which can lead to serious gastrointestinal infection. This
same company has racked up nearly $1.9 million in fines from the U.S.
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration
from its two plants in Ohio. OSHA had earlier found that this same
company fired a 17 year old after his leg was amputated because of a
failure by the company to install a safety mechanism.
That is not an isolated instance. The speed of work in poultry
plants already causes far too many workplace injuries and may be
impacting consumer safety as well. OSHA citations and newly released
reports have found that to keep the lines going at full speed, workers
are often denied their legal right to use a bathroom, soiling
themselves at work. Poultry processing plants also penalize workers for
taking any sick days, so workers come to work sick while handling the
meat on the line.
As workers get injured because companies don't comply with basic
safety precautions, they don't file workers compensation and heal. The
companies do everything they can to preclude that. So instead, workers
leave the plants. Many plants report turnover between 50-100 percent.
Poultry processing workers are among the most vulnerable people in
the country. Most are minorities and immigrants; some are newly
resettled refugees. They are pursuing the American dream--working hard,
arduous jobs in a harsh environment--all to help put food on our table.
Congress should not allow the industry to speed up its lines after
the USDA studied the issue, heard from the American public, and
promulgated a rule that would not allow such an increase. This would be
a subversion of the entire rule making process, it would demonstrate
utter disregard for the rule of law, and would be a direct slap in the
face to the workers and communities that sacrifice to feed America.
[This statement was submitted by Deborah Berkowitz, Senior Fellow
National Employment Law Project.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Young Farmers Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to share our appropriations
priorities for fiscal year 2017. Congress and the USDA have made
significant progress in recent years towards better serving young,
beginning farmers. The National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC) is
excited for the role Federal funding can play furthering this growth.
NYFC represents, mobilizes, and engages young farmers to ensure
their success. We envision a country where young people who are willing
to work, get trained and take a little risk can support themselves and
their families in farming. NYFC has 29 local chapters across the
country and represents more than 1,400 dues-paying members.
NYFC requests the following funding be included in the fiscal year
2016 Agriculture Appropriations bill:
1. New, Beginning, and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Regional
Coordinators ($3.9 mil)
2. NRCS's Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) at the
mandatory program level ($500 mil)
3. FSA's Direct Operating Loans (to provide $1.46 billion in loans)
and Direct Farm Ownership Loans (to provide $1.5 billion in loans)
4. Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts
($1.5 mil)
5. Food Safety Outreach Program ($10 mil)
New, Beginning, and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Regional Coordinators
($3.9 mil)
NYFC has been working with the USDA to better serve young and
beginning farmers. In contrast to established farmers or those coming
from a farm family, beginning first-generation farmers require
different services from the USDA and need more help than others finding
these services. For example, young farmers often seek smaller operating
loans when launching a business than an established farmer. With this
in mind, NYFC helped create the popular microloan program at the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) that provides operating loans at an appropriate
scale for young farmers. Innovative program design and outreach has a
proven track record of reaching previously underserved young farmers.
To build on this success, NYFC has been urging the USDA, and FSA in
particular, to provide specialized resources for young, beginning
farmers and dedicated staff to help these farmers navigate the USDA.
The proposed regional coordinators do precisely this. The twenty-five
staff positions funded by this request will help young farmers access
the services that are already available to them, but underutilized,
such as conservation programs and farm loans. The $3.9 million in
funding for the proposed outreach staff, as requested in the
President's budget, is critical to amplify and leverage the resources
already provided for farmers at the USDA and build the next generation
of our nation's farmers.
NRCS's Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) at the
Mandatory
Program Level ($500 mil)
Between 2007 and 2012, over 7 million acres of agricultural land
were developed to nonfarm use in the United States.\1\ This contributes
to the more than 24 million acres converted from agriculture between
1982 and 2010, a disproportionately high amount of which contained
prime soils.\2\ Agricultural conservation easements are a proven tool
to stem this tide and protect farmland from development. ACEP provides
a critical source of matching funds for the land trusts and state and
local programs that are purchasing these easements across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. (2014). 2012
Census of Agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/
Full_Report/Volume_1,--Chapter_1_US/st99_1--001_001.pdf.
\2\ American Farmland Trust. (n.d.). Farmland by the Numbers.
http://www.farmland.org/programs/protection/American-Farmland-Trust-
Farmland-Protection-Farmland-by-the-numbers.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 Farm Bill provided $500 million in mandatory funding for
ACEP in fiscal year 2017. It is critical that this program retains its
full, mandatory funding. Even with this full mandatory funding level,
this program is funded at $81 million less than its component programs
prior to the 2014 Farm Bill. An additional reduction in funding would
be devastating to this program.
FSA's Direct Operating Loans (to provide $1.46 billion in loans) and
Direct Farm Ownership Loans (to provide $1.5 billion in loans)
FSA operating and ownership loans are crucial for young farmers.
Without these loans, many of these individuals would not be able to
access credit for their farm. In fiscal year 2015, the funding
available for Direct Farm Ownership Loans was dramatically increased--
from approximately $.5 billion to $1.5 billion. NYFC was excited to see
this increase, since we have heard numerous complaints from farmers
about insufficient funds in past years.
While this increased loan level met the demand for Direct Farm
Ownership Loans in fiscal year 2016, we faced a shortfall for Direct
Farm Operating Loans. With the recent fluctuations in crop prices, the
lending market has grown more cautious and more farmers have needed to
turn to FSA for their credit needs. Without an increase in loan
authority, we expect a shortfall in Direct Farm Operating Loans in
fiscal year 2017 and a significant backlog of loan applications by
beginning farmers and others not served by commercial credit. This
would be a serious problem for both these individual farmers and our
broader agricultural community, which is facing a shortage of beginning
farmers. We strongly support funding for these loan programs sufficient
to provide $1.46 billion in Direct Farm Operating Loans and $1.5
billion in Direct Farm Ownership Loans.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts ($1.5 mil)
Individual development accounts (IDAs) help young and beginning
farmers become successful entrepreneurs by matching funds that they put
into a savings account while taking required business planning courses.
IDA programs have been instrumental in helping young people start
businesses in states including Michigan, Iowa, and California. The
Beginning Farmer and Rancher IDA pilot program was created in the 2008
Farm Bill and reauthorized in 2014. In spite of the successes of
privately run programs around the country, the Federal IDA pilot
program has never been funded. As the existing farmer population
continues to age and the need for young farmers grows, it has never
been more important that the Federal IDA pilot program receive $1.5
million in funding.
Food Safety Outreach Program ($10 mil)
Food safety training has become a particularly important concern
for young farmers. The new food safety regulations, finalized by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last year, set forth expansive new
requirements for farms. Farmers are going to need training and outreach
in order to understand the maze of new requirements being asked of
them. The Food Safety Outreach Program, administered by USDA's National
Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), was authorized to meet this
need. It funds farmer and food processor training efforts focused on
helping small and mid-sized family farms; beginning farmers;
diversified, sustainable, and organic agricultural operations; and on-
farm processors adapt to new regulatory pressures.
We are very grateful for the $5 million funding that was
appropriated to this program last year. However, this only scratches
the surface of the on-the-ground need for training and outreach. We
request the Food Safety Outreach Program be funded at $10 million. At
this funding level, the Food Safety Outreach Program would reach
roughly 16,600 farmers across the country. While this number is small
relative to the need, without any training, the final FDA regulations
will hurt small and mid sized producers and processors and fall far
short of the goal of improving food safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. (2014). 2012
Census of Agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/
Full_Report/Volume_1,--Chapter_1_US/st99_1--001_001.pdf/
\2\ American Farmland Trust. (n.d.). Farmland by the Numbers.
http://www.farmland.org/programs/protection/American-Farmland-Trust-
Farmland-Protection-Farmland-by-the-numbers.asp.
[This statement was submitted by Eric Hansen Policy Analyst,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Young Farmers Coalition.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Organic Coalition
I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the National Organic
Coalition (NOC) to detail our fiscal year 2017 funding requests for
USDA programs of importance to the organic sector.
usda/agricultural marketing service (ams)
National Organic Program
Request: $9.094 million
Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing sectors of
agriculture, fueled by strong consumer demand. Over the last decade,
sales of organic food and beverages have averaged double-digit annual
growth. The organic sector has grown to over $36 billion industry in
annual sales with over 21,764 certified organic family farmers and
other businesses.
The National Organic Program (NOP) is the agency charged with
regulating and enforcing the USDA organic label. NOP was funded at
about $9.02 million for fiscal year 2016. We are requesting $9.094
million for NOP, consistent with the Administration's fiscal year 2017
budget request.
usda (ams, nass, ers)
Organic Data Initiative
Request: Report language for AMS--Continue and Expand Organic Price
Reporting
Request: Report language for NASS--Continue and Expand Organic Data
Collection
Request: Report language for ERS--Continue and Expand Organic Data
Analysis Work
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.'' In
addition to providing mandatory funding, Section 10004 of the 2014 Farm
Bill authorizes $5 million annually in discretionary funding 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.
Organic data collection and analysis at USDA has made significant
strides in recent years, but remains in its infancy.
We are requesting report language urging AMS, NASS, and ERS to
continue to expand their organic data collection within its base
activities.
usda/national institute of food and agriculture (nifa)
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 to help
farmers address some of the challenges of organic production and
marketing. As the organic industry grows, the demand for research on
organic agriculture is experiencing significant growth as well. This
research has broad applications to all sectors of agriculture, even
beyond the organic sector.
The Organic Transition Program was funded at $5 million in fiscal
year 2010, and about $4 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2016. The
Administration's fiscal year 2017 budget requests level funding. We are
seeking $5 million to restore the program to its fiscal year 2010
level.
As demand for organic food and beverages continues to grow at a
very fast rate, domestic production of organic food has not kept pace,
requiring a greater percentage of organic product to be imported to
meet the consumer demand. USDA's National Organic Standards Board has
identified a list of organic research priorities, many of which would
address challenges that have limited the growth in domestic production.
The funding increase that we are requesting would help to address
these needs. In addition, we are requesting the following report
language to accompany the increase in funding for the program:
``As domestic consumption of organic food and beverages
continues to grow, domestic supply is not able to keep up with
the demand. USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has
identified key organic research priorities, many of which would
help to address issues that have limited growth in organic
production in this country. The Committee provides an increase
in funding for the Organic Transition Program, and urges the
agency to strongly consider the NOSB organic research
priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2017 RFA for the
program.''
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
Request: Report language on public cultivar development
In recent decades, public resources for cultivar development have
dwindled, while resources have shifted toward genomics and
biotechnology, with a focus on a limited set of major crops. 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 changing local environments and climates.
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 AFRI to
make ``conventional'' plant and animal breeding a priority for AFRI
research grants, consistent with the concerns expressed by the
Appropriations Committee in preceding appropriations cycles.
