1033
B 1,134,080
Before the Committee on Appropriations
- Agriculture, Rural -
Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations
rical r€0. P 1989 - -
100% congress. SECOND SESSION
H.R. 4784
PART 1 (Pages 1–757) -
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY of acacaº sº ſº
• agº • ffie University
of Michigan
... • B DocumentS
Ceſter
* † <
- ºf Pºyº.
- ... . . . s.
, ºr r tº C. , , , ) i. IS ‘’
ſº TE C &
i§s§yo© ºº-f


S. HRG. 100–687 PT. 1
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 4784
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AGRI-
CULTURE, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1989, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
PART 1 (Pages 1–757)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
§
- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83—470 WASHINGTON : 1988
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
LAWTON CHILES, Florida
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
JIM. SASSER, Tennessee
DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
HARRY REID, Nevada
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
TED STEVENS, Alaska
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut
JAMES A. MCCLURE, Idaho
JAKE GARN, Utah
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR., Wisconsin
ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York
WARREN RUDMAN, New Hampshire
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
FRANCIS J. SULLIVAN, Staff Director
MARY A. SHIELDs, Chief Clerk
J. KEITH KENNEDY, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota, Chairman
JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi
LAWTON CHILES, Florida
JIM SASSER, Tennessee
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JAMES A. MCCLURE, Idaho
ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR., Wisconsin
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
ex officio
Professional Staff
ROCKY L. KUHN
DEBORAH A. DAWSON
IRMA I. HANNEMAN (Minority)
Administrative Support
KONI L. GLEASON
(II)
C O N T E N T S
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988
Department of Agriculture:
Secretary of Agriculture
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Research Service
Cooperative State Research Service
Extension Service
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1988
Department of Agriculture:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Federal Grain Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Agricultural Marketing Service........
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1988
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Soil Conservation Service...
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988
Department of Agriculture:
Foreign Agricultural Service
Office of General Sales Manager
Office of International Cooperation and Development
(III)
109
133
142
419
433
459
563
577
655
667
678
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1989
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1988
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, Stennis, Sasser, Bumpers, Harkin,
Cochran, Kasten, and Grassley.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. LYNG, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURF
ACCOMPANIED BY:
PETER C. MYERS, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
STEVE DEWHURST, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAVI
ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
Senator BURDICK. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are
pleased to welcome before the Subcommittee today the Secretary of
Agriculture, Richard E. Lyng. He will kick off our hearings on the fis-
cal year 1989 budget. Accompanying the Secretary are Peter C. Myers,
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and Steve Dewhurst, Budget Officer
for the Department. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.
As the Secretary will point out, this year's budget is characterized by
the absence of many proposals which have been included in previous
Reagan budgets.
For example, there are very few legislative changes proposed. No
user fees are being Suggested this year for the various marketing and in-
Spection agencies, and this year, the President has not seen fit to
propose Scaling back the Food Stamp Program or to eliminate meals
provided to certain children under the child nutrition programs. Never-
theless, there are still certain proposals in the budget which cause me
great concern, Such as the virtual elimination of the Rural Electri-
fication Program as well as the elimination and cutback of certain con-
Servation programs.
(1)
2
I am also concerned by the reduction in the Public Law 480 program.
Under the budget Summit agreement, this function was to increase this
year; however, it would appear to me that the increase has gone to
other agencies which do not provide food aid but provide other forms
of aid, such as military assistance.
Mr. Secretary, I will have questions for you on some of these special
concerns a little later in this hearing, but for now, I want to welcome
you again to the committee, and I want to thank you for presenting a
budget which is based on current law.
OPENING STATEMENTS
We will proceed with opening statements before we get into ques-
tions and answers. Senator Stennis.
Senator STENNIS. I am very glad to be here, Mr. Chairman. I am glad
the Secretary and others are here. I am very much interested but I will
not say anything now and let you get on with your program.
Senator BURDICK. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Senator KASTEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to take just a
moment to welcome Secretary Lyng back to the Subcommittee. I would
like to compliment you, Mr. Secretary, on your performance in office
over the past couple of years. Your quiet competence has done much to
restore the badly strained relationship between USDA and the
CongreSS. *
You have helped create an atmosphere in which Congressmen and
Senators are not encouraged to propose major changes in farm
programs every year. I think that the Stability and predictability that
you have helped give to American agriculture is much appreciated by
American farmers. We have obviously got a long way to go in this
regard, but together, we have made a start, and I think it is important.
I want to draw your attention to the fact that the latest Conservation
Reserve Program Signup ended, as you know, last week. It is too early
to know the results but we in Wisconsin have heard Some very en-
couraging preliminary reports, and I think that is positive. The Depart-
ment deserves congratulations for the energetic way in which it has
implemented the CRP. The CRP is unlike anything USDA has ever
been asked to do before in that it aims at removing large amounts of
targeted, highly erodible land from production. Over 23 million fragile
acres have been taken out of production So far, and I am hopeful that
Several million more will be taken out as a result of this month's
Slgnup.
The CRP is the centerpiece of the comprehensive conservation
program included in the 1985 farm bill. Combined with vigorous en-
forcement of Sodbuster and Swampbuster and timely enforcement of
conservation compliance beginning in 1990, the CRP represents a clear
commitment to preserving our natural Soil, water, and wetland resources
for the future of farmers and for the future of all Americans.
I have got some questions on Some of these issues that I will ask
later, but I just want to welcome you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for
the fine job that you are doing.
3
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, I believe we will hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY LYNG
Secretary LYNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
mittee. It is a pleasure for me to be here. I appreciate Senator Kasten
and his kind words. I have with me, as the chairman indicated, our
Deputy Secretary, Mr. Peter Myers, on my left, and our Budget Officer,
Mr. Steve Dewhurst, on my right. I have a prepared statement, Mr.
Chairman, which I will be glad to provide for the record. I would like
to summarize it, if it meets with your approval. My remarks begin with
Some observations about the overall State of the farm economy.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator BURDICK. Your full statement will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY LYNG
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERs of THE COMMITTEE, IT IS A PRI v ILE GE To
APPEAR BEFORE YOU once AGAIN TO DISCUSS THE BUD GET OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR FY 1989.
I comE BEFORE You THIS YEAR WITH A MoRE OPT IMI st I c ouTLook For
THE FARM SECTOR AS WELL AS FOR THE BUD GET THAN IN PREVIOUS YEARS -
0VER THE PAST YEAR, WE HAVE HAD some success I N DEAL ING WITH
FARM PROBLEMS As WELL AS WITH THE FEDERAL DEF I cl T. THE BUD GET
SUMMIT PRocess ACHIEVED $78 B I LLI on IN BUD GET SAVINGs Ove R THE
FY 1988-1989 PER I oD, WITH AGRICIJLTURE conſ RIBUT ING IT's FAIR SHARE
OF THE REDUCT I ons. THE Jo B, How Eve R, Is NoT FIN I SHED. MoRE HARD
WORK W I LL BE N E E DED TO KEEP THE DEF I C I T COM I NG DOWN IN F (JTU. RE
YEARS -
THE BUD GET WE ARE SUBM ITT ING TH Is YEAR com PL I Es WITH THE BUDGET
suMM IT AGREEMENT ... IT Is A F I scALLY REs Pons I BLE BUD GET, BUT AT
THE SAME TIME IT PROVIDES THE NECESS ARY FUND ING FOR KEY DEPARTMENT
PROGRAMS SO THAT W E CAN AD EQUATELY SERVE OUR FARM AND RU R AL
CONSTITU ENCY .
IN DEVELOPING THE PRESIDENT's BUD GET, THE DEPARTMENT WAS FULLY
I NVOLVED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSALS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE.
AS WITH THE BUD GETS OF THE LAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE HAD To set
PRI OR IT I ES AND MAKE DI FFICULT CHOICES IN FUNDING PROGRAMS. For
EXAMPLE, PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE SPECIAL GRANTS OR EAR MARKED F UNDS
For STATE AND LOCAL PROJECTS AND ACT IV IT I Es ARE PROPos ED FOR
REDUCTION OR ELIMINAT I on . ON THE of HER HAND, WE ARE PROPos ING
NEW I NIT I AT IVES IN SOME sitected A REA S TO ADDRESS CR IT ICAL
NATIONAL NEEDS. THE BUD GET WILL cont INUE Move MENT TOWARD A MORE
MARKET ~ 0R I ENT E D F ARM ECONOMY, WHILE ACHI EV ING THE OVERALL SPE ND ING
REDUCT IONS REQUI RED BY THE RECENT B I - PART I SAN BUD GET AGREEMENT .
BEFoRE TURNING TO THE SPEC I FI c USDA BUD GET PROPOSALS, I would
F I R S T L I K E TO DISCUSS SOME POS IT I VE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FARM
SECT OR AND SOME CHAL LEN G E S THAT L I E AH E A D .
CURRENT AGRLCULTURAL SITUAT LON AND OUT LOOK
THE A GR Ict) LTURAL EconoMY HAS BEGUN TO STAB I L I ZE, AND IN SOME
S I GN I FI CANT RESPECTS, TO RECOVER FROM THE UN FAVO RABLE TRENDS OF
RECENT YEARS. THIS PROGRESS IS DUE IN LARGE MEASURE TO PROVIS I ONS
of THE FooD SECURITY ACT OF 1985. THAT LEG Isla T I on IS PROVID ING
FOR A FUNDAMENTAL DEPART URE FROM PAST PO LI CY BY GRADUALLY MOVING
AMERICAN AGR I cut TURE To A MORE SUSTA I NABLE MARKET-oRI ENTED BAs I S.
FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FARM EconoMY CAN BE EXPECTED AS PRICE
SUPPORTS FOR PROGRAM CROPS ADJUST TO MARKET - CLE AR I NG LEVELS, AND
THE UNITED STATES REGA I NS I TS ExPORT COMPET IT I VENESS.
Ev I DENCE OF RECENT PROGRESS CAN BE Found IN A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT
IND I CATORs. CASH FARM I NCOME WAS A RECORD $57 BILLION IN 1987
AND IS EXPECT ED TO REMA IN HIGH AT $50-55 B ILLI ON 1 N 1988. HIGH
Gove RNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS, How EveR, ARE RESPONs IBLE FOR A LARGER
PORT ION OF THIS IN COME THAH WE WOULD HAVE PREF ER RED .
ExPORT PROs PECTS ARE IMPROVING. MoRE comp ET IT I ve PRI cBS As A
RESULT OF THE PROVIS I ONS OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985,
REDUCTION IN THE EXCHANGE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR, ExPANDED ExpoRT
PROGRAMs, AND OTHER FActors ARE IncREAs ING THE U.S. SHARE OF THE
WORLD AGRICULTURAL ExPort MARKET. U. S. ExPORT VOLUME INCREASED TO
129 MILL I ON METRIC To NS IN FY 1987, UP FROM Just UNDER 110 M ILLION
TONS IN 1986, AND ExpoRTS ARE ExPEcTED TO CLI MB AGAIN IN FY 1988
TJ 141 M ILLION TONS. ExPORT VALUES HAVE SHOWN A SIM ILAR INCREASE
AND ARE NOW PROJECTED TO REACH $32.0 B I LL I on I N FY 1988, UP NEARLY
22 PERCENT Ove R THE PAST Two YEARs. EQUALLY IMPORTANT, OUR
STRENGTHEN ED EXPO & T PERFORMANCE IS BROAD - BASED WITH BOTH BIJ LK
COMMO DIT I ES AND H IG'+ - VALUE PRODUCTS REGISTER ING GA I NS .
DECL IN ING SURPLUS stocks As A RESULT OF EXPANDED DEMAND AND
REST R I CTED PRODUCT I ON DUE TO LARGE ACREAGE REDUCT I on PROGRAMs
ARE CONTRIBUT ING TO STRONGER MARKET PR CE PROSPECTS FOR MANY
COMMODIT I E.S. SUSTAINED GROWTH IN DEMAND SHOULD PERMIT A CONT INUE D
GRADUAL DECL I NE IN DEPENDENCE ON GOVERNMENT I NVOLVEMENT,
CONS IST ENT WITH THE POLI cy DI RECT I on OF THE 1985 ACT.
FARM DE BT LEVELS -- A MAJOR source of FARM FINANCIAL STREss -- ARE
BEING REDUCED. IN ADDITION FARM As SET VALUES ARE INCREAS ING AFTER
S EVERAL YEARS OF DECL I NE. LAND VALUES ARE RIS ING IN Most AREAs OF
THE count RY, Foulow I NG A 5-YEAR SL I DE - NAT I ONALLY, FARM LAND
VALUES Ros E 3 To 5 PERCENT IN 1987. IN ILL INOIs, Iowa, KANSAs,
AND NEBRASKA, THEY ARE EST IMATED TO HAVE INCREASED FROM 8 To
10 PERCENT LAST YEAR. WHILE LAND VALUES WILL REMAIN SENs IT IVE To
CHANGES IN FARM I NCOME, INTEREST RATE AND OTHER FACTORS, WE ARE
PROJECT ING FURTHER INCREASES IN LAND VALUES IN 1988.
As A WHOLE THE FARM SECTOR HAS BEGUN TO REGA IN F I RMER FINANCIAL
GROUND. THE NUMBER OF FARM BANK FAI LURES DECL I NED LAST YEAR.
ALSO, THE AGRICULTURAL CRED IT ACT OF 1987, WH I CH PROVIDEs For
FINANCIAL Ass I STANCE AND ADM I NISTRAT IVE STREAMLI NING OF THE FARM
CREDIT SYSTEM, SHOULD Do MUCH TO Ass URE CONTI NUED AVAILAB I L I TY OF
C RED I T A T REASONABLE RATES FOR CRED I TWO RT HY FA RM BOR ROWERS -
THE FARMERS HoME ADM 1 N Is TRAT I on WILL conſ I NUE WORK I NG WITH ITS
TROUBLED Borrowers. REGULATIons To REINSTATE continuation Loans,
MANDATED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIAT Ions Act For 1987, WILL
soon BE ISSUED. FuRTHER, THE AGENCY WILL cont INUE TO ASS IST ITS
BOR ROWERS THROUGH SUCH SERV I C I NG ACT I ONS AS SUBORD I NAT I ONS ,
RES C H EDU L I NGS AND DE FERR ALS •
IN ADDIT ION, BoIH THE FARMERS Home ADM IN ISTRAT I on (FMHA) AND THE
FARM CREDIT SYSTEM WILL BE IMPLEMENT ING NEW AND subst ANT I AL
SERV I c ING BENEFITs AUTHORIZED IN THE AGRI cu LTURAL CRED IT ACT of
1987. THESE BENEFIT's INCLUDE THE WRITING-DOWN OF Loa N PRINCI PAL
...A
For DELINQUENT BoRRowers, where such Act 10N is IN THE BEST
*
I NTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT .
LRADE NEGoT LAT LONS AND AGRICULTURAL REFORM
WHILE WE ARE ALL HEARTENED BY THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FARM
SECTOR, WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WORLD AGR I Cij LTURAL PRODUCTION
A N J T RADE CONTI NU E TO FA C E SER I OU S PROB L E M S REQUIR I NG LONG - T E RM
sol UT I ons. THESE PROBLEMS RESULT FROM Gove RNMENT POLIC I ES WHICH
C REATE I NC ENT I VES FOR UN ECONOMIC PROD 1 JCT I ON AND CURTA I L DEMAND .
For THIS REASON, WE WILL BE conce NTRAT I NG OUR EFFORTS THIS YEAR
To ACH I Eve A success FUL ouT coríE TO THE URUGUAY Rour D OF
MULT I LATE RAL TRADE NEGOT I AT I ONS , WHICH OF FERS AN UN PRECE DENTED
OPPORTUN I TY FOR F UN DAMENTAL REF ORM IN WORLD AGR I C J LTU RAL POL I C I ES •
REACH ING A cons ENSUs AMONG THE WAR I OUs NEGOT I AT ING PART I ES WILL
NOT BE EASY, BUT AGREEMENT IS POSSIBLE IF WE CONTI NUE TO FOCUS OUR
ATTENT ION ON THE LONG-TERM BENEFITS OF A MORE OPEN, FLEX IBLE, AND
EQUITABLE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE. THESE BENEFITS INCLUDE
EXPANDED OPPORT UNIT I ES FOR A GR I CULTURAL GROWTH AND TRADE AND
ENHANCED WORLD FOOD SECURITY .
WITH THIS BACKGROUND ON THE GENERAL STATE OF AGRICULTURE, I would
NOW L I KE TO DISCUSS THE FY 1989 BUDGET, BEGINNING WITH FARM
PROGRAM SPEND ING .
BUDGEI PROPOSALS FOR FY 1989
FARM PRI cF AND INCOME SUPPORT
SPENDING FOR COMMODITY CRED IT CoRPo RAT I on (CCC) PRI cF AND INcom E
SUPPORT ACT I V IT I ES INCREASED DRAMAT I CALLY DURING THE 1980s,
SETTING A RECORD OF $25. 8 BI LL I on Foº FY 1986. MUCH OF THIS
1 NCREASE CAN BE AT TRIBUTED TO H I GH PRICE SUPPORT RATES FOR THE
MAJOR COMMO DIT I ES WHICH E NCOURAGED PRODUCT I O N WELL I N EXCESS OF
DEMAND. THE RESULT W As A costu Y BUILD-UP OF SURPLUS STOCKS -
TH IS UPWARD TREND IN THE ANNUAL RATE OF CCC SPEND ING HAS NOW
BEEN REVERSED. IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FARM EconoMY I HAVE AL READY
Discuss ED ARE RESULT ING IN REDUCED LEVELS OF CCC NET OUTLAYS .
MoREover, FURTHER REDUCTIONS ARE PROJECTED AS PROVISIONS OF THE
FooD SECURITY ACT OF 1985 ARE GRADUALLY IMPLEMENTED, EXPORTS
STRENGTHEN AND PRI CES REFLECT MARKET COND IT IONS •
FROM THE RECoRD FY 1986 LEVEL, CCC NET OUTLAYS FELL To
$22. H B I LLION IN FY 1987, AND WE Now PROJECT CCC SPENDING AT
$17.7 BILLI on For FY 1988. The DECL I NE OF $4.8 B I LLI on FROM THE
FY 1987 LEVEL IS PRINCI PALLY DUE TO THE LOWER SUPPLY LEVELS AND
HIGHER USAGE FoR THE MAJOR PRI cF SUPPORTED CROPs. For FY 1989,
OUTLAYS ARE CURRENTLY PROJECT ED TO DECL I NE FURTHER TO
$17.1 billion. In spite of THESE IMPROVEMENTs, CCC spending
IS ST I LL H I GH BY HISTORICAL STANDARDS.
THE FY 1988 AND FY 1989 Est IMATES FoR THE FARM PROGRAMs ALso
INCLUDE SAVINGS ACHIEVED IN LAST YEAR's BUDGET REconcI L I AT I on
PROCESS. SAVINGS OF $2.5 B I LL I on WERE ACHI Eve D FROM THE
GRAMM-RUDMAN BASELINE PROJECT Ions DEVELOPED LAST AUGUST.