Unfortunately, USDA has made only modest progress toward addressing
the classical breeding Farm Bill and appropriations directives. We are
requesting the following report language stressing that funding for
classical breeding and public cultivar development should be a distinct
priority and funding stream within AFRI, consistent with report
language included in the fiscal year 2016 Senate report:
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
specifies priority areas with the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on conventional
(classical) plant and animal breeding. The Committee strongly
concurs with the intent of this section, and notes the
importance of having publicly available cultivars and breeds
that are specifically bred to be adapted to the soils,
climates, and farming systems of farmers of all regions. The
Committee reiterates the request made in the fiscal year 2016
Senate report, and strongly urges NIFA to make public cultivar
and breed development an increased priority for funding within
the AFRI program and to create a separate priority area for
this important work. The Committee further requests a report
from the agency as to its plans for implementing this important
requirement. [NOTE: Most of this is identical to the language
in the fiscal year 2016 Senate Report, except for the bolded
text, which is updated.]
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
Request: Report language on organic research
Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing, and most
promising, sectors of the U.S. agricultural economy. The benefits for
organic research benefit not only the organic sector, but conventional
farmers as well. Research to help farmers with the latest science on
addressing pest problems and nutrient needs on their farms without
expensive off-farm inputs is extremely helpful to organic and
conventional farmers alike. We are requesting the following report
language urging NIFA to increase funding for the organic research
through the AFRI program, to help keep pace with the rapidly growing
organic sector, and to help address the shortage of domestic supply to
meet growing demand for organic products:
As in recent years, the Committee continues to prioritize funding
for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), as the
flagship competitive grants research program for agriculture. However,
in doing so, it is critical that the agency take actions to ensure that
AFRI meets the needs of the full spectrum of the U.S. food and
agriculture sector. The Committee notes that only about 0.1 percent of
AFRI funding was used for research to address challenges of the U.S.
organic sector during the period of fiscal years 2010-2014. As the
organic sector struggles to boost domestic production in order to
respond to the growing consumer demand for organic products, funding
for organic research is critical, and the AFRI program should be part
of that solution. The Committee urges the agency to execute a plan to
incorporate organic research needs into the AFRI program more fully,
and requests a report on the progress toward that goal.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
Request: $30 million
The SARE program has successfully funded on-farm research on
environmentally sound and profitable practices and systems, including
organic production. The reliable information developed and distributed
through SARE grants is very helpful to organic farmers. The President's
fiscal year 2016 budget requests $30 million for SARE, and we are
supporting that $30 million request for the combined activities of
SARE.
Food Safety Outreach Program
Request: $10 million
We are requesting $10 million to help small and mid-size farms and
small processing facilities comply with new proposed food safety
regulations. This training program, authorized in the Food Safety
Modernization Act of 2010 (FSMA), is one of the best and least costly
ways to improve food safety outcomes without resorting to excessive
farm regulation. The program received $5 million in fiscal year 2016.
The President's fiscal year 2017 budget requests $5 million. We are
requesting $10 million for fiscal year 2017, because food safety
training for family-scale operations is critical at this stage of FSMA
implementation.
Hatch Act Formula Grants
Request: 10 percent increase in funding, targeted to increase the
public plant and animal breeding capacity of land grant institutions to
address farmers' need for regionally adapted cultivars and breeds.
The capacity of our nation's land grant institutions (LGUs) to
address the needs of local farmers for locally and regionally adapted
cultivars and breeds has reached crisis levels, and funding for these
efforts has been in a steady decline. As a result, farmers must rely on
seeds and breeds that are outdated, and have not been improved to
address changing climates, pest challenges, farming systems, and
consumer demands. For all regions of our nation to optimize their
productive capacity in an environmentally sustainable manner, it is
critical that the farmers of the region have access to the most up-to-
date cultivars that have been breed in that region to meet ever-
changing conditions. A recent survey of LGUs shows that since 1994, the
U.S. has lost 33 percent of its public plant breeding programs. On a
regional basis, the analysis shows a 47 percent loss in public plant
breeding programs in the Northeast, a 33 percent loss in the Midwest, a
35 percent loss in the West, and a 21 percent loss in the Southeast.
Therefore, we are requesting a 10 percent increase in funding for
Hatch Act formula grants, to be targeted to foster the next generation
of public plant and animal breeders at our national LGUs by focusing on
the development of publicly available, regionally adapted cultivars and
breeds.
usda/rural business cooperative service
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)
Request: $2.5 million
ATTRA, authorized by Section 6015 on the Agricultural Act of 2014,
is a national sustainable agriculture information service providing
practical information and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers,
Extension agents, and educators interested in sustainable agriculture.
ATTRA interacts with the public through its call-in service and
website, and provides excellent publications to address some of the
frequently asked questions of farmers and educators. We request $2.5
million for fiscal year 2017 for ATTRA.
[This statement was submitted by Steven Etka, Policy Director,
National Organic Coalition.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2017
funding requests. On behalf of our 44 member organizations from around
the country, we submit the following USDA requests, in the order they
appear in the appropriations bill:
departmental administration
Office of the Secretary--Outreach Services Supporting New,
Beginning, and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers. We urge you to meet USDA's
request for $5 million for Department-wide enhanced outreach to
beginning, women, and military veteran farmers.
Office of Advocacy and Outreach. The Office of Advocacy and
Outreach coordinates policy and outreach in four vital areas--small
farms and beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers. We
urge that $1.2 million be provided for the OA&O, as requested by USDA.
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers. We strongly support USDA's
request of $10 million in discretionary funding. Combined with no
limitation in mandatory spending, this appropriation would restore the
historical program funding level to meet increased demand for technical
assistance by military veteran farmers, and other underserved
producers.
national institute of food and agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. We strongly
urge you to meet USDA's request of $30 million for this competitive
grants research program. SARE has helped turn farmer-driven research,
education, and extension into profitable practices for over 25 years.
The program consistently yields practical farm innovations on a more
accelerated timeframe than other competitive research programs. At $30
million, SARE would be at half its authorized level and half the level
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Due to high demand and
inadequate funding, USDA has been able to fund only 6 percent of SARE
pre-proposals for research and education competitive grants in recent
years. Increasing funding to $30 million would begin to address this
disparity. It would enable SARE to expand its prized work on soil
health, cover cropping, and rotational grazing. It will also allow USDA
to expand its backing for research to support beginning farmers,
including on-farm research in which innovative young farmers can work
with others in the SARE team to experiment with new production and
management systems on a portion of their farm. The increase would also
help SARE expand its unique graduate student research program, helping
create the next generation of agricultural scientists who will make the
breakthrough sustainability discoveries of the future.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program. We request $5
million to invest in innovative organic research with strong farmer
delivery mechanisms built in. Restoring this funding level will keep
organics from falling further behind in its fair share of the research
budget.
Food Safety Outreach Program. We strongly urge you to provide $10
million to help small and mid-size farms and small processing
facilities comply with the new FSMA food safety regulations. We are
pleased Congress appropriated $5 million for FSOP for fiscal year 16.
However, the major FSMA rules are final now and are in the process of
being implemented; at $10 million in fiscal year 2017, FSOP would reach
roughly 16,600 farmers across the country. While still small relative
to the need, this funding level addresses the magnitude of the
situation, namely that without adequate training, the FSMA regulations
will hurt small and mid sized producers and processors and fall far
short of the goal of improving food safety--no matter how much more
money gets appropriated for FSMA implementation and enforcement
overall.
farm service agency
Direct Farm Ownership Loans, Direct Operating Loans, and Individual
Development Accounts. Direct farm loans provide crucial capital for
beginning farmers and others not adequately served by commercial
credit. This is critical in light of the increasing age of farmers and
the land access challenges faced by new and aspiring farmers. USDA's
fiscal year 2017 budget proposes increased funding for Direct Farm
Operating loans in order to meet the high demand by farmers unable to
obtain commercial credit due to low commodity prices and a more
constrained lending market. Without this increase, FSA will face a
substantial funding shortfall and many farmers will be unable obtain
the operating capital they need to make it through the growing season.
Similarly, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development
Account (IDA) program, if funded, will enable limited-resource
beginning farmers and ranchers to save for asset-building purchases,
including equipment and breeding stock, to jump start their operations.
The IDA program requires a 50 percent local match as well as financial
management training as the core component of the program. We support
USDA's request for program levels of $1.5 billion for Direct Farm
Ownership loans, $1.46 billion for Direct Operating Loans, and $1.5
million for the IDA program. We also support the USDA request for
guaranteed ownership and operating loans.
New, Beginning, and Veteran Farmer and Rancher Initiatives. We
support the Administration's request for $3.9 million for a
certification program to help veteran farmers prequalify for loans, FSA
staff devoted to providing outreach to beginning and veteran farmers, a
pilot for a new farmer mentoring network, and funding for cooperative
agreements to support assistance to new farmers and to work with
landowners to help them transition their farm to the next generation.
This combined package will serve as a critical tool for supporting
veterans and investing in the next generation of farmers.
natural resources conservation service
Conservation Technical Assistance. CTA, a subset of Conservation
Operations, is the backbone of USDA's conservation programs. Through
CTA, NRCS field staff work with farmers to develop and implement
conservation plans to conserve resources on their farms. NRCS also uses
CTA funds to assess conservation practices and systems, and to collect,
analyze, and disseminate data on the condition of the nation's natural
resources. USDA's fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes to increase
CTA funding by 2.5 percent from $741.6 million to $760.7 million. We
urge you to approve this increase, which will help more producers
develop site-specific plans to conserve water, prepare for extreme
weather, and address natural resource concerns on their land.
rural business--cooperative service
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. For nearly 30
years, the ATTRA program has provided practical, cutting edge
information to farmers, extension agents, and others. In fiscal year
2015, ATTRA provided assistance to more than 2.2 million agricultural
producers and businesses, and organized presentations, workshops, and
field days in 25 locations across the U.S. attended by at least 15,000
people. For fiscal year 2017, we urge you to provide $2.75 million, and
increase of $250,000 over the President's request and last year's
funding level. This increase will support the expansion of ATTRA's
Armed to Farm program that trains returning military veterans to farm.
The small increase will enable ATTRA to expand its work to meet the
needs of aspiring veteran farmers. To date, veterans from 22 states
have attended these week-long trainings. A recent survey of Armed to
Farm participants found that 80 percent have continued to farm, have
started farming, or are in the process of starting a farm.
Value-Added Producer Grants. VAPG offers competitive grants to
farmers and ranchers developing farm- and food-related businesses that
boost farm income and create jobs in rural America. These grants may be
used to fund business and marketing plans and feasibility studies or to
acquire working capital to operate a value-added business venture or
alliance. Despite its proven success as a driver of rural economic
development, the President has not requested a funding increase for
VAPG since fiscal year 2014. We request $15 million in discretionary
funding and no changes in mandatory program spending, to bring the
program up to its 2014 funding levels.