ADDIT I on AL SAVINGS HAVE REs JLT ED FROM IMPROVED su PPLY AND
DEMAND COND IT IONS •
SI NCE CCC ouTLAY's ARE INHERENTLY DIFF I cult To PREDI cT, THESE
OUT LAY EST IMATES W I LL MOS T L I KELY CHANGE AS NEW ECONOMIC AND CROP
I NFORMAT I ON BEcoMES AVA ILABLE. How EVER, IT IS EXPECT ED THAT CCC
OUT LAY'S W I LL CONT I NU E THE GRADUAL DECL IN E I N F (JTURE YEARS AS THE
PRI C E AND I NCOME SUPPORT PROGRAM S BECOME MORE MARKET - O RI ENT E D .
DUE TO THE HIGH LEVEL OF OUTLAYS IN RECENT YEARS, CCC HAS HAD
TO SUSPEND OPERAT I ONS ON F I V E OC CAS I ONS BECAUSE I TS BORROW ING
AUTHORITY w ITH THE TREASURY WAS EXHAUSTED. IN 1987, CONGRESS
REs Pon DED TO TH is s ITUAT I on BY INCREAS ING THE CE I L ING ON CCC
Bo RROW ING AUTHORITY To $50 B I LL I ON AND AUTHORIZING A CURRENT
I NDEF IN ITE APPROPRIAT I ON. How EVER, THE CURRENT, INDEFINITE
AP PROPRIAT ION HAS NoT BEEN P Row I DED For CCC FUNDING IN FY 1988.
TH Is YEAR, WE ARE As KING THAT Congress PROVIDE THE cuRRENT,
I NDEF IN ITE APPROPRIAT I ON WHICH HAS NOW BEEN AUTHORIZED - WITH SUCH
AN APPROPRIAT I ON, WE CAN ELI M I NATE THE POSSIBILITY OF SHUT ~ DOWNS
OF CCC IN FY 1989 AND BEYO ND. CURRENT PROJECT I ONS IND I CAT E THAT
CCC W I LL HAVE ADEQUATE FUND ING FOR THE REMA INDER OF THIS FISCAL
YEAR •
0THER THAN A NEW PROPOSAL TO REFoRM THE SUGAR PROGRAM, THE
ADMINISTRAT I ON IS NOT PROPOS ING ADDITIONAL LEGISLAT I VE CHANGES
I N FARM PROGRAMS IN THE PREs I DENT's BUDGET. THE ADM IN I SI RAT I on
W I LL SEEK CHANGES IN THE SU GAR P R O GRAM TO MAKE IT MORE MARKET ~
O RI ENTED AND THUS CONS IST ENT WITH AGRICULTURAL POL I CY FOR OTHER
C R OPS •
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT
IN THE INTERNAT I on AL AREA, ou R FY 1989 BUD GET PROPOS ALS ARE
DES I GN ED TO BU I LD ON RECENT PROGRESS IN REST OR ING OUR EXPORT
COMPET IT IVE NESS AND REGA IN ING MARKETs Ove Rs EAS. THEY ALSO SEEK
To cont INUE THIS PROGRESS INTO THE FUTURE THROUGH LONG-TERM MARKET
DEVELOPMENT .
For CCC EXPORT cre DIT PROGRAMS, WE ARE PROPos ING THAT $3.0 billion
OF SHORT-TERM GUARANTEES AND $500 MILL I ON OF INTERMEDIATE-TERM
GUARANTEES BE MADE AVA I LABLE D1jR I NG FY 1989. WHILE THIS
REPRES E N T S A REDUCT I ON I N SHORT - TERM GUARAN TEES FROM THE LEVEL
MANDATED IN THE FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1935, oly R PROPOSAL MORE
10
ACCU RATELY REFLECTS PROGRAM PART I C I PAT I ON IN RECENT YEARS AND
SHOULD BE ADEQUATE TO ACH 1 EVE OUR EXPORT MARKET I NG OBJECT I VES .
MoREOve R, WE WILL BE cont I NUING other commeRC I AL ExPort PROGRAMs
IN 1989, such AS THE ExpoRT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, WH Ich will
CONTRIBUTE GREAT LY TO OUR AB I L I TY TO COMPETE IN INTERNATIONAL
MARKETS •
MARKET DEVELOPMENT ACT IV IT I ES WILL BE Boos TED IN FY 1989 BY A
Su BST ANT I AL INCREASE IN THE TARGETED ExPort Ass I St ANCE (TEA)
PROGRAM. WHILE THE LEVEL OF TEA is $110 MILL I on I N FY 1988, OUR
BUDGET INCLUDE's $295 MILL I on IN FY 1989 For THIS PROGRAM, WH I CH
I S PROVING VERY HELPFUL IN SUPPORT | NG EXPORT PROMOT I ON ACT I V IT I ES
FOR A BROAD RANGE OF A GR I cult URAL PRODUCTs. For THE FORE I GN
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AND THE GENERAL SALES MANAGER's 0FF Ice, WE
ARE REQUEST ING FUNDING RELAT I VFLY UNCHANGED FROM THE FY 1988
L EV E L S •
THE P. L. H.80 PROGRAM ALSO conſ I NUES TO SERVE ou R Long-TERM MARKET
DEVELOPMENT OBJECT I VES, WH I LE PROV I DI NG VALUABLE COMMO D I TY
ASSISTANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT TO DEVELOP I NG
COUNTRIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. WE ARE PROPos I NG A PROGRAM LEVEL
OF $l. H B I LL I on FoR P.L. 1180 For FY 1989, WHICH should PRov I DE FoR
comMoD I TY SHIPMENTs of ABOUT 6.7 MILLION METRIC To Ns. THIS
REPRESENT S A SMALL REDUCT I ON FROM THE TO N N AGE LEVEL CURRENTLY
EST IMATED FOR FY 1988, BUT wou LD REMAIN WELL ABOVE THE ANNUAL
T ONNAGE LEVELS OF THE EARLY 1980s.
C TY A DEV M
THE BUDGET PROPOSEs conſ INUED FUNDING FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS AND INCREASED FUND ING FOR GUARANTEED FARMER PROGRAM
LEND ING: INCREASED Us E of PRI v ATE secToR FINANCING Is AL SO
PROPOSED FOR THE COSTLY DIRECT LEND ING PROGRAMS OF THE RURAL
ELECT RIFICAT I on ADMINISTRAT I on (REA). Fund ING For cRoP Insurance
11
W ILL PROVIDE FOR EXPANDED PROTECT I ON AGA I NST DISASTER LOSS ES •
I woul. D L I KE TO FOCUS SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON FARM CRED IT
A ND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN IT I AT I VES -
FARM CRED LI. THE FARM CRED IT BUDGET FOR FMHA conſ I NUES THE SHIFT
F Row p 1 RECT Loans To GUARANTEED LOANS ESTABLISHED IN THE FOOD
SECURITY ACT OF 1985. GUARANTEED LEND ING IS PROJECT ED TO INCREASE
FROM ABOUT $1.6 BILLION IN FY 1987 To $3.6 BILLION IN FY 1989.
TOTAL DIRECT AND GUARANTEED LEND ING WILL INCREASE FROM
$3.1 B I LL I ON IN FY 1987 To $4.2 BILLION IN FY 1989.
FMHA WILL CONT INUE EF FORTS TO ASS IST I TS BORROWERS THROUGH SUCH
SERV I C ING ACT I ONS AS SUBORD IN AT I ONS , RE SCH EDU L I NGS, AND DEFERRALS •
IN ADDIT I on , AS PROVIDED IN THE AGR I cult URAL CRED IT ACT OF 1987,
THE A GENCY WILL REST RUCTURE DEBT - - WR IT E DOWN DE BT TO THE CU RRENT
VALUE OF COLLATE RAL I F NECESS ARY - -WHERE THE EXPECT ED PAY MENTS FROM
THE FARMER AFTER REST RUCTUR ING EXCEED PROCE EDS EXPECT ED FROM LOAN
A C C E L E RAT I ON AND F O RECLOS IJR E •
THE BUDGET PROVIDES FOR EXPANDED Use of OPERATING LOANS GUARANTEED
BY FMHA AND MAINTAINS THE AGENCY Role of LENDER OF LAST Resort
WITH cont I NUED DIRECT OPERAT ING AND EMERGENCY LOAN PROGRAMs. A
LIMITED GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM IS EXTENDED FOR REAL ESTATE LOANS ,
AND THE INTEREST BUY-DOWN PROGRAM AUTHORIZED IN THE 1985 FARM BILL
HAS BEEN REVISED AND EXTENDED BY THE AGRICULTURAL CRED IT ACT OF
1987.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN IT IATIVES
THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES occuRRING IN AGRICULTURE MAKE IT NEcEss ARY
FOR MA NY RURAL AR EAS TO MAKE EF FORTS TO DIVERS I FY THE IR ECONOM I ES
AND BECOM E L E SS DEP ENDENT ON AGR I CULTURE AS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF
EMPLOYMENT. To Ass Ist IN THESE EFFORTs WE HAVE INCLUDED FUNDs
I N THE BUD GET FOR CONTINUING FMHA's RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
INCLUDING $250 MILL I ON IN DI RECT Loa NS AND $75 MILL I on IN GRANTs
12
FOR WATER AND WASTE DIS POSAL PROJECTS, $50 MIL! I ON IN DI RECT LOANS
FOR OTHER COMMUNITY FAC I L I T I ES, AND $96 M I LLION FOR BUS INESS AND
I NDUSTRIAL LOAN GUARANTEES.
THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN IT I AT I v E ANNou NcED BY THE DEPARTMENT
LAST YEAR included a change in THE Business AND INDUSTRIAL LOAN
6UARANTEE PROGRAM WHICH WILL TARGET Ass Is TANCE TO RURAL AREAs
ADJUST ING TO CHANGES IN AGRICULTURE. THE PROGRAM IS NOW A VA ILABLE
TO SMALL SCALE , FAMILY S I ZED ENTE RP RI SES IN AREAS IN WHICH FARMERS
ARE ATT EMTP I NG TO MAKE THE TRANS IT ION TO NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT. THE
CHANGE IMPROVES THE TARGET ING OF THE PROGRAM AND I NCR EAS E S THE
L EVEL OF ASS IS TANCE WITHOUT ADDIT IONAL EXPEND I TU RES .
IN ADDITION, THE EXTENSION SERVICE IS WORK I NG WITH STATE AND Local
OFFIC I ALS TO Focus ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT I SSUES - RURAL ENTE RPR I se
TEAMS HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED TO ASS IST IN BUS IN ESS DEVELOPMENT , JOB
TRAIN ING, AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT NEEDs. A Jo I NT EXTENS I ON
SERV I cF AND NAT I on AL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY INFORMAT I on CLEARING
Hous E HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE Local OFF I cI ALS WITH UP-To-
DATE INFORMAT I on ABOUT FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
ALSO, AS PART OF OUR RURAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS, THE BUDGET
INCLUDES FUND ING FOR THE RESOURCES Cons ERVAT I on AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM IN THE So I L CONSERVAT I on SERV I cB (SCS). SCS PROVIDEs
PLANN ING, TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MULT I – COUNTY AREAS
WHERE THE RE ARE OPPORT UNIT I E S TO DIVERS I FY THE I R ECONOM I ES BY
DEVELOP I N G T H E I R NATURAL AND ECONOM I C RESOURCES •
THE BUD GET AGAIN INCLUDES THE ADMINISTRAT I on 's PROPOSAL To
REPLACE THE VERY cost LY FMHA HOUS I NG LOAN AND GRANT PROGRAMS
W IT H A HO U S I N G VO UCH E R S YSTEM THAT WO !] LD AL LOW RECI P I ENT S MO RE
FLEX I B I L I TY IN OBTA IN ING ADEQUATE HOUS I NG. A DEMONSTRATION OF
RURAL HO U S I N G V OU C H E RS WAS AUTHORIZ E D IN THE REC E N T L Y ENACT ED
HOUS ING ACT, BUT IT WAS DETERM I NED THAT ADD IT IONAL APPROPRIAT IONS
Act I on would BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM IN 1988. WE ARE
NOW REVIEW I NG ALT E R NAT I VES TO SEE WHAT ADD IT IONAL ACT I ON WE MAY
13
wish To REcoMMEND To THE Congress IN ORDER TO BEG IN THIS
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM THIs YEAR.
*
THE BUDGET ALso INCLUDE's REFORMS TO THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
ADMIN is TRAT Ion (REA) LENDING PROGRAMs. NEARLY ALL REA BORROWERS
CAN BORROW IN PRIVATE CRED IT MARKETS• THE BUD GET INCLUDES A
PROPos AL FOR REA BoRROWERS To UT I L I ZE LESS cost LY PROGRAMs of
PART I AL REA GUARANTEES OF PR IVATE FINANCI Ne To MEET THE IR NEEDs.
THE USE OF PART I AL GUARANTEES WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT on THE
RATES CHARGED custom ERS. WITH THE Eve R INCREAS ING PRESSURE To
REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEF I c I T, REFORMS TO THE REA PROGRAMs w ILL MAKE
ROOM FOR H IGHER AGRICULTURAL SPEND I NG PR I O RIT I ES .
THE BUDGET ALSO PROPos Es To MoD I FY AND EXTEND FOR ONE YEAR THE
OPPORT UNITY FOR BORROWERS TO PRE PAY, WITHOUT PREM I UM, EXIST ING
LoANS MADE BY THE FEDERAL FINANCING BANK AND GUARANTEED BY REA.
REA would GUARANTEE PRIVATE SECT or FINANCING FOR THE PREPAYMENT
OF LOANs. RURAL TELEPHONE BANK Borrow ERs would BE ABLE TO PREPAY,
WITHOUT PREM I UM, I NDE F I N I TELY.
So LL AND WATER CONSERVATION
THE TOTAL BUD GET LEVEL FOR THE So I L AND WATER cons ERVAT I on
PROGRAMS IS REQUESTED AT ABOUT $2.5 B I LL I on -- NEARLY TRIPLE THE
LEVEL IN FY 1985. THE FY 1989 BUD GET REFLECTS THE FUND I NG THAT
IS REQUI RED TO I M P L E MENT THE PROVIS I O NS AUTHORIZ ED IN THE
CONSERVAT I ON T ITLE OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985. IN ADDIT ION
TO INCREAS ING THE PROGRAM LEVEL FOR THE So I L CONSERVAT I ON SERV I cF
T ECHN 1 CAL ASSISTANCE, THERE ARE PROPOSALS TO REFORM, REST RUCTURE
AND FUND THE WATERSHED PROGRAMS. THE REsou RCE Cons ERVAT I on AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WILL BE conſ INUED AND WILL conſ RIBUTE TO
ACHIEV ING IMPORTANT RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOALs. APPROPRIAT I ons FoR
USE BY THE COMMO DITY CRED IT CoRPORAT I ON DURING THE FOURT + YEAR OF
THE CONSERVAT I ON RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP) ARE REQUESTED AT NEARLY
$1.9 B I LL I ON .
14
AGAIN THIS YEAR, BECAUSE OF F I scAL POLICY REA sons, THE BUD GET
PROPOSES TERM I NAT I ON OF A NUMBER OF OTHER CONSERVAT I ON F I NANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMs. LAST YEAR, USDA Policy of F I cI ALS, IN
TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, PROVIDED AS SURANCES THAT FY 1988
CONSERVAT I ON PROGRAMS WOULD BE ADM I N ISTERED IN FULL COMPLIANCE
WITH Boſ H THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THE 1988 APPROPRIAT Ions Act
AND TH IS IS IN DE ED B E I NG D ONE •
THE BUD GET REQUESTS FUNDS FOR THE So I L Cons ERVAT I on SERV I ce. To
SERV I cF REQUESTS FROM FARMERS. MANY OF THESE REQUEST S ARE
ASSOC I ATED WITH THE CRP, so DBUSTER, SW AMPBUs TER AND cons ERVAT I on
compl IANCE. THE BUD GET Also includes A RED J C ED F UND I NG REQUEST
FOR MERGING THE SCS WATER Resource PROGRAMS. THERE ARE
S I GN IF I CANT OPPORT UNIT I ES TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM MORE EFF I C I ENT AND
MEANING FUL IN ADDRESS ING CURRENT PROBLEMs. THERE ARE LEGISLAT I VE
PROPOSALS FoR REQUIRING NoN-FEDERAL cost shARING OF FLOOD
PROTECT I on PROJECTs, AS AL READY DONE FOR ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERs
PROJECTS, AND FOR AS SUR ING THAT THESE PROJECTS HAVE SUBST ANT I AL
AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS. ALSO, THERE ARE PLANS TO BE MORE SELECT I VE
IN MAK I NG PLANN ING AND CONSTRUCT I ON START DEC I S I ONS, INCLUDING
EL I M I NAT I N G THE PRI C E AND IN COME SUPPORT INCENT I VES TO CONSTRUCT
PROJECTs. WE HOPE THE ADM 1 N I St RAT I on 's REcoMMENDAT I on For FUND ING
THESE PROGRAMS WILL LEAD TO A Pos IT I V E DIALOGUE WITH Cong RESS IN
BOTH THE SUBST ANT I V E AND AP PROPRIAT I O NS COMMITTEES .
CoNCERN ING THE Cons ERVAT I ON RESERVE PROGRAM, DURING THE FIRST FIVE
s I GNUP's For THE PROGRAM WE HAVE ENROLLED NEARLY 25 M ILLION ACRES
of HIGHLY ERODI BLE CROPLAND. So I L EROS I ON SAVINGS FROM THIS LAND
ARE over 20 Tons PER AcRE. THE SIXTH S I GNUP WAS HELD FROM
FEBRUARY 1 To 19. THE BIDS ARE BEING ANALYZED AND AN ANNOUNCEMENT
of THE AccEPTED BIDs should BE MADE BY M I D-MARCH. THIS
A NNOUNC EMENT I S ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER THAN US UAL BECAUSE THE
cou NTY ASCS comm ITTEES HAVE THE RESPONs I B I L ITY OF ASSURING THAT
RENTAL RATES UNDER THE NEW CRP cont RACT S ARE NOT IN Excess OF THE
15
PREVA I L I NG LOCAL RENTAL RATES FOR AN ACRE OF COMPARABLE LAND AS
REQUIRED IN THE 1988 APPROPRIAT I ons Act.
RESEARCH AND EXTENS LON
OUR PROPOSALS FOR RESEARCH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TECHNOLOGICAL BASE OUR A GR I CULTURAL PRO DIJ C E RS IN E ED TO REMA 1 N
compe T IT IVE IN A CHANG ING WoRLD MARKET PLACE . WE HAVE CAREFULLY
S T RUCT U RED THESE PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE FOR LONG - T E RM N E EDS , TO
ADDRESS THE IMMEDIATE ISSUES FAC I N G PRODUCERS TODAY, AND TO
I NCLUDE A STRONG COMPON ENT OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO MAKE C E RTA I N
THAT THE RESEARCH WE PRODUC E REACH E S THOSE WHO CAN I M P L E MENT IT •
FoR THE A GR I culſ URAL RESEARCH SERV I cF WE ARE REQUEST ING AN
I NCREASE OF $20 M ILLI on For THE RESEARCH PROGRAM. THE INCREASE
WILL FUND RESEARCH TO ADDRESS GROUND WATER QUALITY AS W ELL AS F00 D
SAFETY CONCE RNS RELATED TO PEST I C I DE AND BACT ER I AL CONTAM I NAT I O N
OF FOOD PRODUCT S .