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. RMAP provides business
training and microloans to owner-operated businesses with up to ten
employees. It targets very small business development, the leading job
creator in rural communities, and is the only Federal program that
finances the capitalization of revolving microloan funds for rural
areas. We support USDA's fiscal year 2017 budget request for $2.9
million for microlending and $2 million for grants to support
microbusiness training and technical assistance, as well as no changes
in mandatory program spending.
general provisions
A suite of distinct but interrelated farm bill programs, including
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP), work together to give farmers the tools they
need to protect and rebuild soil, provide clean water, and enhance
wildlife habitat. Congress should not re-open the 2014 Farm Bill
through the appropriations process. That bill cut $6 billion from
conservation programs, including over $2 billion from the CSP. The
fiscal year 2015 CRomnibus cut an additional 23 percent from CSP and 16
percent from EQIP, forcing USDA to turn away 75 percent of the eligible
producers who applied. Additional cuts to mandatory spending for
conservation will mean that the number of farmers denied access to the
programs will grow even larger; and less participation in voluntary
conservation programs means more pollution and more regulation, as well
as less productive and profitable farmlands. We strongly oppose changes
in mandatory program spending to these critical conservation programs.
Finally, we oppose the inclusion of any policy riders that limit
implementation and enforcement of the Packers & Stockyards Act.
Limiting USDA's ability to protect market transparency has no rightful
place in the appropriations bill or any other legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) strongly supports the
fiscal year 2017 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs. It is crucial
that the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) has adequate
resources and we request a minimum of $200 million to leverage
partnerships and tackle the complex natural resources conservation
issues facing the nation. Furthermore, we are strongly supportive of
coordinated Federal agency watershed planning and request funding for
the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, a minimum of $250 million.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
suppliers that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in
Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
production.
rcpp benefits & needs
OWRC strongly supports the RCPP, and while we are encouraged by the
request for $100 million in fiscal year 17 in the President's budget,
an increase of $7 million from 2016 enacted levels, additional funding
is still needed. The RCPP is a critical tool for districts and other
agricultural water suppliers in developing and implementing water and
energy conservation projects in Oregon. In the past, the Agricultural
Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) has been highly successful in
developing cooperative approaches on a basin-wide scale, and
historically, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative
(CCPI) partnerships allowed Federal, State and Local interests to
address Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) issues
in watershed basins and sub basins.
Federal support of water conservation activities funded through
NRCS programs, including the RCPP, is essential to the conservation of
our natural resources and critical to protecting our food, energy and
water supply. Financial assistance has diminished in recent years and
there is a backlog of unmet need. For example, in February 2016, USDA
announced that they received 265 applications requesting nearly $900
million dollars, which was four times the amount of available funding.
They were able to only fund 84 projects.
OWRC would like to thank the Administration for not cutting funding
to Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), in accordance with
the 2014 Farm Bill. As demonstrated by the huge demand for RCPP
funding, programs like EQIP need to remain in light of the need for
investment in conservation projects. While we applaud the continued
existence of EQIP, $1.65 billion is not enough to keep the program
effective. It is essential the EQIP have at least $2 billion in
appropriations funding if Congress would like to see widespread
results. Furthermore, with the numerous new and potential listings
under ESA and increased water regulations under the CWA, there is a
dire need for additional funding to support conservation efforts
nationwide.
While we recognize that the Administration has increased funding
for some NRCS programs, the need for additional financial assistance
still far outweighs the proposed budget. NRCS programs are essential to
irrigation districts in developing and implementing conservation
projects that benefit not only the individual farmers they serve but
also the entire watershed and community as a whole. Furthermore,
conservation projects also benefit the economy through job creation and
ensuring the future viability of American agriculture.
RCPP helps fill a funding void for multi-partner conservation
projects and allow farmers to pool together and leverage the dollars
invested in the off-farm project with the addition of EQIP on-farm
projects. The effects of drought and climate change combined with ESA
and CWA regulation has created a daunting set of circumstances for
irrigated agriculture in the West. RCPP and EQIP have become an
essential lifeline for farmers to adapt to climate change. It is
critical to increase funding for new eligible RCPP projects that
benefit the environment and economy and alleviate some of the negative
effects of drought and climate change.
examples of successful awep projects in oregon
Oregon has had several successful AWEP projects over the past
several years, including three from our member districts (described
below). Additionally, in Oregon, NRCS is helping develop the Save
Water, Save Energy Initiative, a multi-agency cooperative effort to
develop a clearinghouse of information on financial incentives and
technical expertise to assist districts and their water users in
implementing conservation measures. Additional innovative projects like
these could be developed and implemented in Oregon if more funding is
made available.
--The Whychus Creek/Three Sisters Irrigation District Collaborative
Restoration Project focuses on irrigation water efficiency with
irrigation improvements in the Upper Division of the Three
Sisters Irrigation District, which is the project partner. The
effort will improve stream flows and water quality for native
fish while providing farmers a reliable supply of water. Fiscal
year 2013 Funding: $180,000; fiscal year 2012 $251,300
--The Talent Irrigation District Project works with agricultural
producers to install conservation practices that will properly
utilize limited surface water resources, improve water quality
on flood irrigated land by converting to more efficient
irrigation systems, and apply irrigation water management to
eliminate irrigation runoff. Fiscal year 2013 Funding: $0;
Fiscal year 2012 Funding: $4,470
--The Willow Creek Project helps landowners in the Lower Willow Creek
Watershed portion of Malheur County convert to water-saving
irrigation systems, reduce irrigation runoff, and improve water
quality in Willow Creek and Malheur River. The project partner
is the Vale Oregon Irrigation District. Fiscal year 2013
Funding: $180,000; Fiscal year 2012 $251,300
small watershed rehabilitation program and watershed planning needs
OWRC also strongly supports the Small Watershed Rehabilitation
Program. Two of our members, Sutherlin Water Control District (SWCD)
and Middle Fork Irrigation District (MFID) have dams that were built
under PL-566. SWCD and MFID have received funds to begin the long and
expensive process of updating their 50 year old dams to today's
standards for safety, however; both districts will need continued
funding from the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program to fully update
their infrastructure.
SWCD has two dams built under PL-566 and while they were built to
seismic standards 50 years ago, they do not meet today's standards for
earthquakes. SWCD's dams serve as multi-purpose storage for the
community; providing flood control, irrigation water, municipal water
and recreation. Additionally, it is important to note that even a small
earthquake has the potential to severely damage the dams and cause
intensive flooding and damage in the surrounding area. To date, SWCD
has been authorized to receive funding for planning, design and
construction of one of their dams and planning and design on the other.
However, SWCD will still need considerable funding dollars to complete
construction on the second dam.
MFID is responsible for the management and maintenance of Clear
Branch Dam, a PL-566 dam within the Hood River watershed, which
provides a clean, dependable water supply and distribution system for
the irrigation of pears, apples, cherries and other crops.
Rehabilitation of the dam is needed to protect the public from
flooding, for access to a clean and dependable water supply, and to
maintain agricultural productivity. Additionally Laurance Lake, which
is formed by Clear Branch Dam, and its tributaries, are the primary
spawning and rearing habitat for Hood River Basin Bull Trout, a
threatened species under ESA. Rehabilitation of Clear Branch Dam will
improve fish passage connectivity for Bull Trout and improve water
temperature for spawning, rearing and migration.
Once planning and design studies are complete, both MFID and SWCD
will know what the costs will be to make the necessary improvements to
their dams, which is currently estimated at over $10 million for both
SWCD dams and $9.8 million for MFID. In light of the high costs to fix
just 3 of the PL-566 dams, a minimum of $250 million is needed to
address and repair high priority dams like the ones here in Oregon.
Our member districts, the farms and other water users they serve,
and the communities in which they are located benefit greatly from the
NRCS programs described in our testimony. Oregon's agricultural
community is actively committed to water conservation programs, but
those programs require robust Federal participation if the agricultural
community is to be able to continue its efforts to address Oregon's
water supply needs through conservation. Increasing the budget for NRCS
programs is a strategic investment that will pay both environmental and
economic dividends to Oregonians and America as a whole. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed fiscal year 17
budget for the USDA's NRCS Programs.
[This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director,
Oregon Water Resources Congress.]
______
Prepared Statement of Organic Farming Research Foundation
I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the Organic Farming
Research Foundation (OFRF) to detail our fiscal year 2017 funding
requests for USDA programs of importance to the organic farming sector.
usda/national institute of food and agriculture (nifa) organic
transitions program request: $5 million
The Organic Transition Program, is a critical research grant
program that helps farmers address some of the challenges of organic
production and marketing. The demand for research on organic
agriculture is outpacing the available funds in this program. According
to NIFA, only 38 percent of the applicants to this program receive
funding. USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has identified
a number of organic research priorities that cannot be funded due to a
lack of resources. An increase in the Organic Transition Program would
allow the NOSB to address some of the research issues that limit the
growth of the organic industry. And given the innovative nature of
organic agriculture, many of these research projects benefit all
farmers, not just those in the organic sector. The Organic Transition
Program was funded at $5 million in fiscal year 2010, and about $4
million for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. We are seeking $5 million
to restore the program to its fiscal year 2010 level to in order to
address the current low funding rate for this program.
usda/agricultural marketing service (ams) national organic program
request: $15 million
The National Organic Program is the regulatory program housed
within the USDA Agriculture Marketing Service responsible for
developing national standards for certified agricultural organic
products. These standards assure consumers that products within the
USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards. The NOP is vital
for meeting the growing consumer demand for organic products.
Recognizing continued growth of the industry, we ask for $15 million,
the full amount authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill. This amount reflects
the strong growth of the sector. The industry current returns over $200
for every $1 spent on the NOP so an increased investment would garner a
strong return for the Federal government. Moreover, this would give NOP
the resources it needs to fully enforce the organic regulations
globally, to continue to develop international equivalence arrangements
to expand the market for American organic products worldwide; and to
develop organic standards for emerging sectors.
usda/national institute of food and agriculture (nifa)--agriculture and
food research initiative- public cultivar and breed development--report
language
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
specifies priority areas with the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on conventional (classical)
plant and animal breeding. The Committee strongly concurs with the
intent of this section, and notes the importance of having publicly
available cultivars and breeds that are specifically bred to be adapted
to the soils, climates, and farming systems of farmers of all regions.
The Committee reiterates the request made in the fiscal year 2016
Senate report, and strongly urges NIFA to make public cultivar and
breed development an increased priority for funding within the AFRI
program and to create a separate priority area for this important work.