0UR PARTNERSHI P W ITH THE LAND-GRANT UNIVER's IT I ES RECEIVES
CONTI NUED STRONG SUPPORT IN THE BUDGET. IN ADDIT I on To conſ I NUED
FUNDING FOR THE BASIC HATCH ACT FORMULA AT THE 1988 LEVEL, WE ARE
PROPOS ING AN INCREASE FOR THE COMPET IT IVE GRANTS PROGRAM. WE PLAN
TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR MOST OF THE MAJOR RESEARCH AR EAS IN THE
PROGRAM AND I NIT I ATE A NEW PROGRAM TO ADDRESS CONCE RNS OF THE
EFFECTS OF OZONE DEPLET ION ON MAJOR CROP PLANTs. WE WILL
ENCOURAGE I NC REASE D M I N OR IT Y PART I C I PAT I ON IN THE AGRICULTURAL
SECTOR THROUGH ENHANCED RESEARCH FUNDING AT THE 1890 INSTITUTIONS
AND CONTI NUAT I ON OF OUR 1890 HIGHER EDUCAT I ON GRANTS. THE
A DD I T IONAL RESEARCH WILL SUPPORT OUR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SMALL T S CALE FARM N E E DS .
THE EXTENS I ON SERV I ce, WoRK ING IN CLos E coord I NAT I on WITH THE
STATES, PRODUCERS, commod 1 TY or GANIZAT I ONS AND OTHER INTERESTED
PART I E S ; HAS RECENTLY DEVELOP E D A SET OF NAT I ONAL PRI OR IT Y
16
I N I T I AT I v Es To RE-FOCUS ITS PROGRAMs. WE ARE PROPOS ING A SH 1 FT
F ROM THE GENERAL FORMULA TO FUND I NC REA S E D ACT I V | T Y IN
A GR I CULTURAL PRO F I TAB I L I TY AND IN Rural DEVELOPMENT. W.E WILL
ALso BE INSTITUT ING Two NEW INFORMAT I on CENTERS AT THE NAT I ONAL
AGRI culturAL LIBRARY TO ENHANCE OUR AB I L I TY TO TRANSFER NEW
T ECHNOLOGI ES AND DI SS EMI NATE RU RAL DEVELOPMENT INFORMAT I O N .
Economics AND STAT ISILCs
MA INTENANCE OF COMPETENT PROGRAMS FOR THE COLLECT I on OF
A GR I cut TURAL STAT IST I CS AND FOR EconoMIC ANALY'S IS AND RESEARCH
conſ I NU E S TO BE A HIGH PRI OR ITY. WE ARE PROPOS ING MO DEST
I NCREAS ES FOR SURVEY'S AND ANALY'S ES OF SEASONAL AG R T CULTURAL LABOR
To comply WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IMMI GRAT I on REFORM AND
CoNTROL Act of 1986 AND OTHER PRI or ITY IN IT I AT I v Es.
K G AN SPEC N
CoNs Is TENT WITH THE BUD GET summ IT AGREEMENT , No NEW USER FEE
PROPos ALS ARE PROPOSED IN FY 1989. THE BUD GET cont. I NUEs EFFORTS
T O TERM I NATE OR PHASE OUT LOW PRI OR IT Y PROGRAM S W H I L E MA INTA IN ING
OR EXPAND ING C R IT I CAL PROGRAMS IN THE MARKET ING AND I NSPECT I ON
A REA. Fu NDI NG FOR THE AN IMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECT I on SERV I cE
WILL BE REDUCED BY $54.5 MILL I on REFLECT ING cuts IN THE
BRU C E L LOS IS , PS EU DORA B I ES , BOLL WE EV I L AND AN I MAL DAMAGE CONTROL
PROGRAMS. How EVER, THE DEPARTMENT WILL cont INUE TO STRENGTHEN I TS
F RO N T ~ L I N E DEFENS E AGA I NST THE INT RODUCT I O N OF FORE I GN PLANT PE S T S
AND ANIMAL D ISEASES. AN INCREASE of $6. H M ILLION IS BE ING
PROPOSE D FOR TH F A G R T C J LTU RAL QUARANT I N E I NS PECT I O N PROGRAM TO
PROVIDE ADDIT I ONAL STAFF AT SELECT ED A.I RPORTS AND TO I M P L E MENT
NEW AIRPORT BAGGAGE scREEN ING METHODS. SHOULD A For EIGN PEST
OR DISEASE PENET RATE THIS DEFENSE, THE BUD GET AL SO PROVIDES
$5.0 M ILLI on To cont Rol EMERGENCY OUT BREAKs AND AN INCREASE OF
$2.5 MILL I on FoR THE PEST DETECT ION AND AN IMAL DISEASE DETECTION
PROGRAM S T O ENS URE THAT THE OUT BREAK I S CAU GHT EARLY AND
ERAD I CATED QUI cKLY. A $15.7 M I LL I on I NCREASE FoR THE FooD SAFETY
17
AND INSPECT I ON SERV I CE WILL PROVIDE FOR EXPANDED BIOLOGICAL
TEST ING OF MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS FOR CHEMICAL AND ANT I BIOT IC
R E S I DUES •
MEST FooD Ass I stanc RAM
THE BUDGET FOR THE FooD AND ConsumeR SERVICES PROGRAMs REFLECTs
PROGRAM Act I v 1 TY BASED ON current LAW. IN THE FooD STAMP PROGRAM,
THE sch EDULED INCREASE IN THE THRI FTY FooD PLAN WILL RESULT IN AN
INCREASE IN BENEFIT's For ALL Hous EHOLDS - FUNDING FOR THE CHILD
NUTR IT ION PROGRAMS REFLECTS PROJECT ED INCREASES IN PER MEAL
RE IMBURSEMENT RATES AND PROGRAM PART I C I PATION. For THE
SUPPLEMENTAL FEED ING PROGRAMs WE ARE REQUEST ING FUNDS TO
suPPORT AT LEAST 3.8 M I LL I on WONEN, 1 NFANTS, AND CHILDREN
PER Mo NTH AND ABOUT 80 THous AND ELDERLY PERSons PER MONTH .
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
THE BUDGET FOR DEPARTMENTAL ADMINI St RAT I on STAFF of F Ice's INCLUDE's
I NCREASES FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INCREASED PROGRAM
OPERAT I on S, FOR THE OFF , CE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR A MAJOR
AUTOMAT. I ON PROJECT AND FOR OTHER CENTRAL I Z E D S E R VI CES PROVIDED BY
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRAT I on . ALso, THERE Is AN INCREASE FoR THE
CENTRAL FUND US ED TO F I NANCE A GENCY OPERAT I ONS TO I DENT I FY AND
CLE ANU P HAZARDOUS WASTE AS REQUIRED BY LAW - WE BELIEVE THESE
I NC REASES ARE OF H I GH PRI OR ITY AND ARE NE E DED TO CARRY OUT THE
WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE FUNDS REQUESTED REPRESENT A VERY
SMALL PROPORT I on OF THE ove RALL DEPARTMENT REQUEST.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS concLUDES MY FoRMAL stat EMENT. IN MANY
RESPECTS THIS YEAR's BUDGET is DIFFERENT FROM THos E OF PRI or
YEARS - I BELIEVE OUR PROPos ED BUDGET ADDREsses THE PRI or ITY
NEEDS OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE IN VI EW OF OUR PREss ING NAT I onAL
NEED TO REDUCE THE DEF IcIT. I urge THE Conni TTEE to cons IDER our
PROPOSALS CAREFULLY DURING YOUR DEL I BE RAT I ONS. I WILL BE GLAD TO
RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE .
18
THE FARM ECONOMY
Secretary LYNG. The agriculture economy has begun to Stabilize, and,
in some significant aspects, to recover from the unfavorable trends of
recent years. The Food Security Act of 1985 has played a significant
role in turning things around. Declining Surplus Stocks have contributed
to strong market prospects for many commodities. Cash farm income
was a record $57 billion in 1987 and is expected to remain high at $50
to $55 billion in 1988. However, government payments still represent
too high, in my opinion, a proportion of farm income.
Export prospects are improving; volume increased from 110 million
metric tons in 1986 to 129 million metric tons in 1987 and is expected
to climb again to 141 million metric tons in 1988. Export value is also
up nearly 22 percent over the past 2 years. We are working hard to fur-
ther improve the export picture through negotiations and actions to
deal with unfair trade practices. As the farm economy improves, farm
debt levels are being reduced. In addition, land values in Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, and Nebraska are estimated to have increased 8 to 10 percent
last year.
There are still trouble spots, and we will continue to use our legal
authorities, particularly those of the Farmers Home Administration, to
work with farmers who are in need of extra help. And now, with
respect to the budget.
1989 BUDGET OVERVIEW
The 1989 budget is consistent with the Summit Agreement. It does
not propose new user fees, changes in the Food Assistance Program,
changes in the Crop Insurance Program, or significant changes in the
farm programs, except Sugar. Also, consistent with the Summit Agree-
ment, the budget does not propose Supplementals or rescissions for
1988. It is a fiscally responsible budget, but at the same time, provides
the necessary funding for a number of significant proposals which I will
mention in these remarkS.
Everyone should remember that the biggest USDA spending pro-
grams are largely uncontrollable, and estimates are, therefore, very tenta-
tive. CCC estimates anticipate general economic conditions, individual
planning decisions for thousands of farmers, and the weather. Food
assistance programs respond to a variety of economic factors.
Now, with reference to the specifics of the budget.
MAJOR PROPOSALS OF THE 1989 BUDGET
The budget estimate for cash outlays for USDA is $48.3 billion in
1989, a reduction of $2.4 billion or about 5 percent below the $50.7 bil-
lion now estimated for 1988. Our appropriations request before this
committee is, in fact, reduced by almost $10 billion from $51.9 billion
to $41.9 billion. The vast majority of this reduction is due to reduced
cash requirements in the Commodity Credit Corporation. Lower outlays
for CCC activities in both 1988 and 1989 have also reduced the ap-
propriations requirements of the CCC.
19
CCC outlays are estimated at $17.1 billion. When compared to es-
timates made last fall, total CCC outlays for 1988 and 1989 are down
nearly $5 billion. About half this reduction is due to changes in supply
and demand estimates, and about half is due to the Reconciliation Act
of 1987. To fund the CCC, the budget requests a current indefinite ap-
propriation as authorized in the 1987 Reconciliation Act.
Program level for international programs is down about $1.9 billion.
The major change is in the estimate for short-term export credit
guarantees. We have simply not been able to use the full $5 billion
authorized by the Congress for this program. Other export programs
will be maintained at near current levels.
The Farmers Home Administration includes $4 billion for farm
operating loan and $471 million for rural development activities. The lat-
ter includes funding for water and Sewer Systems, community facilities
and business and industrial development. Housing programs would be
converted to vouchers.
REA reflects continued proposals to convert federal lending to
private sector guarantees. We feel that the REA system is healthy
enough to make this change.
Funding for SCS maintains conservation technical assistance and the
Resource Conservation and Development Program. Water resource
programs are funded at reduced levels. These proposals will permit SCS
to meet its workload and to make a meaningful contribution to our
overall rural development effort.
We are requesting almost $1.9 billion for the Conservation Reserve
Program. This will fund rental costs on the 23 million acres already in
the program and cover costs on additional acres which may be signed
up this year. Again this year, no funds are requested for agriculture con-
servation programs or the other ASCS conservation cost-shared
programS.
Funding for research and education programs is requested at about
$1.1 billion, roughly $100 million below the 1988 level. Funding for the
Agricultural Research Service is up $20 million, with emphasis on the
agricultural impacts on gound water, the development of better testing
methods for pesticides and bacterial residues in meats. The budget also
includes $11 million for construction of a new National Seed Storage
Laboratory.
The budgets for CSRS and the Extension Service are reduced largely
due to renewal of proposals to cut or eliminate Special grants. The
budget does provide for increased competitive grants, increased funding
for 1890 institutions and $22 million in new funding for Extension
Service initiatives in rural development, agricultural profitability, nutri-
tion and natural resources.
Marketing programs are budgeted at essentially the 1988 levels. Low
priority programs, such as boll weevil, animal damage control, whole-
sale market development, and the Federal Seed Act, are reduced or
terminated. Increased funding is provided for areas such as agricultural
quarantine inspection and stepped up FSIS testing for residues. Eco-
20
nomic and statistical programs are maintained at the 1988 level with
Some increased funding to implement the Immigration Reform Act.
Food assistance programs are budgeted at essentially the current law
level. The request for over $2.1 billion for these programs represents a
Substantial commitment to assuring that food assistance is provided to
needy Americans. Some of our staff support activities are increased,
especially the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Inspector
General. The central fund for hazardous waste management has in-
creased from $2 million to $10 million. We need to be sure that we
meet our responsibilities to deal with hazardous waste problems
generated by USDA activities. T ~
We look forward, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, to
working with the committee this year. As you review the budget, we
urge you to work hard to produce individual appropriation bills in time
for transmittal to the President before the beginning of the next fiscal
year. As a Cabinet officer with responsibility for over 250 programs and
over 100,000 employees, I am very much aware of the problems created
for our program managers when funding decisions are not made until
long after the fiscal year has begun.
I am also very mindful of the need to give the Congress and the
President time to review appropriation bills and have a fair chance to
express their views on these matters. The presentation of the gigantic
governmentwide continuing resolution in the waning days of the Session
is not the way to do business.
I will be happy, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to try
to respond to your questions. Thank you very much.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley, do you have an opening
Statement?
Senator GRASSLEY. No; but I will have some questions to ask.
Senator BURDICK. Yes, of course.
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Bumpers, do you have an opening
Statement?
Senator BUMPERS. No Statement, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator GRASSLEY. What I Should have Said is I have one to include
in the record. Can I do that?
Senator BURDICK. Certainly. It will be received.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY
Secretary Lyng, I'd like to extend my welcome to you today. I appreciated your
thoughts on the current agriculture outlook. I share your optimism about the improved
agriculture picture. The increase in agriculture exports and the drop in land prices you
mentioned are encouraging signs. You mentioned in your remarks, that the 1985 Food
Security Act is “gradually moving American agriculture to a more Sustainable market
oriented basis.” Although many of agriculture's economic measurements are positive, I
would caution, that the key word in your Statement was gradual.
2]
Agriculture's transition may be complete for a majority of our producers. There are
Still a great number of people, however, who have yet to share in any recovery. Others
still are only beginning to feel the ripple effects of the farm crisis. The continuing ex-
odus of people from our rural areas is a problem which will impact our Social struc-
ture well into the next decade.
REA PROGRAMS
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, I note the REA budget this year
provides zero for direct loans and zero for guaranteed loans. It seems
that every year, the administration has attempted to phase out these
programs. This year we are not faced with a phaseout, but we are faced
with elimination of these programs.
REA is one of the most successful programs this country has ever un-
dertaken. I, for one, am not going to sit by while we turn out the lights
in North Dakota and rural America. This is not rural development; this
is rural demolition, is it not?
Secretary LYNG. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. It is abundantly clear
now that these rural electric cooperatives can obtain the funds they
need from Sources other than the government. In order to help them
obtain these funds at reasonable rates of interest and to minimize the
impact on the federal budget, we are proposing that these be guar-
anteed rather than direct loans. I think this has worked well in the past
and we would propose that it now be expanded.
Senator BURDICK. But the guaranteed loans by the government are
also zeroed out in your proposition, is it not?
Mr. DEWHURST. No, Sir; the loans that we know as guaranteed loans
are loans made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed by the
REA. Those would be terminated in this budget.
The administration proposes to replace the current program with a
system where private lenders would make the loans with federal
guarantees, there is $1.3 billion in the budget for the new system.
Senator BURDICK. And those loans will carry a higher rate of interest,
then, that the farmer would have to pay?
Secretary LYNG. Well, I think they would be higher than Some of the
very low rated loans that we have had in the past, but not substantially
higher. I think that they would still have favorable interest rates. They
would reflect the government guarantee. They would not be at a sub-
Sidized interest rate.
Senator BURDICK. I don't suppose you have any figure of what the ex-
tra cost would be to the farmer for the REA drop.
Secretary LYNG. Well, I think we could make Some estimates and Sub-
mit it for the record, if you would like, Mr. Chairman. What we can do
would be to calculate an estimate of what the interest rate would be un-
der these guaranteed loans in the private Sector and compare that with
the subsidized loans that were more in the nature of direct loans.
[The information follows:]
The REA goals of providing basic electric and telephone service to rural areas is basi-
cally accomplished and the cooperatives are financially Sound enough to continue these
functions without significant federal assistance. The administration's proposal would
maintain Some involvement by issuing guarantees of private Sector loans, and the Rural
Telephone Bank would continue to make direct loans through 1995.
22
The administration's proposal would not result in a substantial increase in the rates
paid by rural consumers. For example, if an average electric distribution borrower ob-
tained a 70-percent REA guarantee of a privately originated loan, rather than the cur-
rent 5-percent REA direct loan with a 30-percent supplemental financing loan from the
Cooperative Finance Corporation, the borrower's total annual interest cost would re-
quire an increase of 74 cents per month in the monthly bill of the average consumer.
Senator BURDICK. I don't know of any program that has done more
for rural America than the REA Program. It seems to me this is very
short sighted to abandon these programs which have meant So much to
the farm communities and the farms of the country. Why do you pick
on these programs?
Secretary LYNG. We are not trying to abandon them, but we are mini-
mizing to Some extent, or reducing to Some extent, the Subsidy. It
seems to me that we are reflecting Some of the changes that have taken
place in rural America. Many of these projects have been completed.
Senator BURDICK. Well, the changes I hear about, they still need this
money just like they did 10 years ago; they need this money for their
operations. Why at this particular time do we pull these programs out
from under them? That is my question.
Secretary LYNG. It is our opinion that this is a good time to do that.
The program that we propose will satisfy the needs of those borrowers
with less subsidies from the federal government.
SUNFLOWER OIL
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, as you know, I inserted in the fiscal
year 1988 appropriations act $10 million for purchasing Sunflower oil,
which oil will then be used to promote Sunflower oil exports. How are
you implementing this program, and what effect do you think the
program will have on the Sunflower market in this country?
Secretary LYNG. I am not prepared to answer that. I don't know
whether anyone else here is. AS the hearings progress, you will have the
Administrator of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Serv-
ice. I would defer to him, or if you wish, I will submit a detailed reply
to that question.
Senator BURDICK. I think it is a very important program, and I hope
that we can get Some information.
Secretary LYNG. We will submit the information for the record.
[The information follows:]
Our people are working hard on implementing this program, but there are a number
of operational difficulties which must be overcome. For example, our normal section 32
bidding process for the purchase of commodities may not be workable in this instance
because this program could represent 20 percent of their total annual production. In ad-
dition, we need to be sure that we do not run this program in Such a way as to dis-
place normal U.S. commercial sales. We have consulted with the industry concerning
these matters and will keep you informed of developments.
STORAGE LOANS
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, in the reconciliation bill passed by
Congress in December 1987, Congress changed the Producer Reserve
Program so that the minimum quantity of wheat to be stored is 300 mil-
lion bushels and for feed grains it is 450 million bushels.
23
Recently, you have announced that all existing 1987 crop wheat and
feed grain producer storage loans that mature after March 1, 1988, will
not be extended. Producers will also not be allowed to roll over the
loan premiums for farmer-owned reserves. Many of our farmers are con-
cerned that this grain would be moved off their farms, where the
government pays lower storage rates than to commercial storage. They
are concerned that this grain will not be exported but instead, will be
left to sit in commercial storage, thereby costing the federal government
more in Storage COStS.
Is this correct?
Secretary LYNG. No; that isn't correct. I know there has been some
concern about this, because many growers who have had grain for a
long time in government storage contracts are reluctant to see that grain
moved out of those storage facilities. But we have made a major change
in our stocks, Mr. Chairman.
We are reducing the stocks of wheat, of corn, of other grains very
materially, and we simply are not going to have the large Volume of
grain that we have had in the past. There will be a major reduction in
the carryover of wheat, corn, and other grains. This means that there
will be less in storage, whether it be on farms or in commercial Storage,
and it is important now that we move the grain out of facilities where
we have longer-term contracts into places where it can be moved
quickly for export, Sales, or domestic usage.
As a matter of fact, we will see most of the grain, if not all of it, that
is moved from farms into commercial storage moved on rather quickly
into export or domestic usage.
Senator BURDICK. I certainly agree with you. I would like to see it
move into export instead of staying in the large elevator operations
where you have to pay a higher Storage rate. But your intention and
your plan is to move this as quickly as possible to export markets?
Secretary LYNG. Yes; we think we need to move it out of the Farmer
Owned Reserve and similar programs because we need to have it avail-
able to fill exports.
Senator BURDICK. If USDA determines that it cannot export most of
this grain, will USDA continue to keep Storage in commercial elevators,
or will USDA allow producers to store the grain on the farm thereafter?
Secretary LYNG. Well, we will continue Some storage on farms. We
have no policy of moving grain from farms into commercial Storage
Simply to have it in Storage. -
The reason for moving it is to make it available for sale in a much
more flexible way than in the longer term contracts under the Farmer
Owned Reserve.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Stennis.
REA PROGRAMS
Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, as I said in the beginning, I am here
today because of a very long term interest. I want to thank these gentle-
men for what they are doing, and I support their program generally,
24
but I will not help eliminate certain services because I think it makes a
difference. Take the REA. It may not be perfect, but it is rendering a
Service that no one else will render, and I come from a rural State and
am proud of it.
I have lived close to the land, and I am not an expert, but without
things like the REA, great areas of the country would have been aban-
doned if it had not have been for the government program, the REA. I
think it has been well handled, but it seems to me, that we just can't
consider abandoning it or making the fundamentals of financing it too
Severe.
As I drive through the areas of my state or any other State, I can tell
something about what already is contributed. It makes a difference. As
I say, I think it is necessary and we have got to continue. We ought to
do it on as Sound a basis as we can for the taxpayer, and I think we
will. The Secretary and his staff have done well as far as I can tell.
So I am here to back it up, as I have already indicated, and I believe
there is the general prevailing need.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Kasten.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator KASTEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions about the Conservation
Reserve Program. First of all, has the Department given any thought to
the possibility of expanding the Scope of the CRP to include not just
more highly erodible cropland, but for example, cropland with porous
Soils through which pesticides leach easily into the ground water? This
is a very serious problem in Wisconsin. There is more and more con-
cern about the quality of the ground water.
I am not asking you to change your regulations right now, but I just
wanted to publicly get a comment or two on this problem. Is there a
way that we might consider, Somehow, trying to deal with this porous
cropland through which the pesticides are leaching quickly and are
having an effect on the ground water?
Secretary LYNG. Yes; in December, I announced that we were work-
ing on a new program to get more forests into the long-term Conser-
vation Reserve Program. This was not designed to change the question
of whether it would be highly erodible land, but to make land that had
not been used in certain crops more eligible. This was well received. I
don't think we have completed the regulations. They haven't been
proposed yet.
Senator KASTEN. Related to part of that, at least, was the effort at
trying to include border strips?
Secretary LYNG. Yes; we have done that.
Senator KASTEN. And Some less erodible acreage. I think that par-
ticular part has been very well received, at least in Wisconsin and
throughout the Midwest.
Secretary LYNG. Yes; that has some benefits in getting clean water
and water conservation.
25
Senator KASTEN. One other related issue has come up in Wisconsin.
As you know, we have a long tradition, well before the 1985 farm bill,
of concern about Soil conservation. We have got a number of farmers
that were taking care of their fragile cropland and not letting it erode
years and years ago, and that group of farmers finds itself ineligible for
the CRP. In other words, the law was written to take only land in the
CRP that was eroding heavily, and if you don't have erosion, if you
have dealt with it yourself, you don't have a problem.
Now, I helped write the law that way, but we are looking at that. The
question that has come up, and it is coming up in Wisconsin and other
Midwest states, is now that we are well along to achieving Some of the
original objectives of the CRP, might it be possible to consider working
with the program to somehow recognize those farmers who have always
worked to reduce erosion on their land?
Secretary LYNG. I would like to ask Peter Myers, my Deputy, to
respond to that. He is more familiar with those details of the program
than I am.
Mr. MYERS. Senator, the goal and the stated purpose in the law was
to take highly erodible cropland and put it into permanent cover. So
the law precludes us from taking anything other than cropland and put-
ting it in the Conservation Reserve at this time.
Now, I would go back to your first question on porous land. Under
an overall objective, we are looking at any type of ramification that we
can use to improve problems with ground water. We are not specifically
focusing on porous land at this point. But that would be something we
would look at in a Study of how we could positively impact ground
Water.
Senator KASTEN. I am pleased with your response, Mr. Secretary, and
Deputy Secretary Myers. I think as we look at the next couple of years,
this ground water question will be a particularly important one, and it
may be that the Success that we have had in the Conservation Reserve
can be pushed a little bit into this ground water area. If that could be
the case, I think we would really be making a contribution.
THE DAIRY PROGRAM
Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, one final question on the dairy program.
The current law is set up, Mr. Secretary, as you know, so that the Sup-
port price falls 50 cents per hundredweight if the CCC purchases are es-
timated each year to be over 5 billion pounds.
The government uses the better part of 5 billion pounds worth of
dairy products in its nutrition and commodity distribution programs
and would do this even if there was no price Support program. The
price Support cut hits the upper Midwest hardest, though the greatest
growth in milk-producing capacity is not coming from the upper
Midwest; it comes from the west coast and Texas. The farmers in
Wisconsin are more and more questioning the fairness of this, and I
think they are right.
26
I would like to get your thoughts on whether the time has come to
make fundamental changes in federal dairy policy, both in the price Sup-
port program, and in the area of milk marketing orders. It seems to me
that the time may have come to direct dairy policy less at Supporting
the price of milk and more at Supporting family farmers, the people
who theoretically, at least, are Supposed to benefit from farm programs.
You are very familiar with the dairy industry, and I just want to ask if
you agree with this? Do you think it might be time for us to start to
review both the price support program and the milk marketing orders?
Secretary LYNG. Senator Kasten, I think there is always Some value in
reviewing and trying to determine if there isn't something that can be
done a better way. But as we have done that over the years, and looked
at our dairy programs, we have found that even though they are com-
plex and at times they get a little bit out of Sync with reality, they have
worked rather well for the dairy producers and consumers.
We now have a Dairy Policy Commission that was called for in the
1985 Food Security Act. This group is about to complete their study
and make some recommendations on the very issues that you have
mentioned.
They have been taking a look at the marketing order System and the
dairy price Support System. There is no question about it, this is a con-
Stantly changing area. Dairy cows get more and more productive, and
dairy farmers get better at handling their herds. Changes in the federal
government's Farm Program have made grains less expensive than they
otherwise would be, and have created Some changes in the advantages
of production in areas where grain is a heavy ingredient, such as in the
production of milk.
As time goes on, we are going to see new hormones and other tech-
niques and technology that will change the production of milk, and so I
think there is probably a need for a fairly constant review of our dairy
policy. I don't think there is a critical need for Something to be done to
meet a crisis. I don't think we have, on a national basis, in any case,
what could be determined as a crisis right now.
Senator KASTEN. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you,
particularly as we look at the geographic impact of current dairy policy.
I think where we might disagree is that the program might be working
well for the taxpayers, but is causing Some regional dislocations that
work to the detriment of the farmers in my state. I think that is what
we want to be looking at. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley.
BUDGET SUMMIT AGREEMENT
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, just a
commentary. First of all, you mentioned that agriculture had con-
tributed its fair share to the budget Summit and the compromise, and
the administration was within that Summit agreement.
I guess my conclusion would be, you did that, but I think that the
fair share is probably, from my estimation, if you look at the percentage
27
of our budget in agriculture to the total budget, more than our fair
share. As I see the relationship of agriculture to the total budget, and
the amount we actually contributed, percentage wise, we actually con-
tributed more than our fair share.
In regard to reaching this figure, Mr. Secretary, did you factor in the
expected sale of USDA's soybean inventory to arrive at the 1989 budget
figure?
Secretary LYNG. I am going to let our Budget Officer answer that. As
I pointed out in my Summary Statement, all of the expenditures under
the Commodity Credit Corporation are based upon estimates that we
will have, and I am not sure to what extent the sale of Soybean in-
ventory was considered.
Senator GRASSLEY. Would you answer that? I believe it was a factor,
right?
Mr. DEWHURST. Yes, Sir; that is correct.
Senator GRASSLEY. OK. How much did that amount to, within $20 or
$25 million?
Secretary LYNG. I don't think we can give you that figure, Senator.
We can take a look at what our estimates were and try to calculate how
much we allocated to that.
Senator GRASSLEY. Last December, I think we had about 250 million
bushels of Soybeans in the USDA inventory. I would like to have that
figure for the record, then, but this would lead me on to a followup
question.
I think the decision to include Soybean Sales as budget Savings was
the right decision. But I, and I think, several other members of the
Senate Agriculture Committee, requested that we include whatever that
amount was in December So that it would count toward the budget
Summit agriculture program Savings. At that point, this inventory and
the revenues for Sales had not yet been included in the balance sheet. I
was told at that point that the administration would not allow the sale
of Soybeans to be included in the revenue estimates, and So I would
like to have, regardless of what that number is, an explanation for why
the administration would not allow this during budget process, but now
it does.
Secretary LYNG. I'm Sorry, Senator. You know, those were closed ses-
Sions, and I was not a member of that negotiating group.
Senator GRASSLEY. We got the answer that agriculture's position was
that you did not want to do that. Now you are doing it. I am not com-
plaining; I just want to know what the change of attitude was.
Secretary LYNG. I really don't understand that. We have never been
hesitant to acknowledge that there was going to be some offsetting in-
come. We have seen quite a lot of that this year, not only from
Soybeans, but for other commodities in CCC. We have had good sales,
and good redemptions, Substantial amounts. We have never tried to
keep those. I will certainly look and See.
Senator GRASSLEY. Maybe you can Submit an answer in writing, then.
Will you?
28
Secretary LYNG. We will be happy to do so.
[The information follows:]
The budget for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) includes $2.5 billion in
savings during the fiscal year 1988–89 period, resulting from the budget reconciliation
legislation. Part of these savings is a result of an estimated $445 million to be achieved
from the 0/92 program. All of these savings are, of course, tentative. We will not
know the actual results for some time to come.
In addition to Savings achieved because of the reconciliation legislation, the budget
also includes an additional $2.5 billion in Savings as a result of improvements in supply
and demand conditions. Part of these savings are represented by $1.4 billion in receipts
to the CCC from Sales of Soybeans. Savings resulting from changing supply and
demand conditions, such as Soybean Sales, were not included in the reconciliation
process, since it was agreed that only legislated changes to programs would be Scored
as a savings. These savings, however, are included in the President's budget because
that budget contains the most recent estimate for CCC programs, taking into account
changes in legislation, as well as changes in market conditions.
MARKETING LOANS
Senator GRASSLEY. The next question is in regard to the Statement
that your budget will continue to move toward a more market oriented
farm economy. Can you tell me what further considerations you are
going to be giving, then, to the marketing loan for Soybeans? You have
always opposed that in the past.
Secretary LYNG. Yes; you and I have discussed this, Senator. The
1985 farm bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to con-
sult a marketing loan on Soybeans, on corn and other food things and
on wheat.
I have Said, from the very beginning, Since I became Secretary, as a
matter of fact, in my confirmation hearing, that it was not my intention
to install a marketing loan on Soybeans, corn, or on wheat. I have not
changed my views on that. The marketing loan on Soybeans today
would have very little value. But to announce one, it Seems to me,
could have the effect of reducing the price of Soybeans because I
wonder if the market would understand that. No marketing loan would
come into play, certainly, within the next calendar year or the next fis-
cal year or probably in the next 2 years. So that the disadvantages from
one could be severe and there could be no benefit.
Senator GRASSLEY. Well, I think my position and that of most people
I know in the upper Midwest, it remains the same on that. We would
like to have you consider it. I want to go on to another question, be-
cause we could debate that for a long period of time. You mentioned
the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, which provides financial assistance
under the farm credit System.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BOARD
I don't want to get too far off the subject, because this is on the
budget, but as a member of the Financial ASSistance Board, along with
the Secretary of the Treasury, can you tell me how Soon the farmer
representative will be appointed and Serving with you?
29
Secretary LYNG. The farmer representative of that Board is a presiden-
tial appointment and requires confirmation by the Senate. It is my un-
derstanding that the White House is accelerating the procedure to try to
get someone named as Soon as possible. But, Security checks would
have to be done before the President could Submit a nomination.
Senator GRASSLEY. Do you think that will be within a week or two?
Secretary LYNG. No, Sir, I have never Seen the procedure operate that
quickly. It may take many months.
Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Then we are really in Serious trouble. We
had heard that this process really isn't moving on a fast track. Could I
ask you to use your influence to get that done So we can get that
farmer representative on that board very quickly?
Secretary LYNG. I have done all that I can, really, but I simply can't
change that Security clearance procedure.
Senator GRASSLEY. Then I think that I need to remind myself and my
Staff that we need to See what we can do to Speed that up. I want to
have my staff give you a document that just came to my attention on a
farm credit matter. You don't have to study this right now; it is just So
you will know what I am talking about. As a member of the Financial
ASSistance Board, I give this to you, because you will have Some in-
fluence over the lending policies of the Farm Credit System, and this
document very much disturbS me.
The copy you have, if this is a policy of the Farm Credit System, it
represents a policy of browbeating and strong-arming farm borrowers
and those who are attempting to reach agreement with the Farm Credit
System, and it very definitely circumvents congressional intent.
Basically, this is asking farmers who are negotiating out of Omaha to
sign off any of their farmers rights that we legislated in the Farm
Credit Act. If they sign that, they are saying that none of those rights
are going to apply. I think that that is really circumventing our act.
Most of the work of the members on this committee and the
Agriculture Committee, you know, was more toward borrower rights
than a lot of the other things in that bill. The bailout was secondary.
I would like to have you look into that as a member of this board
and See if, hopefully, you will agree with me, and hopefully, you will
put a stop to this Sort of effort to get farmers to sign away their rights.
[The information follows:
83–470 O - 88 – 2
30
WQIVER OF RIGHTS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT acT OF 1987
I / We . . ... . . . . and . * - * * * , underst and that
Section 122 (Sections 4. i4P, and 4. 14'E) and Section i 26
(Section 4. 14) of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987
(attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated here in by
reference) confer on me/ us specific rights concerning the
restructuring of our distressed loan, including rights to
certain notices, meetings, review by a Credit Review
Committee and stock retent ion. I / We further acknowledge
receipt of a copy of the DISTRESSED LOAN RESTRUCTURING
POLICY.
I/We hereby voluntarily waive all such rights afforded by
said Act and Policy and hereby consent to :
-entering into and effectuating a previously
negotiated restructure agreement
I/We further underst and that in consideration of and reli arice
on the above waiver, Lender will proceed with the above
described action.
Dated this ------ day of • 19––.
STATE OF . Iowa, COUNTY OF , SS:
On this ----- day of , 19 . , before
rne, a Notary Public, personal ly appeared “ . . . .
and - - , , . . . . . . . . . . to rme known to be the person (s) narmed in
and who executed the fore going instrument and acknowled ped
that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for
said Courity and State
My commission expires:
31
At t a chrmert "A"
pt tachment to the cort ract between The Federal Land Bank of
Ornaha as Bell ers and * * * - and
husband and wife, as Buyer B dated the . . . day of
e , 1988. e -
22. HONMESTEAD EXEMPTION WAIVER,
Each of the undersigned Buyers hereby relinquishes all rights
of dower, homestead and distributive share in and to any real
estate property which is described in mortgages, . contract a of
sale or other security instruments referred to above and
waive all rights of exemption as to any said property.
WE, UNDERsTAND THAT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY IS IN MANY cases
PROTECTED FROM THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS ØND EXEMPT FROM
JUDICIAL SALE 1 AND THAT BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT, WE
VOLUNTEARILY GIVE UP ANY RIGHT TO THIS PROTECTION FOR THIS
PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS BASED UPON THIS CONTRACT,
Date z
Date:
323. ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
Buyers shall provide Sellers with a certified balance sheet
and income statement in a form acceptable to Lender, on
January 1, 1989 and annually thereafter until the contract is
paid in full .
24. INSURANCE REGUI REMENTS.
Insure, and keep insured, against fire or casualty, in a
minimum amount of & " ... :- . . . . . all buildings or improvements
now on, or subsequently placed on, the secured property. The
policy shall name Seller and Buyer as coinsured, as their
interest B may appear, and shall contain a loss payee clause
in favor of Seller. Buyer shall direct the insurance .
carrier (s) to not ify Seller at least 10 days in advance of
the terrmination or expiration of the policy. On cºr before
the effective date of this Contract, Buyer shall promptly
provide Seller with proof of performance of this provision,
and provide Seller with such proof during the term of this
Contract as Seller may require.
32
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how much time I
had. I know I have taken a lot of time. I have some more questions,
but if it is your practice to only give us So much time then move on to
my colleagues, and I will wait for a second turn.
Secretary LYNG. I will be glad to look into this and provide some-
thing for the record.
Senator BURDICK. Very fine.
[The information follows:
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) continues to be the Federal Regulator of the
Farm Credit System, including the Federal Land Bank of Omaha. It is my understand-
ing that the FCA has already taken action to look into the question of the waiver of
borrowers' rights granted by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987.
The Farm Credit Assistance Board (the Board) has received a request for certification
of eligibility to issue preferred stock from the Federal Land Bank of Omaha. I can as-
Sure you the Board will look into the matter that you raised in its review of the
Omaha request.
FMHA LOAN PROGRAM
Senator BURDICK. Senator BumperS.
Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I can't
tell from your testimony here how much money is in direct loans.
There is $3.5 billion in guaranteed loans, is that correct, in the Farmers
Home Administration?
Secretary LYNG. Yes; that is right.
Senator BUMPERS. Is there $500 million in direct loans?
Secretary LYNG. There is $4 billion, of which $3.5 billion is
guaranteed loans and $500 million is direct loans.
Senator BUMPERS. How does that compare with the loans made in
1987? Mr. Secretary, all I am trying to establish here is the adequacy of
the amount.
Mr. DEWHURST. The split was about 50/50 in 1987, Senator. The total
was about $2.5 billion, of which about $1.2 billion was guaranteed, and
about $1.3 billion was direct.
Senator BUMPERS. What is the criteria for a direct loan?
Mr. DEWHURST. Essentially, that the farmer cannot get credit else-
where, that he needs Farmers Home Administration help to plant his
crop and get a production loan.
Senator BUMPERS. Did you use all your $3.4 billion, whatever it was,
in 1987? Was that all taken?