The Committee further requests a report from the agency as to its plans
for implementing this important requirement.
usda/national institute of food and agriculture (nifa)--agriculture and
food research initiative- organic research
As in recent years, the Committee continues to prioritize funding
for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), as the
flagship competitive grants research program for agriculture. However,
in doing so, it is critical that the agency take actions to ensure that
AFRI meets the needs of the full spectrum of the U.S. food and
agriculture sector. The Committee notes that only about 0.1 percent of
AFRI funding was used for research to address challenges of the U.S.
organic sector during the period of fiscal years 2010-2014. As the
organic sector struggles to boost domestic production in order to
respond to the growing consumer demand for organic products, funding
for organic research is critical, and the AFRI program should be part
of that solution. The Committee urges the agency to execute a plan to
incorporate organic research needs into the AFRI program more fully,
and requests a report on the progress toward that goal.
usda/sustainable agriculture research and education (sare) request: $30
million
The SARE program is another valuable research program with a focus
on environmentally sound practices and systems, with organic production
research as one of the beneficiaries. Consistent with the increased
demand for organic research, as well as the challenges presented by a
changing climate, we are requesting $30 million for the SARE Program to
assist farmers as they try to improve and adjust their growing
practices.
usda/rural business cooperative service--appropriate technology
transfer for rural areas (attra)request: $2.75 million
ATTRA, a national sustainable agriculture information service, is
an important source of information and technical assistance for for
farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, and educators on sustainable
agriculture.
usda/conservation technical assistance request: $760.7 million
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), a subset of Conservation
Operations, is the backbone of USDA's conservation programs. Through
CTA, NRCS field staff work with farmers to develop and implement
conservation plans to conserve resources on their farms. NRCS also uses
CTA funds to assess conservation practices and systems, and to collect,
analyze, and disseminate data on the condition of the nation's natural
resources. The President's fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes to
increase CTA funding by 2.5 percent from $741.6 million to $760.7
million. We urge you to approve this increase, which will help more
producers develop site-specific plans to conserve water, prepare for
extreme weather, and address natural resource concerns on their land.
[This statement was submitted by Jane E. Shey Policy Associate,
Organic Farming Research Foundation.]
______
Prepared Statement of Organic Trade Association
Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Merkley, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Laura Batcha, Executive Director and CEO of the
Organic Trade Association (OTA).\1\ The organic sector continues to be
one of the fastest-growing sectors of American agriculture, a vibrant
market that has grown to $39 billion in sales, at double digit growth
rates in recent years. The industry is comprised of over 19,500
American organic businesses, and creates jobs at four times the rate of
the economy as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based
business association for organic agriculture and products in North
America. OTA is the leading voice for the organic trade in the United
States, representing over 8,500 organic businesses across 50 states.
Its members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers'
associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants,
retailers and others. OTA's Board of Directors is democratically
elected by its members. OTA's mission is to promote and protect ORGANIC
with a unifying voice that serves and engages its diverse members from
farm to marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the growth in production, demand outpaces supply. Organic
food sales make up nearly 5 percent of total food sales, while organic
acreage is less than 1 percent of total U.S. cropland, and consumer
demand continues to grow. Over 80 percent of U.S. families, spanning
racial and economic lines, buy organic. Organic is a mainstream market,
and a production system with independent marketplace dynamics. When
viewed as a distinct class, organic ranks fourth in food/feed crop
production at farm-gate values. This parallel stream of commerce and
production is a bright spot in the American marketplace of innovation
and entrepreneurship.
The 2014 Farm Bill offered an enhanced array of resources to help
the organic sector continue to grow, innovate, create new markets and
jobs, provide certified operations new tools to succeed, and ensure
consumers access to safe and nutritious food supply. To facilitate
this, we respectfully request the following funding levels: USDA (AMS)
National Organic Program--$15 million; USDA (NIFA) Organic Transition
Research Program--$5 million; USDA (AMS) Organic Data Initiative--
$309,000; and USDA (NASS) Organic Data Initiative--$250,000. We also
request report language urging USDA to ensure organic operations have
full access to a variety of programs at the Department.
national organic program (nop)
OTA requests $15 million for NOP, which enforces the organic
regulations and ensures they evolve to keep pace with consumer
expectations. Recognizing the strong growth of the industry, we ask for
the full amount authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill. These resources would
allow NOP to fully enforce the organic regulations globally, develop
international equivalence arrangements to expand the market for
American organic products, and develop organic standards for emerging
sectors. Moreover, increased NOP funding is a strong investment, as
there is a return on investment of $200 for every dollar spent on NOP.
national organic certification cost-share program (noccsp)
The NOCCSP assists producers and handlers in obtaining
certification, but is not currently being implemented using all
congressionally-granted authority. Report language directing USDA to
act to the full extent of its authority would support both the
Department-wide desire to utilize all available programs to support
transition, and State organic programs, which are critical to
enforcement. We request the following language: ``Congress directs the
USDA to act to the full extent of its authority in administering the
NOCCSP to producers and handlers of agricultural products obtaining
certification under the national organic production program. This
includes reimbursing State organic program fees as well as
certification costs associated with transition to organic production
and handling. In particular, USDA should revise their NOCCSP Terms and
Conditions document in accordance with the letter and intent of the
law.''
organic transition research program (org)
OTA requests that ORG, which supports research, extension and
higher education programs for organic producers, be funded at $5
million. ORG consistently receives many more funding requests than it
can accommodate, and while organic sales have grown to nearly 5 percent
of retail agriculture sales, research funding provided to organic
agriculture has never exceeded 2 percent.
organic data initiative (odi)
ODI has been successful in providing valuable information to
Congress, government agencies, and the organic industry. We ask for a
modest amount $309,000 in discretionary funding for AMS (to continue
and expand collections of organic pricing information) and $250,000 for
NASS (to continue to collect and disseminate data regarding organic
agriculture).
additional requests for report language
Farm to School: ``The Farm to School program seeks to build healthy
communities by strengthening schools' supply chain and educational
linkages to fresh fruits, vegetables and other commodities; however,
increased access to organic foods in schools has not been fully
realized. Organic operations are well-positioned to create
opportunities for students to directly engage in agricultural STEM
opportunities and create lasting healthy eating habits, additional
goals of the law. The Committee understands the need for improved
access to and interaction with certified organic operations and directs
USDA to improve participation by certified organic operations in an
effort to reduce hunger and improve access to local healthy food.''
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program: ``The Committee
recognizes that to meet increasing consumer demand for organic
products, domestic producers must either shift to organic production or
enter organic production. Beginning farmers and ranchers selecting
organic production should be given the tools they need. USDA should
prioritize the needs of beginning farmers and ranchers opting for
organic production and support programs and services that address their
specific needs.''
Environmental Quality Incentives Program: ``The Committee
recognizes that the Organic Initiative is not intended to be the only
way for organic producers to access EQIP funding. USDA is encouraged to
track usage of all EQIP funds by certified organic producers, in order
to determine how to best meet their needs.''
Regional Conservation Partnership Program: ``RCPP allows for
conservation projects which leverage public and private funding.
Organic farmers implement a wide variety of creative methods to improve
the environment. The Committee urges that 5 percent of the RCPP budget
be allocated to projects focused on organic production and its
conservation benefits. In particular, NRCS funds may be used to provide
technical assistance to ``explore opportunities to diversify
agricultural operations and develop and apply sustainable agricultural
systems,'' which is particularly relevant to certified organic farmers
and those seeking to transition to organic. USDA should ensure that no
barriers exist to certified organic and transitioning farmers receiving
5 percent of RCPP funds.''
conclusion
Organic agriculture creates economic opportunities for farmers and
rural communities, while improving and conserving the environment and
giving consumers additional choice in the market. Meeting these
requests will help to ensure the continued growth of U.S. organic
agriculture by promoting and supporting the integrity of the organic
label, providing important data, and continuing to support research for
organic agriculture. I thank the Committee and look forward to working
with you to advance the organic industry.
[This statement was submitted by Laura Batcha, Executive Director &
CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of Oxfam America
On behalf of Oxfam America, Greater Minnesota Worker Center,
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, Northwest
Arkansas Workers' Justice Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, and
Western North Carolina Worker Center.
The following comments are submitted on behalf of a coalition of
organizations working to improve the conditions of workers in poultry
processing. We remain concerned by recent comments made by members of
Congress, about the need to increase poultry processing plant
evisceration line speeds, currently regulated by the USDA Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
In August 2014, USDA finalized a new rule on Modernization of
Poultry Slaughter Inspection after a full public comment period and
significant input from occupational health experts and workers. The new
rule explicitly removed the originally proposed line speed increase and
kept line speeds for plants choosing to adopt the modernized inspection
regime at 140 birds per a minute, the same rate that had preceded the
rulemaking. USDA kept in place this line speed despite a draft rule
that would have increased line speed to 175 birds per a minute after
reviewing evidence on the threat to worker health and safety by
increased speeds.
A new report by Oxfam America, ``Lives on the Line: The Human Cost
of Cheap Chicken, and recent worker survey by the Northwest Arkansas
Workers' Justice Center echoed nearly every study about labor in the
poultry industry: current line speed presents a constant threat to
workers' health and safety. It is fast, relentless, and dangerous.\1\
Any additional increase in line speeds will only add to those threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oxfam America, ``Lives on the Line: Human Cost of Cheap
Chicken'', October 26, 2015, http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/
research-publications/lives-on-the-line/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The high speed exacerbates dangers to workers from repetitive
motions, sharp tools, and chemicals; heightens risks to consumers as
workers cut corners while handling food; and increases liability for
the companies as risks grow. Poultry workers already suffer
occupational illnesses at six times the national average; carpal tunnel
syndrome at seven times the average; and amputations at three times the
average. Line speed directly impacts these numbers. In a survey of 302
workers in Alabama, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that
``78 percent of workers surveyed said that the line speed makes them
feel less safe, makes their work more painful and causes more
injuries.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fritzsche, Unsafe at These Speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge the members of this Committee to reject any attempts to use
the Appropriations process to legislate an increase in the maximum
allowable line speed in poultry processing plants, as such an increase
will only further exacerbate the well-documented risk of permanently
crippling injuries to poultry workers and undermine USDA's recent
rulemaking on this very issue.
Workers commonly say that they are treated like ``perpetual motion
machines'', doing the same motions an estimated 20,000 times per shift,
unable to pause or slow down for even a few seconds.\3\ Workers report
averaging between 35 and 45 birds per minute (BPM), meaning they
process a chicken every two seconds. The higher the line speed the
faster each worker must operate. More motions mean a greater likelihood
of developing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The constant pace means
workers rarely can step back, change position, or stretch. These risks
are exacerbated by cold and humid plant conditions. Dozens of medical
studies have documented the elevated rate of painful and crippling MSDs
in the workforce.\4\ They are also at risk of cuts, lacerations, and
amputations that increase as speed accelerates. The constant repetitive
motions cause pain in hands, fingers, arms, shoulders, backs, as well
as swelling, numbness, and loss of grip. These injuries affect the
ability to work, do chores, and even lift children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hall, Alexander, and Ordonnez, ``The Cruelest Cuts,'' Charlotte
Observer, September 30, 2008, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/
special-reports/cruelest-cuts/article9012839.html.