Secretary LYNG. I don’t think we used quite all of either one. We
would be glad to submit that for the record, Senator. We did not run
out of credit during the past fiscal year.
[The information follows:
For fiscal year 1987, approximately $3.6 billion was available for farm operating
loans. The amount obligated during the year was $1.3 billion for direct and $1.2 billion
for guarantees for a total of slightly over $2.5 billion.
Senator BUMPERS. Do you envision credit being a little more available
to farmers this year from private sources, private lenders?
Secretary LYNG. I think it is a little bit more available, Senator, but I
also think, farmers have used the very high net cash farm income that
33
we have had last year. You know, we set a record last year with $57 bil-
lion of net cash farm income, and it was over $50 billion in the preced-
ing year. It is encouraging to note that farmers have reduced their debts
and are borrowing less.
REDUCTION OF FARM DEBT
Senator BUMPERS. How much have they reduced their debt, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary LYNG. As I recall, they have reduced their debt Something
like $50 or $60 billion over the 2-year period.
Senator BUMPERS. Over the 2-year period? That is from all Sources,
private, federal, and banks?
Secretary LYNG. Yes, from all sources.
Senator BUMPERS. Everybody?
Secretary LYNG. That is right.
Senator BUMPERS. That is a reduction of $50 billion from what
amount? What was the total farm debt?
Secretary LYNG. As I recall, it is a 26-percent reduction.
Senator BUMPERS. A 26-percent reduction?
Secretary LYNG. Yes.
Senator BUMPERS. So the total farm debt was well over $200 billion,
$210, $212 billion?
Secretary LYNG. I think that those figures are approximately correct,
but I could provide the numbers for the record.
Senator BUMPERS. Yes, of course.
[The information follows:]
USDA recently revised its methods for calculating total farm debt. The new methods
exclude CCC loans for price support purposes, but include CCC loans for storage and
drying facilities. Numbers are reported both including and excluding household debt,
primarily for dwellings. The revised numbers for total farm debt since 1982 are as
follows:
TOTAL FARM DEBT, 1982–87
Excluding including
household household
debt debt
1982.….......................................................... $189,500,000,000 $203,100,000,000
1983.….....…............................. 192,700,000,000 206,500,000,000
1984.…....................…...........…............. 190,800,000,000 204,400,000,000
1985......................................................... , - e - tº e & e < * * 175,200,000,000 188,000,000,000
1986.…......................…............................. 155,000,000,000 166,800,000,000
1987 (estimate).......................................... • * * * * * * 140,700,000,000 151,500,000,000
As indicated by these figures, total farm debt (including household debt) declined
from $204.4 billion in 1984 to $151.5 billion in 1987. This is a reduction of $52.9 bil-
lion or 25.9 percent during that period.
Senator BUMPERS. I just want to be sure. Our farmers, at least the
farmers in my state, are at least hopeful, now, whereas a year ago they
were in total despair. We had the best yield of cotton we have ever had
by far and the best price we have had in years. And rice is beginning to
come back, thanks to the marketing loan. But the farmers are not out
34
of the woods by a long shot. They are still heavily in debt, and I just
want to make sure that there is a sufficient amount of money in this
program. Frankly, $4 billion ought to be enough, but we will probably
know more about that very shortly, within the next 60 days, as our
phone begins to ring about who is out of money and who is not under
the fiscal year 1988 budget.
But this is the 1989 budget you are Submitting to us which takes me
to my question for this year. How much is in this year's budget for
direct loans?
Mr. DEWHURST. In this year's budget for operating loans, there is
about $3.1 billion, Senator. Of that amount, about $2.1 billion is in
guarantees, and roughly $900 million is in direct loans.
Senator BUMPERS. While I am at it, is there money in this year's
budget for what are called limited resource loans? If so, how much?
Mr. DEWHURST. It is not budgeted Specifically, but if the farmer can
show that he has a need for subsidized credit, he can get a limited
resource loan. The majority of our direct operating loans are being
made on a So-called limited resource basis, which means the interest
rate is reduced down from what the farmer would ordinarily pay to ap-
proximately 6 percent. We don't budget that ahead of time in the sense
of Saying so much would be for a limited resource loan.
WATER AND WASTE GRANTS
Senator BUMPERS. Second, Mr. Secretary, one of the things that I
have been greatly concerned with ever since I have been in the Senate,
and certainly, ever Since I have been on this committee, is the Rural
Water and Waste Treatment Grants Program. When I first came on this
committee, or certainly about the time Ronald Reagan was elected
President, this program was appropriated well over $300 million a year.
I happen to think that it is the greatest program going. I think it is a
real tragedy that this program has been cut to the point that it is almost
meaningless. For example, in your 1989 request, you have asked for $75
million for this program. Now, bear in mind that it has not been very
long since this was a $300 million plus program. And for 1989, you are
asking $75 million, and that is a $34.5 million cut from just 1988.
We provided $109 million this year. I might say the reason we got
that is because I got it put in there. You tried to cut the program Sig-
nificantly last year. But can Somebody on the panel tell me how many
applications you have pending around the country for funds and the to-
tal amount of those applications?
Mr. MYERS. We will have to Submit that for the record, Senator, as
far as the number of applications pending.
Senator BUMPERS. The funding request is in the billions, isn't it?
Mr. MYERS. I don't know. Do you know, Mr. Dewhurst?
Mr. DEWHURST. I think there are about 1,500 applications. I don't
know the total dollar amount.
Senator BUMPERS. I think I have got that many in Arkansas. You Say
there are 1,500 applications nationwide for both rural water and waste
treatment applications in rural communities?
35
Mr. DEWHURST. Yes, Sir.
Senator BUMPERS. Seriously, I think we have over 150 applications
pending in my state. I can't believe 1,500 would be a correct figure, but
I may be wrong.
Secretary LYNG. We will be happy to Submit that for the record,
Senator.
[The information follows:
FmHA has on hand a nationwide total of 1,665 applications for water and waste as-
sistance, with a total dollar request of $995 million (for both loans and grants). While
these totals include projects eligible for assistance, not all of the projects may be ready
for funding in fiscal year 1988. Within the national totals, the State of Arkansas
represents 156 applications with a total value of $111 million.
Senator BUMPERS. If you would be kind enough, Send a copy of that
directly to my office, will you please?
Secretary LYNG. I will be happy to do that, Senator Bumpers.
RULES ON PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Secretary, the thing that bothers my farmers
right now, the thing they are most apprehensive about, are the new
EPA rules dealing with herbicides and pesticides and endangered
species. How closely is the USDA working with EPA on this and how
much research is being done to try to overcome the problem? Also,
does the USDA have projections about what this is likely to do to com-
modity production costs, food prices and Supply availability, and So on
over the long run?
We all know that herbicides and pesticides can potentially cause
damage and are causing Some, to underground water Supplies and Some-
thing has to be done about it. But if you are a farmer out there and
you know that your yield is going to go to nothing if you are
prohibited from using any of these herbicides and pesticides, you have
quite a different attitude about it. Just comment on that generally, if
you would, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary LYNG. We are very concerned about it, Senator, and you
are properly concerned too. It seems to me, it is appropriate that we
discuss it.
The research that we do on herbicides and pesticides is multiple. We
are doing this research at land grant universities throughout the nation;
We are doing this research in our own Agricultural Research Service.
We are working as closely as we can with the Environmental Protection
Agency. We actually have working groups of people from our education
and research areas working and giving as much guidance as we can to
the Environmental Protection Agency. We have a good working rela-
tionship with them.
There is a massive problem involved here. Part of it is Scientific, and
part of it is just a general public concern about the safety of water and
the safety of air and the Safety of foods and the safety of using
agrichemicals. I think we have accomplished an awful lot in this world
and in this nation in the years since I Started with the California State
Department of Agriculture in 1967.
36
I think that the agricultural contamination is far less than it was at
that time. We have improved the situation, clearly. We have not solved
all of the problems, nor have we come very close to satisfying the con-
cerns of many people, which I think need to be satisfied. People need
to know that the food, the water they drink and the air they breathe is
Safe. And we need to do more to make Sure that is true and then es-
tablish that fact.
Senator BUMPERS. The reckoning hour is coming close. EPA has es-
tablished rules and implementation has been postponed. I don't know if
they are firm and fixed yet, but they have established rules for 1989 for
farmland within certain distances of flowing streams and 25 or 26
counties in Arkansas are likely to be affected. It seems to me that, No.
1, the USDA ought to be making some massive commitments to alter-
natives to current herbicides and pesticides; and No. 2, conducting mas-
sive studies of projections of the food Supply and commodity produc-
tion costs for the future. I think it is one of the most Serious problems
that agriculture in this country faces right now.
Secretary LYNG. We certainly agree with you. We have no quarrel
with that at all.
POULTRY INSPECTION
Senator BUMPERS. Finally, Mr. Secretary, I take it that you are famil-
iar with my interest in poultry inspection, and if you are not, I will be
happy to enlighten you on that. Are you familiar with the little
brouhaha we had in the Conference Committee last year of the House
and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committees about poultry
inspection?
Secretary LYNG. I don't think I recall any uproar in the Conference
Committee.
Senator BUMPERS. Well the point I want to make is, don't do anything
until you check with me. [Laughter.]
We got into a real Donnybrook last year with Congressman Neil
Smith on the House side, and I can tell you that the poultry industry is
as interested as anybody in putting out a clean product. I know I can
say the same thing for the USDA. You want to protect the consumer,
and so do they. They have more to lose from it than anybody. I don't
mind telling you that while I feel strongly about the safety of their
product, I also think they have been put upon unfairly in Some
instances.
I think that some of the proposals that float around here, from
people who don't know anything about the poultry business and know
a lot less about the Food Safety Inspection Service, would bankrupt an
industry which provides not only a good quality product, but one that
people are consuming more and more of all the time, and who would
also cause the price of the product, which is easily the most nutritious
food for the money of anything on the market today.
So having said that, Mr. Secretary, I just would refer you to a couple
of colloquies that were entered in the record last fall about this, which
would, indeed, give the Food Inspection Service an opportunity to do
37
the best job they can and the most Sensible job they can weighing the
interests of everybody involved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Harkin.
CROP LOANS
Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secre-
tary, I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions that the dis-
tinguished chairman was just covering with you when I walked in the
room a little bit late.
I noted that your announcement on January 29 that regular crop
loans would not be extended for wheat, feed grains and Soybeans, and
extended loans from 1985 and 1986 would not be extended, as well.
While I can understand that policy with regard to wheat and Soybeans,
it does not seem to be logical as it regards to feed grains.
During the next year, more than 3 billion bushels of corn loans will
be maturing, with no real prospect to the price climbing much above
the loan rate. This is going to create massive forfeitures of corn to the
CCC and lost income opportunity for farmers who receive 26% cents a
bushel for Storing this corn. Now, I have gotten a lot of calls from Iowa
recently, from farmers, who have been notified that they will not be per-
mitted to extend their loans, which means they are going to have to for-
feit their grain. They take it out of their bins, they take it down to the
local elevator, and they lose their 26% cents.
Now, my question, basically, is: What is going to happen to all this
corn, especially when it is going to be forfeited between, let's say, begin-
ning in March, going on through the harvest period? You are going to
have all that corn, plus you have got the new corn crop coming in.
Where are you going to store all that corn?
First of all, do you have any estimate of how many bushels are going
to be forfeited this year, for corn?
Secretary LYNG. Yes; we estimate that, but very carefully, and I will
be glad to Submit the paper for the record here that shows all of how
We have calculated the need to make these changes.
Senator HARKIN. This paper? Is that what you are referring to?
[The information follows:
38
SITUATION REGARDING GRAIN STOCKS NEEDED TO MEET MARKET REQUIREMENTS
During the past year, the wheat and feed grain situation has changed
dramatically from one of accumulating stocks to one of declining stocks.
The level of carryover stocks of all major grains is being drawn down.
U.S. exports of grain have staged a significant recovery. This year, the
total volume of U.S. agricultural exports will reach 141 million metric
tons, up 29 percent from the 110 million metric tons exported 2 years ago.
However, a large share of grain stocks are controlled by the Government.
So-called free stocks--those accessible to the market--are declining, and
in the absence of actions to access Government-control led stocks, the
export recovery could be choked off.
Congress recognized this situation when they legislated a lowering of the
minimum level for farm-owned reserve Stocks last December.
In order to avoid disrupting export and domestic sales as grain stocks are
reduced, the USDA recently changed policies on extending producer loans for
wheat, feed grains and soybeans. Numerous questions have been raised
concerning these actions. The following information is to clarify the
recent actions and to show the quantities of grain involved.
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS. Various programs are referred to in this
informational release. To better understand them, a brief explanation
follows:
A. Producer Loans: (Wheat/Feed Grains)
a. Regular Loans --1987-crop loans that mature on the last day of
the ninth month following the month the loan is made.
b. Extended Loans --1985- and 1986-crop loans with maturity dates
that have been extended an additional 12 or 24 months (1985
crop only)
c. Farmer-owned Reserve (FOR) Loans--1980 through 1985 crops.
These were regular loans that were placed into the FOR for a
minimum of 3 years with various extensions offered beyond the
original maturity dates.
d. Special Producer Storage Loans--Available only to maturing FOR
contracts and includes 1980- through 1983-crop year loans.

B. Storage Payment: An annual payment equal to 26.5 cents per bushel
for corn, barley, sorghum and wheat (20.0 cents per bushel for
oats). Storage payments are paid in advance for grain under
extended loans, the farmer-owned reserve and the special producer
storage programs.
C. Temporary Storage: Applies to warehouses and requires that such
facilities have a concrete or asphalt floor, rigid self-supporting
sidewalls, an acceptable type covering and must have aeration.
0. Emergency Storage: Includes storage on the ground in piles, on
barges, and rail cars. Authorized only when a critical shortage
of storage space (commercial) exists in an area.
2. EXTENSION DECISIONS ANNOUNCED 1/29/88
a. 1987-crop Regular Loans: (Wheat, feed grains and soybeans) Will
not be extended and may not enter the FOR.
b. 1985-and 1986-crop Extended Loans: (Wheat, feed grains and
soybeans) Will not be extended further when they mature.

39
c. Special Producer Storage Loans: (Wheat and feed grains) All
crop-year loans maturing after March 1, 1988, will not be
extended.
d. Farmer-Owned Reserve Loans: (Wheat, barley and oats) FOR loans
for 1983 and prior crop-years maturing after March 1, 1988, will
not be extended. Reserve loans for the 1984-crop may be extended
at the producer's option for 1 year.
e. Farmer-Owned Reserve Loans: (Corn and sorghum-All crop-years) No
decision has been made.
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SUPPLY/DEMAND PROJECTIONS THAT GENERATE THE NEED
FOR ADDITIONALIGRAIN SUPPLIES7 For wheat, the 1987/88 marketing year
UETTTZatſon TSTEFojected at 2,660 miſſion bushels, more than 550
million bushel's greater than the 1987 production of 2,105 million
bushel S. Most of this short-fall will have to come from CCC
inventories. By June 1, 1988, CCC inventories will be at minimal
levels. USDA analysts are projecting a drawdown in ending wheat
stocks this marketing year of 540 million bushels, the largest
year-to-year decline of record. A similar situation could occur for
the 1988/89 marketing year, possibly reducing ending stocks on June 1,
1989, to below 1.0 billion bushels for the first time since the 1980
crop. Therefore, a need will continue in the wheat complex for stocks
to be available to the market place to meet domestic and export use
requirements.
For feed grains, total 1987/88 marketing year use is projected to
exceed the 1987 production level by at least 10 percent. Ending
stocks for the 1987/88 year are expected to decline at least 15
percent. Corn stocks are expected to decline over 750 million
bushels. This situation is projected to continue into the 1988/89
marketing year. Although overall supply for feed grains, especially
corn, is more burdensome than for wheat, it will be necessary to
access CCC inventories and producer loan grain to meet expected
demand. Several hundred million bushels will likely be needed.
L0ANS MATURING ON A MONTHLY BASIS FOR THE NEXT 18 MONTHS2
Month of Maturit Wheat 1/ Corn 1/ Sorghum 1/ Barley 1/
(As of T2731737) - - - million busheſ ST-T- - *-
February 1988 40.0 *E* sº tº tº 10. 0
March 33.0 * * tº º 7.0
April 76. 0 tº ºg 12.0 9.0
May 135.0 38.0 34.0 61.0
June 67. 0 288.0 25. 0 37. 0
July 29.0 1,333.0 54 - 0 13.0
August 15. 0 822.0 62.0 8.0
September 33.0 304.0 36.0 10.0
October 9. 0 103.0 23.0 7.0
November 5. 0 55.0 11.0 5.0
December 6.0 73. 0 9. 0 6.0
January 1989 2.0 58.0 9.0 9.0
February º, º ºs tº sº sº º tº º
March sº wº wº, ºr age sº tº gº
April &=º º sº º * : *- sº gº
May sº tº sºme sº ems tº tº gº
June tº gº sº sº * * * sº tº
July E. : « ». tº ºr e * * * * tº gº
TOTAL T55.0 3,034.0 2750 I32.0
1/ Excludes 1984 and 1985 crop reserve Toans that mature duFing
18-inonth period. Includes 240 million bushels of 1987-crop
wheat loans, 2,355 million bushels of corn, 139 million bushels
of sorghum and 84 million bushe's of barley.
40
5.
HOW WILL THE MATURING GRAIN LOANS AFFECT THE NORMAL MOVEMENTS OF GRAIN
DURING HARWEST? About two-thirds of the wheat loans will mature prior
to the T988-crop harvest Twhiſe over 80 percent of the corn loans will
mature before harvest. Thus, the quantities of producer Toans
available to the market as a result of not extending these loans will
be significant. However, since the majority of this grain matures and
should move into market channels or CCC ownership prior to the harvest
of the 1988 crops, normal market movements of grain during harvest
should not be significantly interrupted. Similar effects are expected
for sorghum and barley.
WHY NOT OFFER A SHORT EXTENSION FOR ONLY THE NEWEST CROP LOANS2
Experience in prior years shows that when loans are extended with
storage payments, producers will tend to store the grain rather than
seek marketing opportunities or deliver to CCC.
WHERE IS THE GRAIN BEING STORED, AND WHAT ARE THE NUMBER OF BUSHELS IN
COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSES COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF BUSHELS IN
FARMER-OWNED-FACILITIES BY CROFTYEAR
Commodity/Crop Year 1/ Farm-stored Warehouse
T-T miſſion busheſs T-T
Wheat:
1980 25.7 8.0
1981 43.4 8.4
1982 62. 7 9.5
1983 61.4 46. 1
1984 61.5 28. 1
1985 134.1 52.4
1986 67. 3 13. 3
1987 199.4 40.5
TOTAL 655. 5 206. 3
Corn :
1980 3.3 ... 3
1981 62.0 8.4
1982 91.8 16.5
1983 6.5 1.3
1984 221.8 156.4
1985 785.3 289.8
1986 600.4 120. 7
1987 2,010.3 344.4
TOTAL 3,713. Aſ 937.8
Sorghum:
1980 .9 .6
1981 6.6 3.9
1982 9.6 4.8
1983 .9 ... 7
1984 6.1 7.7
1985 24.3 33.6
1986 27.8 49. 1
1987 56.8 97.1
TOTAL 133.0 197.5
Barley:
1980 2.2 * * = -
1981 11.0 • 1
1982 29.8 2.5
1983 3. 8 ... 1
1984 20.8 1.0
41
8.