\4\ See, for example, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) report conducted by Kristin Musolin et al.,
Musculoskeletal Disorders and Traumatic Injuries Among Employees at a
Poultry Processing Plant, Health Hazard Evaluation 2012--0125, April
2013; Schulz et al., ``Upper Body Musculoskeletal Symptoms of Latino
Poultry Processing Workers and a Comparison Group of Latino Manual
Workers,'' American Journal of Industrial Medicine 56, no. 2 (July
2012); van Rijn et al., ``Associations Between Work-Related Factors and
Specific Disorders of the Shoulder--A Systematic Review of the
Literature,'' Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 36,
no. 3 (2010); GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and
Poultry Industry; Punnett and Wegman, ``Work-Related Musculoskeletal
Disorders: The Epidemiological Evidence and the Debate,'' Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology 14, no. 14 (2004); National Research
Council and Institute of Medicine, Musculoskeletal Disorders and the
Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities (2001); Latko et al.,
``Cross-Sectional Study of the Relationship Between Repetitive Work and
the Prevalence of Upper Limb Musculoskeletal Disorders,'' American
Journal of Industrial Medicine 36, no. 2 (1999); Frost et al.,
``Occurrence of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Among Slaughterhouse Workers,''
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 24, no. 4 (1998):
285; Werner et al., ``Median Mononeuropathy Among Active Workers: Are
There Differences Between Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Workers?''
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 33, no. 4 (1998): 374; Chiang
et al., ``Prevalence of Shoulder and Upper-Limb Disorders Among Workers
in the Fish-Processing Industry,'' Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health 19, no. 2 (1993).Hagberg, Morgenstern, and Kelsh,
``Impact of Occupations and Job Tasks on the Prevalence of Carpal
Tunnel Syndrome,'' Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
18, no. 6 (1992); Chiang et al., ``The Occurrence of Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome in Frozen Food Factory Employees,'' Kaohsiung Journal of
Medical Sciences 6, no. 2 (1990). Silverstein et al., ``Occupational
Factors and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome,'' American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 11, no. 3 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government Accountability Office documented how fast line
speeds prevents workers from taking precautions like sharpening knives:
``The faster the pace at which the production line moves, the less able
workers may be to perform tasks needed for safety.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and
Poultry Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-thirds (66 percent) of the poultry workers interviewed by
Southern Poverty Law Center in 2013 described suffering from hand or
wrist pain, swelling, numbness or an inability to close their hands.
This rate was even higher among workers doing the jobs most affected by
line speed reaching as high as 86 percent for workers cutting chicken
wings.
OSHA studied musculoskeletal disorder risk factors for years and
found that employers could protect workers from musculoskeletal issues
``by reducing the speed at which the employer performs the tasks.''
Still employer-mandated processing quotas and rapid line speeds mean
that workers often have to rush and strain themselves to keep up.
Workers who reported an injury due to line speed also reported higher
mean and median piece/pound processing rates per minute, in some cases
almost double the rates reported by workers who did not experience
injury due to line speed. Women also reported higher rates of line
speed related injury than men.
Over half (54 percent) of workers surveyed answered yes to the
question, ``Have you ever been forced to do things because of time
pressure or line speed that might harm the health and safety of the
consumer?''
Poultry workers from across the country have felt the consequences
of excessive line speed:
--One worker in reported that the speed inched up as the hours went
by: ``As soon as the first shift leaves, around six o'clock,
that's when it speeds up and starts to get hard. You can't
stand the pain on your shoulders, your hands, because of that
repetitive movement.''
--``There are so many problems happen as the lines go so fast,'' one
worker said. ``There might be 20-plus chickens that we cut [in]
one minute. The line is going so fast that sometimes we
accidentally cut our hands.''
--Another worker offered, ``Sometimes I get headache because the line
is fast. I would almost pass out sometimes [because] the line
is fast.''
--``These jobs were very repetitive,'' said a worker, who cut chicken
wings and breasts. ``My hands swelled up and were extremely
painful. When I was in so much pain that I had to stop, I asked
for breaks, but the company told me I had to keep working.
Because of the pressure to work fast, I can't use my arms,
wrists and hands the way I could before I worked in the poultry
plant.''
--Current worker: ``The majority of people who work there harm their
fingers and their hands due to the line speed. Everyone knows
this1A. . .It's too much chicken . . .Too fast.''
We recommend the members of this Committee reject any attempts to
use the Appropriations process to legislate an increase the maximum
allowable line speed in poultry processing plants, as such an increase
will only further exacerbate the well documented risk of permanently
crippling injuries to poultry workers and undermine USDA's recent
rulemaking.
[This statement was submitted by Jeffrey Buchanan, Senior Domestic
Policy Advisor, Oxfam America.]
______
Prepared Statement of Pickle Packers International, Inc.
summary
Sustained and increased funding is desperately needed to maintain
the research momentum built over recent years and to defray rising
fixed costs at laboratory facilities. Companies in the pickled
vegetable industry generously participate in funding and performing
short-term research, but the expense for long-term research needed to
insure future global competitiveness is too great for individual
companies to shoulder on their own.
Additional Budget Requests for fiscal year 2017
Funding needs for USDA/ARS laboratories are as follows:
REQUESTS FOR PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT--PICKLED VEGETABLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Disease of Crops............................... $500,000
Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products & Food 500,000
Safety.................................................
DApplied Crop Genomics.................................. 500,000
DSpecialty Crops........................................ 500,000
---------------
Total Program Enhancements Requested--Pickled $2,000,000
Vegetables.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA/ARS Research Provides:
--Consumers with over 150 safe and healthful vegetable varieties
providing vitamins A, C, folate, magnesium, potassium, calcium,
and phytonutrients such as antioxidant carotenoids and
anthocyanins.
--Genetic resistance for many major vegetable diseases, assuring
sustainable crop production with reduced pesticide residues--
valued at nearly $1 billion per year in increased crop
production.
--Classical plant breeding methods combined with bio-technological
tools, such as DNA markers, genetic maps, and genome sequencing
to expedite traditional breeding and increase efficiency.
--New vegetable products with economic opportunities amidst
increasing foreign competition.
--Improved varieties suitable for machine harvesting, assuring post
harvest quality and marketability.
--Fermentation and acidification processing techniques to improve the
efficiency of energy use, reduce environmental pollution, and
reduce clean water intake while continuing to assure safety and
quality of our products.
--Methods for delivering beneficial microorganisms in fermented or
acidified vegetables and producing reduced sodium, healthier
products.
--New technology and systems for rapid inspection, sorting and
grading of pickling vegetable products in the field and at the
processing facility.
Health and Economical Benefits
--Health agencies continue to encourage increased consumption of
fruits and vegetables, useful in preventing heart disease,
cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
--Vegetable crops, including cucumbers, peppers, carrots, onions,
garlic and cabbage (sauerkraut), are considered ``specialty''
crops and not part of commodity programs supported by taxpayer
subsidies.
--Current farm value for just cucumbers, onions and garlic is
estimated at $2.4 billion with a processed value of $5.8
billion. These vegetables are grown and/or manufactured in all
50 states.
The pickled vegetable industry strongly supports and encourages
your committee in its work of maintaining and guiding the Agricultural
Research Service. To accomplish the goal of improved health and quality
of life for the American people, the health action agencies of this
country continue to encourage increased consumption of fruits and
vegetables in our diets. Accumulating evidence from the epidemiology
and biochemistry of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity
supports this policy. Vitamins (particularly A, C, and folic acid),
minerals, and a variety of antioxidant phytochemicals in plant foods
are thought to be the basis for correlation's between high fruit and
vegetable consumption and reduced incidence of these debilitating and
deadly diseases.
As an association representing processors that produce over 85
percent of the tonnage of pickled vegetables in North America, it is
our goal to produce new products that increase the competitiveness of
U.S. agriculture as well as meet the demands of an increasingly diverse
U.S. population that is encouraged to eat more vegetables. The profit
margins of growers continue to be narrowed by foreign competition. This
industry can grow by meeting today's lifestyle changes with reasonably
priced products of good texture and flavor that are high in nutritional
value, low in negative environmental impacts, and produced with assured
safety from pathogenic microorganisms and from those who would use food
as a vehicle for terror. With strong research to back us up, we believe
our industry can make a greater contribution toward reducing product
costs and improving human diets and health for all economic strata of
U.S. society.
Many small to medium sized growers and processing operations are
involved in the pickled vegetable industry. We grow and process a group
of vegetable crops, including cucumbers, peppers, carrots, onions,
garlic, cauliflower, cabbage (Sauerkraut) and Brussels sprouts, which
are referred to as `minor' crops. None of these crops are in any
``commodity program'' and do not rely on taxpayer subsidies. However,
current farm value for just cucumbers, onions and garlic is $2.4
billion with an estimated processed value of $5.8 billion. These crops
represent important sources of income to farmers and rural America.
Growers, processing plant employees and employees of suppliers to this
industry reside in all 50 states. To realize its potential in the
rapidly changing American economy, this industry will rely upon a
growing stream of appropriately directed basic and applied research
from four important research programs within the Agricultural Research
Service.
applied crop genomics
The USDA/ARS has the only vegetable crops research unit dedicated
to the genetic improvement of cucumbers, carrots, onions and garlic.
ARS scientists account for over half of the total U.S. public breeding
and genetics research on these crops. Their efforts have yielded
cucumber, carrot and onion cultivars and breeding stocks that are
widely used by the U.S. vegetable industry (i.e., growers, processors,
and seed companies). These varieties account for over half of the farm
yield produced by these crops today. All U.S. seed companies rely upon
this program for developing new varieties, because ARS programs seek to
introduce economically important traits (e.g., pest resistances and
health-enhancing characteristics) not available in commercial varieties
using long-term high risk research efforts. The U.S. vegetable seed
industry develops new varieties of cucumbers, carrots, onions, and
garlic and over twenty other vegetables used by thousands of vegetable
growers. Their innovations meet long-term needs and bring innovations
in these crops for the U.S. and export markets, for which the U.S. has
successfully completed.
ARS scientists have developed genetic resistance for many major
vegetable diseases that is estimated at $670 million per year in
increased crop production, not to mention environmental benefits due to
reduction in pesticide use. New research has resulted in cucumbers with
improved disease resistance, pickling quality and suitability for
machine harvesting. New sources of genetic resistance to viral and
fungal diseases, tolerance to environmental stresses, and higher yield
have recently been identified along with molecular tools to expedite
delivery of elite cucumber lines to U.S. growers.