10.
1985 45.4 3. 1
1986 36.2 1.0
1987 82.6 3.3
TOTAL 2.3T3 11.1
ITQuantities include grain in all producer Toans categories
as of 1/31/88. -
WHAT ARE THE COSTS OF KEEP ING THE GRAIN IN FARMER OWNED FAC ILITIES AS
OPPOSEDTOTCOMMERCIALTWAREHOUSESTUNTITTHE GRAINTISTACTUALIYTNEEDED
FORTEXPORTORIUOMESIICTUS:TAnnual Storage payments EOTEFoducers
under the various programs are 26.5 cents per bushel. However, CCC
currently pays commercial warehouses an average of about 35 cents per
bushel annually. Commercial storage rates are determined each year
through a negotiated offer-rate system. Commercial warehouses receive
larger storage payments because commercial storage costs tend to be
higher. Commercial warehouses require greater investment in handling,
transportation and inspection facilities than do farms; licensing and
insurance are required; requisite volumes of grain must be in store at
all times; and a sound financial condition must be maintained. Even
though a disparity in storage rates exists, it is USDA policy to move
grain from CCC into the market as soon as possible. Consequently, if
CCC holds the grain for a shorter period than the farmer under
extended loans, the accrued storage for CCC grain could be less than
for farmstored.
HOW MUCH GRAIN IS STILL IN TEMPORARY STORAGE FACILITIES2 For
farmstored Toan grain, temporary storage was authorized only for the
1986 crop and for a maximum of 120 days. This period has passed for
all farmstored loan grain; therefore, no grain on the farm presently
exists in temporary storage. Temporary storage has been approved for
commercial warehouses amounting to about 500 million bushels for
1987-crop grain. However, since the grain in temporary storage is not
identified by program function (i.e., CCC owned, warehouse owned or
producer loan), it is not possible to determine the quantity of
producer loan grain that might be included in such storage facilities.
WHY NOT REMOVE GRAIN IN TEMPORARY STORAGE FIRST? Removing grain from
temporary storage facilities is a high priority and every effort is
being made to empty such facilities. This is being done on a
continuing basis, and the USDA announcement on January 29, 1988, to
not extend producer loans will not deter this effort.
42
CORN STOCKS
CARRYOVER (MIL. BU.)
5000
asoo | TOTAL STOCKS
`-
4000 H.
FREE STOCKS
3500 H.
3000 H.
2500 H.
2000 H.
1500 H.
1 OOO H. écºno
500 H FARMER—OWNED RESERVE
O —l- —1–
1983 1984. 1985 1986
CROP YEAR
1987




43
SOYBEAN STOCKS
CARRYOVER (MIL. BU.)
600

sso | TOTAL STOCKS
500 – `s /
450 H.
400 -
J50 H.
SOO H. FREE STOCKS N
250 H.
200 H.
150 H.
1 OO H. \
50 H. CCC STOCKS
O –1 ~ -- 1– I
1983 1984, 1985 1986 1987
CROP YEAR
44
WHEAT STOCKS
CARRYOVER (MIL. BU.)
2000
TOTAL STOCKS

18OO \
16OO H. ->
1 400 H. FREE STOCKS N
1200 H.
1 OOO H. 4
800 – CCC AND
FARMER—OWNED RESERVE
6OO H.
400 H.
200 H.
| —l
O f 1. 1.
1983 1984. 1985 1986 1987
CROP YEAR
45
BARLEY STOCKS
CARRYOVER (MIL. BU.) -
400
TOTAL STOCKS
350 H. `s -
300 H.
250 H. -
.* FREE STOCKS
200 H >
150 H. __,
100 - - % -
CCC AND
50 F FARMER–OWNED RESERVE
O —l —l
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
CROP YEAR



46
Senator HARKIN. OK.
Secretary LYNG. We are not moving any grain out of farmer storage
facilities or announcing that there can be no contract renewals unless
we think we are going to need that grain in the market, both domestic
and export, in the near future. We are not simply moving grain from
farmers' Storage into terminal Storage or to commercial elevator storage
just to be doing that. But we must see to it that there is a sufficient
quantity, that is outside of the control of the government or the farmers
under government loan So that we can keep the exports moving. Our ex-
ports this year have been very good, and our carryover will be lower by
quite a lot, and as a result of that, we simply don't need as much
storage. We have not announced our full corn program yet. We are
waiting to get as much information as we can, particularly on Some
potential export business. We have not made a decision on the 1986
crop corn loans.
Senator HARKIN. But, Mr. Secretary, Some farmers in Iowa have al-
ready been notified that their loans would not be extended when they
are up in March.
Secretary LYNG. Those are older loans.
Senator HARKIN. Those are either last year's or the year before last.
Secretary LYNG. And we believe we need that grain available for
market.
Senator HARKIN. I look at the prices in this paper that I have from
you that came up earlier on the situation regarding grain Stocks needed
to meet market requirements. You say to meet expected demand it
would be necessary to access CCC inventories and producer loan grain
to meet expected demands. You say 700 million bushels will likely be
needed, and that is the estimate that I have, which may be 700 to 900
bushels that you are thinking of taking out of that loan. But if the
demand is there, the price would be going up, and I don’t See any in-
crease in those prices going above the loan rate at all. So where is the
demand? Or are we trying to Stimulate the demand by dumping all
these free Stocks out there to drive the price down?
Secretary LYNG. No; we haven't made any efforts to drive down the
price of corn. The price of corn has been hovering at loan levels or just
slightly above. The minute it goes a bit above the loan level, we are
seeing rather substantial redemptions of those loans.
Senator HARKIN. I would think SO.
Secretary LYNG. That is about where the market price is. That is a
fair world market price now, and at those levels we are Seeing, and ex-
pect to continue to see, rather Substantial export demand.
CORN PRICES
Senator HARKIN. I would think that this Seems like too much corn to
be taking out, and it appears to me that a lot of this corn will be
moved to elevators, Stored commercially, where the government is going
to pay 35 cents a bushel plus 10 cents in and 10 cents out. A lot of
money is going to be taken out of farmers pockets, especially farmers
47
who are storing this grain in their own bins. A lot of these people have
their bins paid for.
Some of them don't have their bins paid for. They would be hurting
even more. I estimate in the State of Iowa alone, Mr. Secretary, and
these are rough guesstimates on my part, that not renewing these loans
might cost the state of Iowa Somewhere between $75 and $80 million
this year in lost income to farmers and to the economy of the State of
Iowa. If the price goes up above that loan rate, farmers can redeem
those any time they want.
Secretary LYNG. And Senator, they are redeeming the huge quan-
tities. Just in the last few weeks, I think we have had over 200 million
bushels redeemed.
I can absolutely promise you that we are not doing what you have
Suggested. We are not going to cause the farmers of Iowa to lose that
amount of money. We think that the farmers of Iowa will want us to
keep the grain flowing. I think the farmers in Iowa and everywhere else
would agree that our efforts to expand our exports and to reduce our
stocks are the things that will give them the opportunity for prosperity
in the future. It is the thrust of the 1985 farm bill.
I would defend very vigorously the actions that we have announced,
and I will be glad to come up and go over them with you in detail: We
are not guilty of the charges you have made that we are irresponsible in
the Sense of moving this grain out of farmers' Storage and putting it
into commercial Storage and costing the farmers a lot of money. That is
absolutely not what we are doing, and we don't intend to do that. We
have no motive to do that. We want to keep this grain moving, but we
do recognize that there is going to be a Sizable reduction in the amount
of grain in Storage as we get to the end of the crop year just before
new crop harvesting. That is what we want.
Senator HARKIN. As I Said, I hope you are right, but I don't see that
demand there. If the demand is there, prices go up. That is the way I
have always been taught, anyway, and if the demand was there and the
prices were going up, farmers would go ahead and redeem it. They
would market it. I don't see that demand there, unless we are trying to
Stimulate the demand by keeping the prices low.
Secretary LYNG. Senator, if you compare the prices this year at this
time with what they were last year, you will see there is a rather Sub-
Stantial increase in the prices.
Senator HARKIN. That is right.
Secretary LYNG. We have actually a little lower support price, so that
We have done very well, in my view, of carrying out the intent of the
1985 farm bill. That is what we are going to continue to do, and I
think, the fears that you have expressed on corn are exaggerated or do
not exist.
Senator HARKIN. I think you are exaggerating the demand side, Mr.
Secretary. If you think I am exaggerating the impact on the state of
Iowa and the loss of income to farmers, I think you are exaggerating
the demand side of the picture, quite frankly. And I think you are
48
trying to dump a lot of that Stuff on the market just to keep that
demand out there and to keep it at a low price.
I see no reason why these farmers couldn't extend the loans. If the
market price gets up there, they will market the grain; they will sell the
grain, if the price is up there. They will do it. But I am concerned that
we are stimulating a low price just to keep this stuff moving, and I still
believe if you can show me how this grain is leaving that farmer's bins
and going right in the export channels, that would be all right. I could
live with that. But if that grain is going to be stored commercially for 9
months or 12 months, then it is costing the government more money
and it is taking money out of the farmers' pockets. You say that is not
going to happen. -
Secretary LYNG. That is not going to happen.
Senator HARKIN. I hope not.
EXPORT SITUATION
The other question I had, Mr. Secretary, had to do with our export
situation. The agreement between Japan and the United States regard-
ing their import quota on beef, quality beef, expires in March. I have
heard that you do not or this administration does not want to renew
that with Japan. In fact, we are telling the Japanese that we want free
access to their quality beef market without any quota restrictions what-
SOeVer.
Is that the case?
Secretary LYNG. The quotas that the Japanese have on beef, on citrus
and have had on a number of other agricultural commodities are a
violation of the rules of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade.
Japan and the United States are both contracting parties and have
signed the GATT agreement.
Going back well over 20 years, the Japanese persuaded us to permit a
quota on beef and citrus. At the time they did that, their plea was that
they had a very unfavorable trade balance with the United States and
they needed some help to get that trade balance in a better position.
For some years, we have tolerated quotas with the Japanese on 12
categories of food items. We did take them to the GATT, and we won
the decision on 10 out of those 12 very similar to the beef and citrus.
We had tolerated the beef and citrus thing, as you say, in 1984, and we
negotiated an increase in the quotas. At that time, then Ambassador
William Brock, who was the U.S. Trade Representative, said that this
would be the end; we will not negotiate another quota agreement. It is
time for the Japanese to open up their markets and give the Japanese
consumers the same opportunity to buy citrus and beef, as U.S. con-
Sumers are given to buy Japanese manufactured items, such as
electronic items.
We have repeated that continuously for the 4 years that this agree-
ment has been in force. AS we now come to the end of March, when
the agreement terminates, we have said that there is nothing to talk
about. This is the time for them to remove those quotas. The Japanese,
49
of course, are reluctant to do So, but it will be up to us if they fail to
do it, to determine whether or not it is an action that we would want to
take to the GATT. It seems to me that we certainly would want to con-
sider this action, because the principles of the violation of the GATT
agreement are very clear and were established, it seems to me, quite
clearly on the 12 categories.
Senator HARKIN. I am familiar with the decision on the 12, but did
you just state that their beef quota is in violation of GATT2
Secretary LYNG. Yes; it is in violation of the GATT.
BEEF IMPORTS
Senator HARKIN. Why isn't our beef quota in violation of the GATT2
Secretary LYNG. We got a waiver when we joined the GATT on a
number of items.
Senator HARKIN. I was just in Australia and New Zealand a little over
a month ago, and they would like to have us do what we want the
Japanese to do. They want us to get rid of our beef import quota So
they could ship more beef into this country. Do you think we should
do that?
Secretary LYNG. I think it is something that could be done, provided
the markets all over the world were opened up. The United States is
the largest importer of beef in the world and is one of the few places
that permit beef in quantity to be imported. The European Community,
in contrast, imports almost no beef.
Senator HARKIN. I just find it odd that we are trying to get the
Japanese to do what we wouldn't do. I don't know that my cattle
farmers, my beef producers, would want our counter cyclical beef im-
port quota to be just wiped out and done away with and flood us with
cheap Australian beef and whatever else they might have. Again, I am
concerned that the Japanese are going to retaliate against feed grains.
They have already Said that. Have you Seen the article in the Post or
the Wall Street Journal where they were going to retaliate and Start
buying their feed grains some place else? That is obviously important to
my State, also. There is no doubt about it.
Secretary LYNG. I don't understand what you favor.
Senator HARKIN. What I favor is sitting down with Japan, as we do
with other nations, and fairly and logically negotiating in the best inter-
ests of both countries. It may be in the interest of Japan to have some
form of a beef quota. It may be in our interest to have some form of a
beef quota. I think it is in our interest. I think the counter cyclical beef
quota that we have has worked well, and I think we can reach agree-
ments with countries based on those principles of mutual respect,
mutual concern and mutual advantage. But to Say to Japan, no, we are
not going to negotiate, period, I think, leaves us in a very vulnerable
position both with regards to retaliation and with regards to our own
quota that we have set up and under which we have operated for
many, many years.
50
Secretary LYNG. Senator, in California there is a feed lot that is feed-
ing beef that can be shipped to Japan. Because the quota restricts it and
will not permit that beef to come in, those steers are being shipped
alive. One hundred thirty-five steers cost $175,000 to fly to Japan.
They then have to be put into quarantine, and it is my understanding
that the Steers, which would be pretty ordinary animals in the United
States, bring $5,000 to $7,000 each in the Japanese market. It seems to
me that when we have a country that is So restrictive on movement
from the United States and where the potential is for at least a dou-
bling of the amount of beef that for us to tolerate any kind of a quota
on beef simply just does not make Sense. The Japanese consumer would
love to double the amount of beef and that country has a $50 billion
favorable trade balance with us.
Senator HARKIN. Now you are picking and choosing, Mr. Secretary. I
was just in Korea, too, and they have an embargo on our high quality
beef to Korea. There is about, I forget what the figures are in Korea,
but it is quite a Substantial market in Korea that is closed to the Same
kind of beef producers you are talking about. Yet we are not doing a
thing about that.
Secretary LYNG. That is not true, Senator. We are doing things about
it. Ambassador Yeutter has, on many occasions and in recent weeks,
made representations to the Koreans. The Koreans are well aware of
our views, and I think that again, as in the case of Japan, they have got
to do Something about those quotas.
Senator HARKIN. And the same way with New Zealand. New Zealand
embargos our poultry. Yet we buy a lot of their beef and their lamb,
but they embargo our poultry. What are they going to do about New
Zealand?
Secretary LYNG. I don't know anything about that.
Senator HARKIN. My point is that I want to get our trade balance
down in Japan; you bet I do. I think that they ought to buy more of
our beef. But to pick them out and say, No, we aren't going to
negotiate with you at all, may turn around and hurt our grain farmers,
because there is a delicate balance there. You may be interested in your
big feed lot producers in California, Mr. Secretary, but I am also inter-
ested in my feed grain producers in Iowa that Sell a lot of grain to
Japan, too. They have already Said that that might be a point of retalia-
tion if, in fact, we proceed on this path. And I am concerned about
that.
Secretary LYNG. I don't think the feed grain people in Iowa would
want to Sell out the beef people, anyway.
Senator HARKIN. No; but I think what they want is fairness. They
want fairness and equity, and I think they recognize that farmers in
Japan have a right to exist as farmers do everywhere, and that to pick
that out and not go after New Zealand or not go after Korea or a few
other places, I think, is playing favorites here. I think my feed grain
farmers want a balance.
51
Secretary LYNG. Well, obviously, you and I have a strong philosophi-
cal disagreement on this. I think we should demand from the Japanese
access to their markets as long as we continue to give them the kind of
access to our markets that we do.
Senator HARKIN. But I think we ought to demand it of other
countries, also.
Secretary LYNG. I agree with that.
Senator HARKIN. But I don't See you doing it to any other countries.
Secretary LYNG. We are doing it to other countries. I just returned
from a trip to Six South Eastern Asian countries, where we made that
clear over and over and over again.
Senator HARKIN. You can Say that, but I See no movement in Korea
or anything else in that regard.
Secretary LYNG. This morning I met with members of the European
Parliament, talking the same kinds of iSSues, the hormones and third
country meat directives. We are constantly involved. That is a very
major part of our activities.
Senator HARKIN. I guess we do have a philosophical disagreement, be-
cause I do believe that each country has to devise its own policies to
Support its own Social and economic Systems. I visited Japanese farms.
Their farmers are doing quite well. They have a System that is Set up
that maybe we wouldn't have, but it works for them. Yes, we should
have access to their markets, but, for example, to tell the Japanese that
they can do away with rice farming and we can Sell them all the rice
they need, I think, is ridiculous.
Senator SASSER. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent
request? •
Senator HARKIN. Yes; I am going to be through in 1 Second. I think
that is ridiculous. I think we have to understand what these other
countries need, and we have to deal with them fairly and equitably So
that their farmers prosper and So do ours rather than this dog-eat-dog
Situation that we have found ourselves in in the last couple of years. So
that is our philosophical difference. I yield.
Senator BURDICK. Do you have question?
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator SASSER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my
Opening Statement be included in the record today as if read.
Senator BURDICK. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM SASSER
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have reached a promising point in the path toward economic recovery in our
agricultural communities. It would seem that we have seen the worst. Farm incomes
are continuing to increase, and the extensive supply of government-held commodities
appears to be falling. As well, the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 should help to stabil-
ize many farm budgets by easing the pressure of meeting excessive payments. The
º increases in American farm exports also add up to a brighter picture for our
aſſnerS.
52
Needless to say, it is important that the Department of Agriculture continue to
promote development in our agricultural community. Although the future of the farm
community is much brighter, the U.S. Government will spend over $17 billion on farm
programs in the coming year. I know farmers in Tennessee agree with me that we
should not accept costly farm programs as the status quo for America. We must Strive
for farmers to be less dependent on government Supports and quotas.
At the same time, where we have Seen a significant amount of emphasis placed on
the mechanisms of running our farm programs, I believe we must now focus on the in-
frastructure of farming. By infrastructure, I mean the rural community and natural
resources which are the basis of our agricultural communities.
There has been a dramatic decrease in America's rural population. The administra-
tion's 1989 budget summary notes that "nonmetropolitan areas lost 632,000 persons to
metropolitan areas in 1985 and 1986 * * * with most of these in the 20 to 40 age
group which compromises the most productive part of the work force.” I would hazard
to guess that this figure is low. In the 20 to 40 age group in Tennessee, rural areas
lost 59,953 to urban areas between 1975 and 1980.
We must improve efforts directed at rural revitalization. There are several bills
before Congress which focus on economic developinent in rural areas. Rural develop-
ment is a wise investment, one which I encourage the Department of Agriculture to
Support fully.
Our rural communities are the backbone of America. Efforts must be made to keep
these communities not simply functioning, but attractive for business and young work-
ing men and women. The failure of rural America would certainly spell disaster for the
remainder of the American economy.
In conjunction with rural development, the Department needs to emphasize improved
conservation of natural resources, namely soil and water. These are the single most im-
portant elements in farming, but they are often taken for granted.
Water pollution and Soil erosion have devastated the countrysides of America for
years. Fortunately we are beginning to see programs which address these problems,
many of which Secretary Lyng has mentioned today. The Conservation Reserve and
Sodbuster provisions contained in the 1985 Farm Act and the recently passed Clean
Water Act are proving to be effective measures. However, it is obvious that we need to
do much more.