There are still serious vegetable production problems which need
attention. For example, losses of cucumbers, onions, and carrots in the
field due to attack by pathogens and pests remains high, yield and
nutritional quality needs to be significantly improved and U.S.
production value and export markets should be enhanced. Genetic
improvement of all the attributes of these valuable crops are at hand
through the unique USDA lines and populations (i.e., germplasm) that
are available and the new biotechnological methodologies that are being
developed by the group. The achievement of these goals will involve the
utilization of a wide range of biological diversity available in the
germplasm collections for these crops. Classical plant breeding methods
combined with bio-technological tools such as DNA markers, genetic
maps, and genome sequences to expedite traditional cucumber, carrot and
onion breeding and increase its efficiency. With this, new high-value
vegetable products based upon genetic improvements developed by our
USDA laboratories can offer vegetable processors and growers expanded
economic opportunities for U.S. and export markets.
quality and utilization of agricultural products & food safety
The USDA/ARS maintains a food science research unit that our
industry looks to for new scientific information on the safety of our
products and development of new processing technologies related to
fermented and acidified vegetables. Major accomplishments include:
pasteurization treatments currently used for most acidified vegetables;
the preservation technology used for manufacturing shelf stable sweet
pickles; fermentation technology (purging) used to prevent the
formation of air pockets within fermented pickles; and a fermentation
technology that eliminates the use of sodium chloride for commercial
cucumber brining operations. With the passage of the Food Safety
Modernization Act, commercial producers of acidified foods must prove
that they meet critical limits established for microbial safety. USDA/
ARS has provided technical expertise and the scientific data currently
used to support required process filings, and have helped establish a
scientific basis for acidified food regulations. Further research is
needed to evaluate safe and efficient processing conditions for
environmentally friendly low salt and calcium salt vegetable
fermentation technologies. Additional funding is needed for this and
other important research initiatives detailed below.
First, nearly all retail pickled vegetables are pasteurized for
safety and shelf stability. Current steam and water bath pasteurizers
rely on technology from the 1940s and 50s. Promising new technologies
include continuous flow microwave technology and ``hot-fill-and-hold''
pasteurization. Research efforts to further develop these technologies
will reduce water use and significantly improve energy efficiency with
new, scientifically validated thermal processing technologies.
Second, additional research that offers significant economic and
environmental advantages to the U.S. industry includes the reduction or
replacement of salt in commercial vegetable fermentations and bulk
acidification. Calcium substitution of salt in commercial vegetable
processing has the potential to significantly reduce chloride levels in
waste waters and sludge currently delivered to landfills; and create
opportunities to manufacture reduced sodium, fermented vegetable
products. Reducing environmental impact and production costs for the
manufacture of healthier vegetable products is essential to the
sustainability of the U.S. industry.
Third, the market for fermented vegetable products is rapidly
growing in the U.S. These products are attractive to consumers seeking
``natural'' or ``traditional'' foods. Novel fermented foods are being
imported, manufactured and sold by small business (farmer's markets)
and large companies. For many of these fermented foods, little is known
about the safe fermentation conditions, appropriate storage times and
temperatures and shelf life. While these fermented foods may contain
healthful probiotic bacteria and offer new flavors and expanded markets
for vegetable grown in the US, the potential microbial hazards are
undefined. Little data is available in the scientific literature to
define safe fermentation practices. Research is needed to help both
producers and regulatory agencies define safe fermentation practices to
meet food safety modernization act standards for novel imported and
locally manufactured fermented vegetable products.
specialty crops
The USDA/ARS conducts research on the development and application
of innovative engineering technologies for rapid, nondestructive
measurement and grading of fruits and pickling vegetables to ensure and
enhance product quality and marketability, reduce food loss, and
achieve labor cost savings. The research program is well recognized for
its pioneering research and development and technology transfer effort
in imaging and spectroscopic inspection technologies, which have found
wide applications in food quality and safety inspection. Currently, ARS
researchers are developing a new generation of sensing technologies,
which are much more effective and efficient than the current inspection
systems, for quality evaluation and grading of pickling vegetables and
fruits at the processing facility and in the field.
Sensor and automation is critical to ensuring and enhancing food
quality and safety, reducing product loss and production cost, and
improving traceability. Modern automated food quality inspection
systems have been in use for some time, but they have not been able to
fully meet the increasing demands for food quality, safety and
traceability from the consumer and by the governmental regulatory
agencies. The ARS engineering research program will provide new,
cutting-edge food quality inspection technology for pickling vegetable
and specialty crop growers and processors, helping them deliver best
quality, consistent products to the consumer at affordable prices.
Expansion of the ARS research in food quality sensing and automation
would enable addressing key technical challenges in the development of
new generation food quality inspection technology and allow fast
transfer and dissemination of the developed technologies to the U.S.
specialty crop industries. This would help the U.S. specialty crop
industries maintain competitive advantages in the global marketplace.
emerging disease of crops
USDA/ARS vegetable research addresses national problems confronting
the vegetable industry of the southeastern U.S. The mission of the
laboratory is to develop disease and pest resistant vegetables, and
also new, reliable, environmentally-sound disease and pest management
practices that do not rely on conventional pesticides. Programs
currently address 14 crops, including those in the cabbage, cucumber,
and pepper families, all of major importance to the pickling industry.
USDA/ARS research is recognized world-wide, and its accomplishments
include over 150 new vegetable varieties and many improved management
practices.
Increasing current funding levels for this program will directly
benefit the southeastern vegetable industry. Vegetable growers depend
heavily on synthetic pesticides to control diseases and pests. Without
the availability of certain pesticides that have been eliminated for
use, producers are likely to experience crop failures unless other
effective, non-pesticide control methods are readily identified. In
this context, the research on improved, more efficient and
environmentally compatible vegetable production practices and resistant
varieties continues to be absolutely essential. This research can help
provide U.S. growers with a competitive edge they need to sustain and
keep their industry vibrant, allowing it to expand in the face of
increasing foreign competition. Current cucumber varieties are highly
susceptible to a new strain of the downy mildew pathogen which has
caused considerable damage to commercial cucumber production in
eastern, midwestern, as well as western states in recent years.
Increasing funding to allow hiring a new plant pathologist will
facilitate the conduct of key research to address this critical
situation.
funding needs for the future
It remains critical that USDA/ARS funding continues the forward
momentum in pickled vegetable research that the U.S. now enjoys and to
increase funding levels as warranted by planned expansion of research
projects to maintain U.S. competitiveness.
It is important to note that fiscal year 2015 Enacted/fiscal year
2016 Estimated funding for USDA/ARS laboratories totaled $11,247,000.
However, fiscal year 2015 Enacted/fiscal year 2016 Estimated funding
for all cucurbits equaled just $3,916,000 with only $2,112,000 directed
toward cucumber and pickled vegetable research. For fiscal year 2017,
PPI is requesting an additional $2,000,000 in program enhancements that
will provide needed research for cucumber and pickled vegetables.
emerging disease of crops
There is a critical need to increase funding to support plant
pathology research to address cucumber diseases, especially the disease
caused by a new strain of the downy mildew pathogen responsible for
recent extensive damage to cucumber and other cucurbit productions in
the eastern states. A pathologist is especially needed to characterize
pathogen strains and to develop new management approaches, as well as
resistant cucumber varieties, to combat the disease. Ultimately, a new
plant pathologist position will accomplish research that results in
more effective protection of cucumbers from disease without the use of
conventional pesticides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year...............................
2015 Enacted............................ $598,000
2016 Estimate........................... 598,000
2017 (Proposed budget).................. To be determined
-----------------------------
2017 Additional Request (Plant 500,000
Pathologist & support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quality and utilization of agricultural products and food safety
The current funding includes research and development for a variety
of vegetable products, including fermented and acidified vegetables.
For new research initiatives to reduce energy and water use, reduce
environmental impact from commercial fermentations, and develop new
health-promoting food (probiotic) technology, we request additional
support of $500,000 to fully fund the scientists and support staff,
including graduate students and post-doctorates, for carrying out the
research and acquiring necessary equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year...............................
2015 Enacted............................ $595,000
2016 Estimate........................... 595,000
2017 (Proposed budget).................. To be determined
-----------------------------
2017 Additional Request (Post-doctoral ............................
and Pre-doctoral Research Associate, 500,000
new equipment & support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
applied crop genomics
Emerging diseases, such as downy mildew, southern root knot
nematode, and angular leaf spot of cucumber, threaten production of the
crop in all production areas. Yield and quality traits found in diverse
cucumber germplasm must be bred into U.S. crop cultivars. We request an
additional $500,000 to fully fund the scientists and support staff,
including graduate students and post-doctorates for identifying,
researching and applying genomic tools to develop new sources of
genetic resistance to emerging diseases, improve yield and quality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year...............................
2015 Enacted............................ $458,000
2016 Estimate........................... 458,000
2017 (Proposed budget).................. To be determined
-----------------------------
2017 Additional Request (Post-doctoral ............................
and Pre-doctoral Research Associate & 500,000
support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
specialty crops
The current funding is far short of the level needed to carry out
research on inspection, sorting and grading of pickling cucumbers and
other vegetable crops to assure the processing and quality of pickled
products. An increase of $500,000 in the current base funding level
would be needed to fund the research engineer position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year...............................
2015 Enacted............................ $145,000
2016 Estimate........................... 145,000
2017 (Proposed budget).................. To be determined
-----------------------------
2017 Additional Request (Research 500,000
Engineer & support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This statement was submitted by Brian Bursiek, Executive Vice
President, Pickle Packers International, Inc.]
______
Prepared Statement of Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR)
The Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR) urges the Committee
to prioritize and provide an increase to the fiscal year 2017 budget
authority (BA) appropriations (non-user fees) for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of $2.85 billion, an increase of $120 million over
fiscal year 2016. Our request is based on FDA's current workload,
planned programs, and emerging public health priorities. Additionally,
SWHR supports an allocation of $10 million for the FDA Office of
Women's Health (OWH) for fiscal year 2017.
For over 25 years, SWHR has been widely considered a thought-leader
in promoting research on biological differences in disease and we are
dedicated to transforming women's health through science, advocacy, and
education.
Our organization has long advocated that drug and device scientific
advancements should demonstrate adequate subpopulation testing prior to
approval by FDA. The Agency has made great improvements in improving
the completeness and quality of demographic subgroup data collection,
reporting and analysis of subgroup data collection, identifying
barriers to subgroup enrollment in clinical trials, employing
strategies to encourage greater participation, and making demographic
subgroup data more available to the public. However, in order for
greater improvement, Congress must invest in FDA's core functions. SWHR
is committed to the belief that the FDA, as regulator of products
representing approximately 20 percent of American consumer spending,
should receive priority funding as its responsibilities are critical to
the health and well-being of all Americans.
The FDA has broad jurisdiction and is responsible for:
--Protecting public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and
security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products,
medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and
products that emit radiation.
--Advancing public health by helping to speed innovations that make
medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable and
providing accurate, science-based information needed by
patients and consumers to safely use medicines and foods to
maintain and improve their health.
--Regulating the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of tobacco
products to protect public health and to reduce tobacco use by
minors.
--Ensuring the security of the food supply and by fostering
development of medical products to respond to deliberate and
naturally emerging public health threats.
Each year, Congress adds ever increasing responsibilities to the
Agency (most recently food safety, sunscreen labeling, drug safety, and
compounding) but fails to provide appropriate funds to meet those
demands reasonably, thereby straining the FDA's abilities and forcing
it to choose among competing public health priorities. This is a
dangerous precedent which poorly serves the health and safety of the
America people. Many of the mandated programs that Congress has tasked
the Agency with are not covered by user fees, leaving FDA in need of a
larger budget authority appropriation in order to fulfill its duty.
SWHR believes that sustained investment in the FDA and its regulatory
responsibilities is absolutely essential if the U.S. is to meet the
needs of its citizens, especially women, and maintain its gold standard
in scientific transformation and medical product advancement.
SWHR is a strong supporter of stakeholder engagement with the
Agency, and are active in the user fee agreement process for
prescription and generic drugs, as well as medical devices and
biologics. Such opportunities allow for FDA to discuss process
improvements that will speed the approval of safe and effective medical
products for patients and consumers. The increased emphasis on patient-
focused drug development, risk/benefit analysis, and innovative
clinical trial design will only further efforts to bring lifesaving
treatments to market.
However, Congressionally-allocated funds are desperately needed to
support FDA post-market surveillance activities, improve technical
assistance to industry to reduce review times, and enhance its
communications with patients and consumers. Post-market surveillance is
critical to ensure that drugs and devices, when available to a wider
patient population, are truly safe and effective for all populations.
The American public cannot, and should not, rely on industry to conduct
the bulk of these activities. The 21st Century Cures Act, recently
passed by the House, and its companion Senate Innovation's effort,
focus on the need to bring medical products to the market more quickly.
A large part of that process is improving clinical trials to be faster
and less expensive. The biopharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical
services industries, along with the FDA and other key stakeholders,
have made great strides in improving the clinical trial process;
however, clinical trials will never be able to give us the information
that is obtained once the drug or device is approved and used in the
population. This makes it more critical that FDA has a strong and
robust post marketing surveillance program. While the MedWatch and
similar programs do exist, they will need additional resources to
ensure FDA staff and others as appropriate can quickly respond to
reduce morbidity and mortality related to potential safety issues.
Additional FDA funding will also support improved technical
assistance for its industry partners by supporting staff resources to
develop, review, and approve guidance. Timely release of guidance
documents is critical to ensure industry partners can develop processes
and submit applications with the most pertinent information for review.
Such releases would also allow for increased opportunities for
innovation by promptly responding to a changing drug/device development
environment.
Finally, additional funding would allow FDA to enhance its
communications with the public. Such funding could support building a
consumer-friendly FDA interface; making it much easier for patients and
consumers to navigate. Funding could also be used to continue the
patient-focused drug development meetings and other workshops and
listening sessions, allowing FDA to connect directly with the American
public it serves.
action plan to enhance the collection and availability of demographic
subgroup data
FDA, working with industry, must ensure that clinical trials
examine differences in subpopulations ensuring appropriate
representation to achieve statistical significance and analysis. In
2014, FDA released its ``Action Plan to Enhance the Collection and
Availability of Demographic Subgroup Data'' (Action Plan), as directed
by section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA). The Action Plan, largely developed and
implemented by the OWH and the Office of Minority Health, provided an
outline of long and short term actions and implementation strategies
the FDA is undertaking to examine sex, race, ethnicity and age-based
differences through medical research, to allow subgroup-specific data
to be more widely available for use in medical practice, and to improve
the participation of women, minorities and the elderly in research
trials.
SWHR hopes that FDA will continue to work towards the goals
outlined in that plan which will be beneficial for patients, consumers,
and the healthcare community at large. The Agency has worked with
stakeholders to ensure that the subgroup data is appropriately
analyzed, reported and presented by FDA and sponsors in a meaningful
way to patients and the medical community. However, many components of
the Action Plan remain, for example, it is critical that the Agency
update its 2005 Guidance for Industry on the Collection of Race/
Ethnicity Data in Clinical Trials.
As part of the Action Plan, FDA also has a critical regulatory role
in human subject research. Women and minority populations have
historically been underrepresented in medical research, and although
women and minorities are now being enrolled in clinical trials at
greater rates, much work remains to ensure that these groups are
included and retained in trials at appropriate levels to provide
statistically significant results. Through the Action Plan, FDA
recognized the need to increase representation of these population
groups in clinical trials and the need for more analyses on how medical
drugs and devices in development affect women and men differently as
well as racially, ethnically and by age. Women should have confidence
that drugs, devices and biologics approved for patient use have been
appropriately analyzed for sex differences and the finding publicly
reported in a meaningful way for usage by both healthcare providers and
patients.
SWHR has long sought the transparency of demographic subgroup data
that FDA uses as the basis of its approval decision. This issue was a
priority area of the Action Plan and in 2014, the Agency launched the
``Drug Trial Snapshot'' website to provide information about who
participated in clinical studies for new molecular entities and
original biologics. The Snapshot website also includes information on
study design, results of efficacy and safety studies, and information
on any differences in efficacy or safety that were apparent in subgroup
populations.
The Snapshot website is a step in the right direction; however, we
believe that the website could be improved to revolutionize the way
Snapshots benefits patients. SWHR believes that Snapshots could be
improved by contextualizing the data presented with all relevant
information relating to the intersection of age, race, and sex to
provide those using the website a thorough understanding of their
benefits and risk as individual users of a certain drug or biologic.
Additionally, the website is not easily found on FDA's webpage. FDA has
signaled that they view the website as an iterative process, and are
open to hearing stakeholder feedback on how to improve the site.
However, these efforts require the Agency to receive sustained funding
and resources and SWHR believes that Congress must commit to continued
and robust investment in FDA to provide for the advancement and
increased transparency of drug development.
fda office of women's health
OWH has proven itself to be vital player in advancing women's
health issues at the Agency; including the expansion of existing
research projects and helping to foster new collaborations related to
advancing the science of women's health. OWH's programs ensure that sex
and gender differences in the efficacy of drugs (such as metabolism
rates), devices (sizes and functionality), and diagnostics are taken
into consideration in reviews and approvals.
American women rely on the tools OWH provides to them to help with
their healthcare decisions. Each year, OWH consumer pamphlets are the
most requested of any documents at the government printing facility in
Colorado; with more than 8 million distributed to women across America,
including target populations such as Hispanic communities, seniors and
low-income citizens. These pamphlets discuss topics such as breast
cancer screening, diabetes, menopause hormone therapy, and medication
use during pregnancy. In addition, OWH's website is a vital tool for
consumers and physicians, providing free, downloadable fact sheets on
over one hundred different illnesses, diseases, and health related
issues for women. Among the most popular, OWH provides medication
charts on select chronic diseases, listing all the treatment options
available for each disease. We must maintain these vital functions that
healthcare professionals and the public understand and utilize daily to
make healthcare decision.
In partnership with the National Institutes of Health Office of
Research on Women's Health, OWH created a website for on-line sex and
gender courses to provide additional educational tools for medical
practice and scientific innovation. All three courses offer free
continuing education credits for physicians, pharmacists and nurses.
Last year, OWH unveiled the Women's Health Research Roadmap
(Roadmap) to build on knowledge gained from previously funded research
and assist OWH in coordinating future research activities with other
FDA research programs and external partners. The Roadmap outlined
priority areas where new or enhanced research is needed, creates
strategic direction for OWH to help maximize the impact of OWH
initiatives, and ultimately promote optimal health for women. It was
also designated a key FDA commitment in FDA's August 2014 Action Plan.
To fully implement the Research Roadmap and continues it's
important work, SWHR requests an allocation of $10 million for the FDA
Office of Women's Health (OWH) for fiscal year 2017. We believe these
recommended budget allocations would enable the FDA to address resource
shortages across its centers, but also implement critical improvements
in infrastructure and support a substantial investment in the OWH, the
office responsible for advancing the health of women through policy,
science, and outreach and one of the leading voices in increasing the
participation and analysis of women and other subpopulations in
clinical trials.
In conclusion, we thank the Committee for its past support of the
FDA and its centers. It is our hope that the Committee continue to
invest in the Agency to help ensure a healthier future for all
Americans. We look forward to continuing to work with you.
[This statement was submitted by Leslie S. Ritter, Vice President,
Public Policy, Society for Women's Health Research.]
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2017 budgets for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and
Farm Service Agency (FSA). The Wildlife Society was founded in 1937 and
is an international non-profit scientific and educational association
representing nearly 10,000 professional wildlife biologists and
managers. Our mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife
professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through
science-based management and conservation. We respectfully request the
following programmatic funding in fiscal year 2017 to ensure that the
Federal budget supports the important work of managing and conserving
our nation's wildlife resources. Thank you in advance for considering
the views of wildlife professionals.
animal and plant health inspection service
Wildlife Services, a unit of APHIS, resolves human/wildlife
conflicts and protects agriculture, human health and safety, personal
property, and natural resources from wildlife damage and wildlife-borne
diseases in the United States. The Wildlife Society recognizes wildlife
damage management as an important part of modern wildlife management.
In fiscal year 2017, the President has proposed a decrease in
funding for Wildlife Damage Management by approximately $15 million.
While we acknowledge this decrease partially reflects the removal of a
one-time capital investment of $5.8 million in aircraft equipment from
fiscal year 2016, we are highly concerned by the additional extent of
this proposed decrease and the effect it might have on the continued
success of programs managed by Wildlife Services, like the National
Rabies Management Program. Therefore, we encourage Congress to fund
Wildlife Damage Management at or beyond the fiscal year 2015 funding
levels of $90 million for fiscal year 2017.
Before wildlife damage management programs are undertaken, careful
assessment should be made of the problem, including the impact to
individuals, the community, and other wildlife species. A key budget
line in Wildlife Service's operations is Methods Development, which
funds the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). Much of the newest
research critical to state wildlife agencies is being performed at
NWRC. In order for state wildlife management programs to be the most
up-to-date, the work of the NWRC must continue. The Wildlife Society
recommends the continued funding of Methods Development at $19 million
in fiscal year 2017.
national institute of food and agriculture
The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) provides an expanded,
comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable
resources. RREA funds, which are apportioned to State Extension
Services, effectively leverage cooperative partnerships at an average
of four to one, with a focus on private landowners. The need for RREA
educational programs is greater than ever because of continuing
fragmentation of land ownership; urbanization; diversity of landowners
needing assistance; increasing societal concerns about land use; and
increasing human impacts on natural resources. Authorized at $30
million, RREA has been appropriated at roughly $4 million per year
since fiscal year 2008. To meet the growing need for sustainable
outreach initiatives, The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress
increase the funding for RREA to at least $10 million for fiscal year
2017.