A report by the Environmental Protection Agency released last October noted the
“agricultural runoff [was] by far the most commonly reported nonpoint Source” of pol-
lution among those states reporting. Nonpoint pollution is a priority problem which
needs to be addressed. Improvements in soil retention and monitoring of field and
livestock runoff are just two areas in which we can begin. This is a challenge which I
would put to you, Mr. Secretary. The loss of valuable natural resources is a problem
we cannot afford to give inadequate attention or effort.
I believe the Department of Agriculture has made some progress in the areas of
rural development and resource conservation. It is now in a position to take strong ac-
tion to promote rural revitalization and to improve the protection of our natural
resources. I hope that USDA and Congress can work effectively to see that these goals
are realized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have Some questions for the Secretary.
GENEVA TALKS
Senator BURDICK. Senator Cochran.
Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I wel-
come you to the hearing, and I apologize for not being here when you
first arrived. As the ranking member of this subcommittee, I wanted to
be sure you were treated fairly, but I understand that the committee
has been balanced in terms of opportunity for Republicans and
Democrats alike to ask questions and make Statements. I am told by
members of my Staff that you have handled the questions very, very
well, indeed.
53
I am glad to see, first of all, that you are going to Geneva to per-
Sonally discuss with friends from around the world ways to reduce the
unfair barriers that exist to our trade in the international marketplace
and ways to ensure that we have a better opportunity than we do now
to compete and to sell what we produce in the international
marketplace.
The reason I wasn't here at the beginning of the hearing is that I was
at a press conference called by several of us who are involved in a rural
development task force. We are trying to attract the attention of the
Republican and Democratic candidates for President to the special
needs in rural America.
One of the points that I made at that news conference was that we
should emphasize, rather than ignore, agriculture as one of the essential
economic development factors. When agriculture is healthy, we tend to
have more and better jobs in the rural South, at least, than when
agriculture is not healthy.
We have Super Tuesday coming up; we have several candidates run-
ning around in the Sunbelt talking about their campaigns. We need to
encourage them to focus on developing a strategy for economic progress
in rural America.
I think that your trip to Geneva and your working with our Trade
Representative and others to use our diplomatic muscle and our other
resources that can be brought to bear in this area to help us get a big-
ger Share of the international market will be a boost to our economic
progreSS.
In that connection, I also want to congratulate you for including in
the budget for the first time that I can remember funds for Some of our
rural development programs, such as water and sewer system loan and
grant funds. Funds for the business and industrial development loan
program and the community facilities program, which are administered
by the Farmers Home Administration, are also included in your budget
this year.
I think this indicates a very important awareness and sensitivity to
Some of the problems in our less well developed rural areas. So I ap-
plaud you for that and assure you that we will be looking carefully at
those proposals. I am hopeful that the committee will work with the ad-
ministration to come up with adequate funding levels for these im-
portant rural development initiatives and programs.
Do you have any comments? Let me just ask you whether or not you
feel confident that progress can be made in Geneva in these talks that
are coming up? Do you have anything you can tell the committee about
any Specific proposals that you intend to make or a plan that you have
to try to help deal with some of these international trade problems?
Secretary LYNG. Senator Cochran, it is very difficult to capsulize
Something that is as complex as the GATT negotiations under the
Uruguay Round. We have made a lot of progress. These are the first
trade negotiations under the GATT in 30 years of GATT existence.
These are the first ones where agriculture really is the main player.
54
There are 13 other committees that are negotiating on other issues than
the GATT, but agriculture is clearly on center stage.
We have accomplished more in agriculture during the first year of
this negotiation than we did in the first 4 years of negotiating the
Tokyo Round. We tabled last July the United States' proposal. I think
you are familiar with that. We have seen that since that time, proposals
from the Carons group. That is the group that met in Carons, Australia,
13 nations coming along very much in line with our proposal; Canada
has come along. We have got Statements now on file from virtually
every major participating country in the negotiations.
We have some differences in the proposal with Japan and the
European Community, some rather substantial differences in some
ways. But I detect that even in those more difficult countries, there is a
better understanding than we have ever had of the need for some sort
of global rules in the international movement of agriculture products.
So I am optimistic; I think that we will get Some things done this
year. I think we will get a whole lot done before the 4-year term of this
negotiation expires.
CONSERVATION RESERVE
Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My other question has
to do with conservation plans. I understand that USDA has set as its
goal having 65 percent of the highly erodible land in the country under
a conservation plan by the end of 1988 and that the balance of that
which is classified as highly erodible would be under a conservation
plan by the end of 1989.
I am being told that it is unlikely that that goal will be reached and
that consideration ought to be given to delaying for maybe 2 years the
compliance deadline as well as the final implementation of the program.
That probably would require congressional action. I assume it would.
What is your observation about the program's progress? Do we need
to appropriate additional funds to manage this program? Do you have
enough staff to deal with the workload? Is your budget request suffi-
cient to meet the goals that you have outlined for this program?
Secretary LYNG. Yes to each of those questions. I talked to the Chief
of the Soil Conservation Service just a week ago about this. He will be
testifying before this Subcommittee during the hearings on the budget.
He assured me last week that they are fully capable of, with the
resources that they have been given, getting these plans filed and
developed and completed in the period of time that is required. I think
the plans have to be approved by 1990.
Now, that does not mean that they need to be totally implemented. I
am personally a little bit uneasy about whether or not the implementa-
tion can take place quite as quickly as the 1985 farm bill called for. As
I recall, it was implementation by 1992?
Mr. MYERS. 1995.
Secretary LYNG. 1995. Some of these are very extensive and expensive
things, and it may well be that as we move along, we will have to See
some modifications made in that. But I think there is plenty of time to
55
take a look at that. I don't think we need to do anything now. I think
the important thing from our point of view is the implementation of
this very worthwhile plan that was developed in the 1985 farm bill. It
Seems to me, we ought to Stay with the idea of getting these plans
developed and we do have the resources to help the farmers accomplish
that.
CONSERVATION RESERVE IN THE DELTA REGION
Senator COCHRAN. I am developing a proposal that I will soon ask the
Department to consider regarding the tree-planting objective of the
Conservation Reserve Program which was included in the 1985 farm
bill. It is to try to get attention to the delta region of the country. Not
just the Mississippi Delta, now; I am talking about the entire river val-
ley, including Some Six States, where Some lands aren't classified as
highly erodible, but they are marginal in terms of their productivity.
They were put into cultivation when Soybean prices were high. Now
they are lands that ought not to be farmed. From an economic
Standpoint, you cannot make money growing anything on that land. I
don't care how good a farmer you are, you just can't. I am not talking
about good cotton land or land that is now in catfish production in our
State, but I am talking about land that really was cultivated to grow $9
Soybeans and Soybeans are $6.50.
So what do we do? I am suggesting that we look at the Conservation
Reserve as an umbrella program where we can encourage, through
financial incentives, the use of that land for Some other purpose that
would be productive; that would make money.
We have some delta land right now in Mississippi that is actually
producing more income, because it was turned into a hunting facility
where you have these doctors from all over the South coming out there
to hunt. That is a better way to use that land right now from an
economic Standpoint than trying to grow Soybeans on it.
I am hoping you will take a look at my proposal. We have been work-
ing with some members of the Department, particularly with Peter
Myers, who has been to the delta from time to time and has talked
with folks down there. We are trying to figure out a way to encourage,
not mandate, but encourage the use of lands in the Conservation
Reserve to protect our resources but also to help landowners earn some
money from those lands and not just go broke.
What is your reaction to the possibility of developing a program like
that? I am not sure how well briefed you are on the specifics. I haven't
given you any Specifics in my question, but what is your reaction,
generally, to that kind of proposal?
Secretary LYNG. Well, as I understand it, you would be expanding
the eligibility of land to go under the long-term conservation program,
because this land that you are referring to is not eligible today because
it is not highly erodible.
Senator COCHRAN. It is not highly erodible.
Secretary LYNG. It was someone else’s highly erodible land up north,
up river at one time. [Laughter.]
56
Senator COCHRAN. That is exactly right.
Secretary LYNG. It came out of Iowa. [Laughter.]
Senator COCHRAN. That is right. It all came out of Iowa and
Michigan.
Senator GRASSLEY. North Dakota.
Senator COCHRAN. They probably let the worst land slip down.
Secretary LYNG. I really should let Peter Myers, my deputy, talk
about that, because he farms down there. Do you farm that kind of
land?
Mr. MYERS. We are making a good attempt at farming. Senator, this
is something we need to look at. The problem is, we don't have all the
erodible land we need into the Reserve at this point in some parts of
the country. I think it is an area that Should be explored as we look at
the 1990 farm bill, what type of set-aside do we have? Should we look
at this whole concept of making the Conservation Reserve, the Set-aside
and include the type of land that you are talking about, the type of
land Senator Kasten was talking about that leaches herbicides through
readily. This whole thing should be looked at.
We do, in FrnHA, in Some of our foreclosure options, allow people
to have an easement, and you are familiar with this. That would fit cer-
tain categories of people in this type of land, but it wouldn't fit all of
the land you are talking about. So it is Something that we should
explore.
ACREAGE IN TREES
Senator CoCHRAN. One observation is that the 1985 farm bill requires
one-eighth or 12.5 percent of the 45-million-acre CRP to be planted to
trees. To date, after five signup periods, only about 5 percent of the en-
rolled acres have been planted to trees.
I am hoping that in Some areas where it is appropriate we can try to
get Some of these landowners into tree farming rather than losing
money every year growing Something that is not making a profit.
Mr. MYERS. That would make Sense, and of course, we have ex-
panded eligibility for land not qualified by erodibility to go into trees.
We are saying if one-third of a field is highly erodible, we will take the
whole field if they will put it in trees.
We have already made that change, but it has to be still classified as
erodible land.
Senator COCHRAN. Well, I encourage you to continue to try to live up
to that provision in the law and not ignore it. I know you realize it is
there, and you are trying to do things to encourage compliance. I am
just raising it, because I think it is Something that was put in the law
for a good reason. Again, we are not trying to mandate land use but
provide some incentives to help improve the economically feasible use
of the land.
Mr. MYERS. We will implement that to the best of our ability. We are
very much aware of that provision, and we are looking at any avenue
we can use to get more of this Conservation Reserve land in trees.
57
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
Senator COCHRAN. I have just a couple of other items, and then I am
going to yield to my good friend from Iowa and whoever else is in line
to be recognized.
I am glad to receive your assurances that you are responding to our
request for a report on monitoring the Federal Crop Insurance Program
and on loss adjustment oversight and procedure. This action is being
taken in compliance with language we put in the conference report on
the continuing resolution.
I know we have a new manager of the Federal Crop Insurance Cor-
poration, and rather than take up the time of the committee, I would
just ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of a letter to
me from Deputy Secretary Peter Myers be put in the record, along with
my statement on the subject of the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation.
Senator BURDICK. Without objection, So ordered.
[The information follows:]
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Secretary, although I do not plan to ask a specific question, I do want to indi-
cate my continuing concern regarding the crop insurance program.
As indicated in the budget Summary Statement, crop insurance is the government's
primary source of farmer disaster assistance. Farmers need this protection, and return-
ing the agency to a favorable loss ratio performance is the best way to help ensure its
future. Budget considerations today make it imperative that an effective but efficient
program be offered to farmers.
Loss ratios, as are being experienced today, sometimes force abrupt actions which
cause unintended economic hardships on farmers. I am Sure that ratio in 1986 of 1.62
in indemnities for every $1 premiums, the ratio in 1987 of 1.30 in indemnities for
every $1 in premiums, and the projected ratio for 1988 of 1.52 in indemnities for every
$l in premiums contributed to the agency's decision regarding the drastic changes in
the insurance coverage originally announced this year for the Southern Soybean crop.
Specifically, for Mississippi the changes, as originally proposed, would have reduced
coverage for over 75 percent of the soybean farmers by almost 50 percent in 1 year.
Fortunately, once the agency carefully reviewed the Scope of the impact of the
planned changes, they realized too many farmers could be adversely impacted without
just cause. And, Mr. Secretary, this brings me to the key point: although the crop in-
Surance program must be actuarially sound, farmers should not fear that it is Subject to
wild swings in coverage. On the other hand, fraud and abuse should not be tolerated.
Farmers who have spoken to me about the program all agree enforcement should
be—must be—improved before crop insurance works effectively as a disaster program.
To this end, I am glad to receive the Department's assurances that the congressional
request for a report on enforcement will be forthcoming about midyear (see attached
letter).
LETTER FROM PETER C. MYERS
FEBRUARY 9, 1988.
Hon. THAD COCHRAN,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR COCHRAN: As you know, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC) suspended actions related to permanent personnel and facilities commitments as-
Sociated with its previously announced field Service restructuring pending the comple-
58
tion of congressional action on budgetary and appropriations measures for fiscal year
1988.
We are mindful of the concerns of the Appropriations Committee and your col-
leagues on the Committee on Agriculture in both Houses of the Congress relative to
the crop insurance program. We have noted the language in the Conference Report on
the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fis-
cal year 1988 as contained in Public Law 100–202 (the “Continuing Resolution”) ex-
pressing those concerns, and the language in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliaiton Act
of 1987 (Public Law 100–203) further emphasizing the insistence of the Congress on
greater oversight of reinsured company operations.
Consistent with the language in the Conference Report on the Continuing Resolu-
tion, we will provide the appropriate committees of the Congress with a full report on
FCIC’s progress and activities in loss adjustment oversight and procedure by June 30,
1988. This timing should permit the FCIC to complete the action on the restructuring
which is critical to a comprehensive oversight and administrative capability for federally
underwritten insurance Service, and to draw Some conclusions from the full implementa-
tion of procedural and oversight initiatives relating to reinsured company activities
begun in 1987.
We are confident that the directions now being taken will be responsive to the con-
cerns expressed by the Congress and are looking forward to continuing to work with
you to make a truly effective disaster risk management insurance program available to
America's agricultural producers.
Sincerely,
PETER C. MYERS, Deputy Secretary.
Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I also have Some questions on
other topics, but I think I will just ask that they be submitted to the
Secretary and answers be supplied for the record. One relates to the
Sugar Re-export Program and the other to the Farm Credit Assistance
Board. I ask that those be Submitted for the record.
Senator BURDICK. Without objection, So ordered.
Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I also have a copy of a statement
and questions from Senator Pete Domenici which I ask unanimous con-
sent be printed in the record and submitted to the Secretary for
response.
Senator BURDICK. Without objection, So ordered.
Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr.
Chairman, I think I would ask the Secretary to consider, as you have al-
ready asked him to do, to honor your request to take a Second look at
extending Some of those Farmers Home Reserve loans, because I think
that probably, there is too quick of an adjustment on that.
My Second point would be to Second, also, what Senator Cochran
brought up about the rural development initiatives, and I guess if you
could just give me a little bit of an update on those initiatives, I would
appreciate it.
Secretary LYNG. Yes; I think that unlike budgets that we have Sub-
mitted for a number of years, where we have zeroed out many of those
things, we now have funds in this proposed budget, and I certainly
agree with Senator Cochran that it is an important change.
59
I would like to let Peter Myers go into a little more detail.
Mr. MYERS. Senator, we are doing several things that we initiated 7
or 8 months ago. No. 1, we have a governmentwide working group un-
der the Economic Policy Council, that Secretary Lyng chairs. It includes
other assistant Secretaries and deputy Secretaries from other departments
and they are coordinating rural development efforts. We have had, in
USDA, a series of regional meetings that have brought all of our top
federal people in our States, the head of the state FmHA, the head of
ASCS into a regional meeting. This was done last fall to begin to imple-
ment nationwide, a rural economic development effort. We recognize
that you, and Senator Cochran and Several other Senators have men-
tioned that economic development is critical for small towns and our
rural areas.
So as a result of this, our people are completely aware of other
federal programs. We have implemented an information hotline with a
data bank housed at the National Agricultural Library that can be ac-
cessed from all Extension offices. This is on a pilot basis right now in
five or six states. It should be nationwide in probably another 35 or 40
days.
We were hoping to have it available in January. We didn't reach the
target for implementing that. Small communities and rural areas would
have access to this data base through a county Extension office for any
type of economic information that they would want to have.
We could put them in touch with that information. We also have
rural enterprise teams in every State in cooperation with State govern-
ment. Federal agents will go into a small community and help on any
type of economic development they have. If it is some problem that a
Small community is having and they don't have the resources to go and
look at, we will provide this for them.
We have restructured one of the programs in the FmHA, the
Business Industry Loan Guarantee Program. In the past 6 months, by
restructuring and making loan guarantees at a much lower level than
we had before, we have Saved or created 7,000 jobs nationwide. That is
a drop in the budget, but that is a step in the right direction on a
program that had been sitting Still, if you will.
Then if you multiply that by what the Commerce Department is
doing in redirecting their EDA grants and loans, what SBA is doing to
target the more rural areas, I think you can See a real concentrated ef-
fort on the part of the federal government to work in Small com-
munities and rural areas to provide business opportunities for the farm
economy and for citizens in those areas.
PSEUDORABIES PROGRAM
Senator GRASSLEY. Point No. 3, Mr. Secretary is to acknowledge and
to complement the $1 million for pseudorabies development and con-
tinuing that project, but that will be below present funding, and I think
I am going to ask you to consider an increase in this funding. I also
Wanted to let you know I will be trying to urge my colleagues to main-
60
tain the present level of funding. I think that is very important, not
only for the pork industry, generally, but because my State is No. 1 in
pork production, it is very important to those constituents of mine who
See the continuation of that project.
We are about there. We are about finished, and I think from that
standpoint, keep funding at the level we are.
FEED GRAIN PROGRAM
Point No. 4, now that we are in the signup of the current 1988 Feed
Grain Program, it is my understanding we are also signing up for the
0/92 option. Even though this program will be carried out in the fiscal
year 1988 budget, final payments are going to be made within the 1989
fiscal year.
I am interested in the amount of land the Department has projected
be idle under that 0/92 program.
Secretary LYNG. I don't think we have a very good estimate on that,
do we?
Mr. MYERS. It is a rough estimate, Senator. It is 2 or 3 million acres.
My feedback is that there is not a great amount of interest in 0/92, and
that was strictly a guess.
Senator GRASSLEY. Then this may be a problem we won’t See come
about, but you have got a restriction of not allowing over a certain per-
centage of land to be taken out of production. You have got your sig-
nup for the annual program, 0/92, and CRP. Do you see a problem get-
ting over that 50-percent limit?
Mr. MYERS. In a few isolated counties in wheat-producing country,
where they are already at the 25-percent limit on CRP, we could have a
problem, but it would be very isolated. As we know, from informal in-
formation, that is the only place we foresee serious troubles. There
could be problems from places in Iowa where they are already at the
25-percent limit.
Senator GRASSLEY. Because all these signups are going on at the same
time, 0/92 is not supposed to encompass total idling at more than 50
percent of all the land, right?
Mr. MYERS. That is right.
Senator GRASSLEY. How will you really know where you are?
Mr. MYERS. Well, we will know where we are, because the 0/92 sign-
up ends earlier than the ordinary farm program signup, and then we
are going to have a reading on it. If we are over, we are going to go
back to the farmers and say, “OK, this is the situation, that you signed
up for 0/92. You will have to have only a percentage of 0/92, and is
this acceptable or not?”
We will let them, for instance, back out of the 0/92 if they wanted to
put it all in or not, whatever percentage we would allow.