The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program is essential to
the production, utilization, and protection of forestry resources,
including fish and wildlife, on non-industrial, private forestlands. As
the demand for forest products grows, the nation will increasingly rely
on privately held forests to supplement resources obtained from
national forest lands. However, commercial trees take many decades to
produce. In the absence of long-term research, such as that provided
through McIntire-Stennis, the nation may have difficulty meeting future
forest-product needs in a sustainable manner. We appreciate the $34
million provided for McIntire-Stennis in fiscal year 2016 and urge
Congress to continue this funding in fiscal year 2017.
natural resources conservation service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the primary
Federal agency that works with private landowners to help them
conserve, maintain, and improve their natural resources, thereby making
them more resilient and valuable to society. NRCS emphasizes science-
based conservation, and through a variety of voluntary, incentive-based
programs, offers technical assistance and cooperative problem solving
at the community level. Demand for NRCS programs and the backlog of
qualified applicants has far outnumbered the agency's present capacity
under current funding. With increased pressure on farmlands from
biofuel development, urban sprawl, and the concurrent declines in
wildlife habitat and water quality, the need for NRCS conservation
programs continues to grow.
For fiscal year 2017, the President has requested $1.9 billion for
Private Lands Conservation Operations (PLCO), including $1.0 billion of
mandatory funding and $860 million of discretionary funding; which
includes the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program. CTA
provides discretionary funding for NRCS to support implementation of
Farm Bill programs. The Wildlife Society is strongly supportive of the
fiscal year 2017 budget proposal of $761 million in funding for CTA, a
slight increase from fiscal year 2016. An increase in funds will allow
for further implementation of the changes that resulted from the 2014
Farm Bill. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress demonstrated strong support
for the use of mandatory funds for Technical Assistance (TA), but these
funds can only be used in association with a specific Farm Bill
program. Appropriated funds for CTA are still essential for NRCS to
provide efficient customer service and strong conservation results. The
Wildlife Society therefore encourages Congress to provide $860 million
for discretionary TA, including $761 million for CTA, and $1.0 billion
for mandatory TA in fiscal year 2017, per the President's request.
The Wildlife Society also recommends that all Farm Bill
conservation programs be funded at levels mandated in the 2014 Farm
Bill, including $500 million for the Agriculture Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP) and 1.65 billion for the Environmental Quality
Initiatives Program (EQIP). Demand for these programs continues to
grow, yet during a time when greater assistance is needed to address
natural resource challenges and conservation goals, the NRCS can only
fund a small portion of the overall demand for these popular programs.
farm service agency
The President's request would provide funding for the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) at $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2017. Lands
enrolled in CRP are important for the conservation of soil on some of
the Nation`s most erodible cropland. These lands also contribute to
water quantity and quality; provide habitat for wildlife that reside on
agricultural landscapes; sequester carbon; and provide a strategic
forage reserve for periodic compatible use in times when other
livestock forage is limited due to drought or other natural disasters.
We strongly encourage Congress to fund CRP at $1.9 billion per the
President's request, or at a level that fully utilizes the program's
general enrollment authority.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS--THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year
fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year 2017 The
USDA Agency/Unit Program 2015 2016 2017 POTUS Wildlife
Enacted Estimate Society
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS/Wildlife Services Wildlife Damage
Management........... 90M 101M 86M 90M
Methods Development 19M 19M 19M 19M
NIFA/Formula Grants RREA 4M 4M 4M 10M
McIntire-Stennis 34M 34M 34M 34M
Coop. Forestry.
NRCS/PLCO PLCO-Discretionary TA 846M 851M 860M 860M
PLCO-Mandatory TA.... 900M 903M 1,034M 1,034M
PLCO-Total........... 1,746M 1,754M 1,894M 1,894M
NRCS/Farm Bill ACEP 394M 419M 500M 500M
Conservation Programs EQIP................. 1,347M 1,329M 1,650M 1,650M
TOTAL-Farm Bill 3,184M 3,123M 3,885M 3,885M
Programs.
FSA/Conservation
Programs Conservation Reserve 1,741M 1,841M 1,923M 1,923M
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This statement was submitted by Byron Ken Williams, PhD,
Chief Executive Officer, The Wildlife Society.]
------
Prepared Statement of World Food Program USA
request
World Food Program USA (WFP USA) is a non-profit organization that
works to solve global hunger by raising U.S. support for the mission of
the UN World Food Programme. Specifically, we request the following
funding levels for three essential programs within the jurisdiction of
the subcommittee:
--Title II Food for Peace--$1.75 billion
--McGovern Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program--
$209.5 million
--Local and Regional Procurement Program--$80 million
--We also request bill language be included in the General Provisions
regarding non-emergency, development activities in the Title II
Food for Peace account.
To maintain strong U.S. leadership in solving hunger and to respond
to critical emergency needs worldwide, WFP USA urges the subcommittee
to provide the strongest possible funding for global food security
programs. Our specific funding requests mirror those in the InterAction
Choose to Invest fiscal year 2017 recommendations, which have been
formally endorsed by a coalition of 168 U.S.-based, non-governmental
and faith-based organizations.
background
Strong bipartisan support for a comprehensive approach to ensuring
global food security has made the United States a global leader in the
effort to solve hunger, catalyzing significant progress worldwide.
Today there are over 200 million fewer hungry people compared to 1990
estimates. Undernourishment and child mortality have been nearly halved
during this time. These trends demonstrate that the goal of zero hunger
is achievable if the positive policies and programs the U.S. has put
into place are sustained.
Despite this dramatic progress, there are still 795 million
chronically hungry people in the world today. Undernourishment still
affects 12.9 percent of developing country populations. And in 2015,
5.9 million children under five died prematurely, with nearly half of
these child deaths associated with undernutrition.
In addition, there are now four ongoing crises classified at the
most severe level of humanitarian emergency. These crises in Syria,
Iraq, South Sudan, and Yemen are the result of internal conflicts that
have caused massive population displacements. In fact, there are now
over 60 million displaced people worldwide, including both refugees and
those internally displaced: the highest number since World War II. In
response to these and other crises, the 2016 UN humanitarian
consolidated appeal estimated global humanitarian needs at $17.2
billion, which was more than double the estimated need level in 2012.
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is the world's
largest humanitarian organization, providing critical food and
nutrition support to roughly 80 million of the world's hungriest people
each year. WFP estimates that total global food assistance requirements
for 2017 will exceed $8 billion.
food for peace
Food for Peace (FFP) provides emergency food and development
assistance to millions suffering from hunger and malnutrition. For the
past 60 years, Food for Peace has been the primary vehicle for
providing food aid in response to natural disasters, crises, and
conflicts around the world. Maintaining robust funding for Food for
Peace Title II and finding ways to stretch that funding further is
imperative.
While the United States remains the largest donor of global food
assistance, the reach of U.S. food assistance has been stretched by
record levels of need in 2016. Supporting FFP at $1.75 billion would
allow the U.S. to reach 45-50 million people with lifesaving food aid
and maintain its global leadership.
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is the largest U.S.
food aid partner, implementing programs that account for roughly 90
percent of Food for Peace emergency food aid funding. WFP estimates
$6.5 billion will be required to fund its 2017 emergency food
assistance programs. About $1.2 billion--almost 20 percent of total WFP
emergency needs--will be required just for the humanitarian crisis in
Syria and the Syrian refugees in neighboring countries. Needs from both
weather-related disasters and conflicts will continue to persist across
Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southwest Asia.
Food for Peace provides the bulk of funding for the U.S. to
contribute its historical average of about 30 percent of WFP emergency,
relief, and recovery programs. Other countries provide over 60 percent
of the annual contributions to WFP, which means that U.S. food aid
channeled through WFP helps leverage additional international
assistance.
We also support the inclusion of administration-requested bill
language to address section 412(e) of the Food for Peace Act, 7 U.S.C.
1736f(e). It is our view that other U.S. Agency for International
Development resources which support non-emergency, development
activities can be used to satisfy the statutory requirements of this
section in a manner that maximizes flexibility to support both
emergency and non-emergency food activities.
mcgovern dole international food for education and child nutrition
program
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program provides U.S. agricultural products and technical
assistance for school feeding projects in low-income, food-deficit
countries that are committed to universal education. The McGovern-Dole
program provides school-age children in poverty-stricken countries with
what is often their only full meal of the day and protects vulnerable
children, especially during times of natural disasters and economic
shocks.
Serving food at school helps solve chronic hunger and can be life-
changing for the world's poorest children. School meals also help get
students into the classroom, giving them an important key to a better
future: an education. In areas where enrollment rates for girls are
low, McGovern-Dole supported programs work with families and
communities to make it possible for more girls to attend school. This
sometimes includes giving girls take-home rations that encourage
families to send daughters to school and also benefit younger children
at home. Girls' education has a powerful ripple effect on families and
communities. One study has shown that the more education girls have,
the less likely their children will be malnourished.
The UN World Food Programme calculates that $3.2 billion is needed
per year to reach all 66 million primary school-age children that go to
school hungry every day. While an investment of $209.5 million for
school feeding represents a small fraction of overall global investment
in school feeding programs by donor and host country governments, U.S.
resources remain critical for low-income countries to continue school
feeding programs. We urge the committee to fund the McGovern-Dole
program at a level of $209.5 million in fiscal year 2017.
local and regional food procurement program
We recommend fully funding the Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
Program, which was newly authorized at $80 million in the Agricultural
Act of 2014. The 2014 Farm Bill conference report's statement of
managers affirms that the intent of LRP programming is to complement
existing food aid programs, especially the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program.
Linking the new USDA LRP program to the McGovern-Dole program
improves the chances of long-term sustainability of school feeding
programs supported by McGovern-Dole. A fundamental objective of U.S.
support to international school feeding is for countries to eventually
take over, manage, and fund their own school feeding programs. This
means developing locally sustainable systems for the purchase and
management of food used in school feeding programs to move away over
time from reliance on U.S.-donated commodities. U.S. support for LRP
can help countries make that transition to national ownership. While
Congress funded LRP activities in fiscal year 16, more is needed to
demonstrate its full potential. Continued funding of the newly
authorized LRP program will strengthen the McGovern-Dole supported
programs and hasten this transition to recipient country responsibility
and ownership.
[This statement was submitted by Richard Leach, President and CEO,
World Food Program USA.]