Senator GRASSLEY. Then the problems we are hearing from the
agribusiness people, the crop input people, fertilizer dealers, and others;
being under that limit is not going to be any problem in the final
analysis?
61
Secretary LYNG. No; we will get under that limit, but that isn't to say
that there won't be Some objection.
Senator GRASSLEY. Oh, yes. Yes, there will be. There are objections to
the philosophy of the program, but more importantly, to spread out al-
lowable acreage geographically over the country So that one Small busi-
neSS in one county does not get hurt.
Secretary LYNG. We are planning to do that.
Senator GRASSLEY. Well, what is going to be the cost then of the 0/92
Program in the current budget? You are basically saying it is not what
we anticipated it to be. Do you know what it is going to be?
Mr. MYERS. We won't know until we see the figures. As I say, it is
strictly an estimate.
Senator GRASSLEY. The way we legislated it, didn't we legislate a cer-
tain amount into that program?
Mr. MYERS. $20 to $40 million. I will get the actual figure and put it
in the record.
[The information follows:]
BUDGET SAVINGS FROM 0/92
The final estimate of budget savings associated with Sections 1201 and 1202 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 was $445 million over the 2-year fiscal
year 1988–89 period. While year-to-year figures are extremely difficult to estimate, it is
believed that savings during fiscal year 1988 will be small, perhaps $20 to $40 million.
These sections dealt with optional acreage diversion programs for wheat and feed
grains for the 1988 through 1990 crops. Under the provision, producers might elect to
plan an area of between 0 and 92 percent of the farm's permitted acreage and would
be guaranteed a deficiency payment of 92 percent of that to which they would have
been entitled had they planted the entire permitted acreage, as long as the under-
planted acreage were devoted to a conservation use.
Senator GRASSLEY. So you will have to be under that.
Mr. MYERS. In the first year, we estimated $30 or $40 million will be
Saved in fiscal year 1988.
Senator GRASSLEY. There is no problem with it staying in the budget?
Secretary LYNG. No problem with it staying in the budget.
Mr. MYERS. I agree, there is no problem.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator GRASSLEY. You Stated funding for the fourth year of the
Conservation Reserve would be $1.9 billion. Is this figure based on the
Department meeting the goal of 35 million acres enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program as set in the 1985 bill?
Mr. MYERS. Yes, it is.
Senator GRASSLEY. In that regard, then, again, what are you doing to
See that the limit of no more than 25 percent of land per county is
being taken out of production? What are you doing to actually monitor
that and see that the guideline is met?
Mr. MYERS. We have that information county by county. When the
County reaches 25 percent, that is it, unless all of the agribusiness in the
Community will come in and make the case that they want to go
beyond that. That is handled on a county-by-county basis. When the
83–470 O – 88 – 3
62
county reaches 25 percent, there is no more enrollment in the CRP. We
have several counties, not a great number, probably 30 to 50 counties,
that have reached the limit.
Senator GRASSLEY. When you are getting close to that limit, when
you have had an enrollment period—what are you going to do, take
them on a first-come-first-served basis when you get up to that limit? If
a county is 25.1 percent, and an individual farm puts it over, then is
that farmer cut off from participating?
Mr. MYERS. No; it won't be first come, first Served. Say we are at 21
percent in the county. This signup, we will take the lowest bids up to
25 percent. It won't be first come, first served. When the signup period
is over, it goes to the lowest bid.
Senator GRASSLEY. I'm Sorry. That is the way I See it working. I
didn't mean first come, first Served. I meant on a priority basis, based
on the bid.
Mr. MYERS. It is interesting, because we will probably—we don't
know—receive Some lower bids in those counties where they are close.
SOIL TILTH CENTER
Senator GRASSLEY. I notice that your budget did not include the
moneys for the Soil Tilth Center at Iowa State University? Is the
Department still committed to that program?
Mr. MYERS. There is very little construction money. Steve, why don't
you answer this?
Mr. DEWHURST. There is very little construction money in the budget
request.
Mr. MYERS. The only construction money requested in the
Department's budget is for the Seed Storage Laboratory in Colorado.
There is no money for any other construction projects. The administra-
tion has not previously requested money for that laboratory. I will be
happy to provide further information on the status of the Soil Tilth
Center.
[The information follows:]
The Soil Tilth Center at Ames, IA, is currently under construction and is not
Scheduled for completion until fiscal year 1989. The Agricultural Research Service has
been working with Iowa State Scientists to prepare a plan for the Staffing and opera-
tions of this center. The plan will summarize the type of research to be conducted and
the projected scientific staff disciplines required. We will keep you up to date as events
proceed.
PLANT SCIENCE CENTERS
Senator GRASSLEY. My last question, Mr. Chairman, your budget has
included an increase in the Competitive Research Grant portion of the
Cooperative State Research Service. I appreciate your support in that
area. The 1989 fiscal year budget summary prepared by the Department
mentions funding will be continued for the joint USDA-National
Science Foundation, Department of Energy Plant Science Center.
I have recently seen, however, that there is an internal Department
memo which concludes with the assessment that, “No funds were desig-
nated this past year for the establishment of plant science centers.”
63
Now, those are conflicting signals as to the Support that the USDA is
willing to give this program. So I would like to have you clarify for me
the Department's position in the 1989 fiscal year regarding the establish-
ment of the Plant Science Centers.
Secretary LYNG. We are not prepared this morning to be able to
answer that. Could we submit that for the record, please?
Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. OK. Let me only emphasize that I thought
that we had that problem all Solved and that we were going to move
forward with it, and I will be disappointed if we don't.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. -
[The information follows:]
A $10 million program was originally planned for fiscal year 1988, but actual ap-
propriations will only accommodate a more modest program of about $5 million, of
which $2 million will come from the Department of Agriculture. The agencies are cur-
rently soliciting proposals and plan to award the first grants later this year. The 1989
USDA budget specifically requests $3.4 million to continue this effort in 1989.
SWAMPBUSTER PROVISIONS
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, the Department's effort to imple-
ment the Swampbuster provisions of the 1985 farm bill have met with
great controversy in many States. During an oversight hearing I held at
the end of January, the Department Stated that it was treating wetland
determination as a priority. In the Red River Valley and the Devils
Lake regions of North Dakota, these determinations were to be made
by March 15 of this year. -
Do you know the status of the Department's effort to map the wet-
lands?
Secretary LYNG. I can't go into details on it, Mr. Chairman, but we
will be on target. We will be able to meet that date. In view of what we
committed, we will complete it by then.
Senator BURDICK. Does the Department intend to deny benefits to
those producers who inadvertently violated the Swampbuster provisions
before wetland determinations were made on their property?
In other words, if there hasn't been an investigation of their property,
will they be penalized?
Secretary LYNG. I don't know what our policy is on that. Do you,
Peter?
Mr. MYERS. Well, according to the law, if they converted the wetland,
they are going to have problems, Senator, because the law has been in
place for 2 years, and the burden was on them if they truly, truly con-
Verted a bonafide wetland.
Senator BURDICK. But if they are in the process of mapping now, they
won't quite finish by March 15. It seems to be kind of unfair to penal-
ize someone.
Mr. MYERS. Well, here again, this law has been in place 2 years, and
the information was there, and they should have known it. There may
be extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis, but in general, we
Would have great difficulty in just massively saying that they wouldn't
have to comply.
64
Senator BURDICK. The final regulations haven't been available for 2
years.
Mr. MYERS. Yes, sir; the final regulations are out.
Senator BURDICK. September.
Mr. MYERS. But they are out, and the draft regulations were out, too,
well over a year before that.
Senator BURDICK. A staff member tells me the problem in my state,
at least, is that they haven't had the manpower to get an answer to their
requests; that there is a delay not because of the farmer but a delay in
the Office.
Mr. MYERS. Obviously, we are not going to try to penalize the
farmer, but the law is Still there, and we are going to have to look at
this on a case-by-case basis. We are working in North Dakota. I know it
is a problem from both sides. The environmental groups are pushing
from one side and the farmers are pushing from the other side. We are
trying to take a balanced approach there.
If it is just maintenance of existing drainage, the farmer will not be
penalized at all. But if it is new drainage that does impact a bonafide
wetland, he has problems as far as compliance.
Senator BURDICK. I am not arguing about that. I am talking about the
time factor of the determinations.
Mr. MYERS. Let me look into it further and clarify to you for the
record, exactly what is going on and what would happen.
Senator BURDICK. I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
SCS REPORT ON WETLAND IDENTIFICATION IN NORTH DAKOTA
Wetland issues in North Dakota existed long before the FSA was signed into law in
1985. Wetland drainage has been extensive with about 50 percent of the wetlands
drained since farming began in North Dakota.
Wetland acquisitions over the past several decades by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and national environmental groups and concerns over the Garrison Diversion
Unit have resulted in a public that is very sensitive to wetland policy and issues. In
1977, the Governor of North Dakota placed a moratorium on all wetland purchases by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1985, the moratorium was lifted with special condi-
tions placed on future purchases. There is an ongoing attempt by the current Governor
to work cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and national environmen-
tal groups to resolve Some of the environmental issues concerning the Garrison
Diversion Unit.
Swampbuster provisions in the FSA have also been controversial with agricultural
producers. Consequently, we have made a strong effort to accelerate the identificaiton
of wetlands on each farm. It is our opinion that when farmers actually know what wet-
lands will need to be protected on their individual farms much of the concern over
Swampbuster will dissipate.
In January, the SCS implemented a wetland identification project in the Red River
Valley. The goal of this project was to identify all the wetlands in the six counties in
the Red River Valley in l month or 20 working days. Staffing for the effort was
provided by 17 SCS employees in and out of state and local field office support. This
project was completed ahead of schedule and work was started in four additional
counties which was completed prior to the time the teams moved to Minnesota to iden-
tify wetlands in their part of the Red River Valley. Wetland identificaiton is now com-
plete in Cavalier, Pembina, Walsh, Grand Forks, Triall, Cass, Richland, and Sargent
Counties. Identifications are partially completed in Ramsey and Ransom Counties.
65
We have placed a local team in Devils Lake to complete the determinations in
Ramsey County.
We have organized six more teams of North Dakota employees and holdovers from
out-of-state details to complete the wetland identification process in Barnes, Steele,
Towner, Bottineau, and Ward Counties. This group will also complete Ramsey, Nelson,
and Ransom Counties by the end of March. The teams will start work on February 29,
1988.
Field offices in the counties with wetland identification completed, have spent the
last 2 weeks working with operators to review the wetlands identified on their farms.
Response of the farmers has, in general, been very favorable. In Cavalier, we were in-
formed that only 2 out of the first 50 farmers disagreed with the wetlands identified. A
field trip to check wetlands on these sites may be required to resolve their concern. A
report from Cass County Stated that over 125 farmers reviewed and agreed with wet-
lands identified on their land in 1 day of meetings.
We have received reports of problems from only one county (Grand Forks) where
the farmers contacted felt that too many wetlands have been identified. We have ar-
ranged to make a review of the problem areas in March before more farmers are con-
tacted for completion of wetland determinations.
We are very well satisfied with this wetland identification project. It has good sup-
port from the farmers contacted to date, SCS employees, State Soil Conservation
Committee, North Dakota ASSociation of Soil Conservation Districts, and other
agencies. Carl Grindberg, Chairman of the State Soil Conservation Committee, has
voiced public support for the process in Cass County. Charles Klosterman, Immediate
Past President of the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts, has
voiced support for the project. We also have the support of Lloyd Jones, FSA
Coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. This process was reviewed with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
and has their concurrence.
SUGAR IMPORTS
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, when you announced last December
15 that the Sugar import quota for calendar year 1988 was going to be
750,000 tons, down from a little over 1 million tons in 1987, it set off a
new round of criticism on the Sugar program and particularly, in fact,
Some expansion has taken place in domestic production.
But there is a clear indication that one of the main reasons the im-
port quota had to be cut was because of the continued increase in the
indication of Sugar-containing products which offset and displaced the
demand for sugar in the marketplace.
There was a published report, Mr. Secretary, that you presented to
your colleagues on the President's Economic Policy Council with two
options with regard to the 1988 quota: Reduce the quota to 750,000
tons or leave the quota at 1 million tons then impose additional im-
porters' restrictions on Some of these Sugar-containing products.
I understand you favored option two. What is the fact?
Secretary LYNG. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that I did not make a
recommendation. That paper that you are referring to was made by
What we call a working group. It was made to the Economic Policy
Council. We don't talk about the individual agencies' viewpoints in
meetings of the Economic Policy Council. It is an advisory group to the
President. I would not feel at liberty to disclose what went on at that
meeting or what my position was on that issue.
Senator BURDICK. In other words, no testimony on that point?
66
Secretary LYNG. I can't talk about it.
Senator BURDICK. OK.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, section 583 of the fiscal year 1988
continuing resolution authorizes and directs the Department of
Agriculture to implement a special Sugar export enhancement program
for refined Sugar equal to a Specified amount of raw Sugar as part of
the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries and the Philippines, with the ex-
port subsidized by the issuance of the Commodity Credit Corporation's
certificates redeemable for CCC on commodities.
Since this authority obviously expires at the end of this fiscal year, it
is apparent that in order for it to be of any value to our trading
partners in the Caribbean and the Philippines, the program must be
implemented forthwith. - -
It has been almost 2 months now since the continuing resolution was
signed into law. Can you tell the committee how Soon you expect the
rules to be promulgated and the program implemented?
Secretary LYNG. The regulations are being drafted now and have
been under draft consideration by the Office of the General Counsel.
The regulations are complicated to draft, and I am hopeful that the
drafting will be completed within a short time.
However, I should also add that completing the regulations will not
necessarily ensure that the plan, or the proposal, or the program will
operate. Our attorneys tell me that they really do not think we have the
legal authority to use CCC commodities or assets as an export subsidy
payment for non-U.S.-produced agricultural commodities, and they
have told me that it would be a violation of law for me to do So.
Further, the legislation called for it to be a no-cost program, based
upon some estimates of payments that we would be making out of
CCC to individual Sugar-exporting countries. We did not, and have not
in this year, announced any payments like that, and I do not intend to
make them, So that that potential for offset as provided for in that law
does not exist. As I understand it, there are two legal reasons, which ap-
pear to be sufficient to me, to preclude our putting that program in
operation.
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Secretary, when you sent Congress your Sugar
Program Improvement Act proposal last March, the Supporting material
Stressing the needs for enacting it included the assertion that imports of
Sugar-containing products had increased 155 percent between fiscal
years 1982 and 1986.
I understand that there is a provision in the omnibus trade bill that
directs you to conduct a Study designed to get a better handle on the
situation. It directs you to determine whether products containing sugar
are being imported in the United States in such a manner, in such quan-
tities as to circumvent and avoid quantitative limitations on Sugar and
Sugar-containing products under Section 22. When this provision was
added to the trade bill last summer, we were told there was no objec-
tion to it on the part of the Department of Agriculture because there
was a Study already underway.
67
The trade bill, of course, is still in conference, but what can you tell
this committee about your Department's investigation of this clear effort
to short-circuit the Sugar program?
Secretary LYNG. Well, I think we did complete a study. At least I was
given some data which would indicate rather clearly that there is a
sizable increase in the amount of Sugar-containing products coming into
the United States, and that it does have an adequate amount to have a
material effect upon the Sugar quota.
Senator BURDICK. Could you provide us with that study, if it is
available?
Secretary LYNG. Yes; we can provide you with that, the information
that I was given. I think it could be termed a study.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
68
PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN IMPORTS OF SUGAR-CONTAINING PRODUCTS, 1982–86
[In percentage groups, with actual percent in parentheses]
100 percent or larger increase - 69 TSUS items
(approx 20% or higher annual average increase)
TSUS Number 3)escription
146. 1400 Apples, Prepared, Preserved, NES (146 %)
146. 2400 Apricots, Prepared, Preserved, NSP (613 *)
146. 4400 Rananas, NSPS, Prepared, Preserved (146 %)
146. 7900 Blueberries, Prepared (187 %)
146. 8400 Raspberries, Prepared (963 4)
146. 8500 Strawberries, Prepared (204 %)
146. 8600 Berries, Other, Prepared (188 #)
146. 9900 Cherries, Other, Prepared, Preserved (464 $)
148. 0800 Mangoes, Prepared, Preserved (103 %)
148. 3500 Melon, Prepared, Preserved (1686 %)
149. 7700 Whole Flesh Peaches, Prepared, Preserved (3133 $)
148. 7800 Other Peaches, Prepared, Preserved (5332 %)
148. 8600 Pears, Prepared, Preserved, NES (21030 %)
149 - 6000 Fruits, Prepared, Preserved, NES (184 4)
150. 0500 Fruit Mixtures, NEC (232 %)
147.0200 Citron, Prepared, Preserved, NSP (infinite)
147.0500 Grapefruit, Prepared, 8/1 - 9/30 (536 %)
147.0900 Grapefruit, Prepared, 10/11 - 10/31 (315 %)
147. 1700 Grapefruit, Prepared, 11/1 - 7/31 (170 %)
147. 3000 Kumquats, in Airtight Containers (500 %)
147 - 3600 Citrus, Prepared, Preserved (306 %)
146. 6800 Blueberries, Frozen (130 %)
145.6900 Black Currants, Frozen (264 3.)
146. 7 100 Cranberries, Frozen (3400 %)
146.7400 Raspberries, Frozen (765 %)
146.7625 Strawberries, Frozen, Not Over 40 oz. (216 %)
146.780() Berries, Other, Frozen (24.325 %)
146.9700 Cherries, Frozen (infinite)
154.0500 Cherries, Candied, Glace (932 %)
154. 1000 Chestnuts, Candied, Prepared (129 %)
154. 4.300 Kumquats, Candied (157 $)
154. 5000 Nuts, Candied, Glace 382 %)
154. 6000 Vegetables, Candied, Glace (213 %)
154. 9000 Mixtures, Fruits, Nuts, Candied (267 %)
152. 2000 8anana and Planta in Flour (8600 %)
152. 430ſ) Cashew Apple Paste and Pulp (133 4)
15.2. 6200 Orange Paste and Pulo (116 %)
152.6500 Papaya Paste and Pulp (391 %)
152. 7900 Pear Paste and Pulp (177 4)
153.020ſ) Cashew Apple and Mango Jelly (100 %)
153. 0300 * Strawberry Jelly, Jam, Marma lade (1145 %)
153. 2000 Papaya Jelly and Jam (infinite)
153. 2400 Pineapple Jelly and Jam (650 %)
153. 2800 Quince Jelly and Jam (155 %)
153. 3200 Jellies, Jams, NES (399 %)
152.8840 Other Fruit Paste, Pulp (818 +)
153.07.00 Currant, Other Berries, Jams and Jellies (521 %)
182. 9000 Edible Preparations of Gelatin, NSPF (1148 %)
183.0500 Edible Preparations, Under 5%. Butterfat (250 %)
182. 2000 Biscuits, Cakes, Bakery Products (114 %)
156. 4700 Confectionery Coatings (486 %)
156. 3045 Chocolate, Sweetened, No Butterfat (210 %)
156. 2500 Chocolate Bars, Sweetened, Under 10 lbs. (1345 %)
157. 1020 Candy, Confectionery, Not Cont Chocolate (231 %)
Note: Broken Out in 1986 as 157. 1005 and 157. 1010
155.7540 Sugar, Sirup, Other (infinite)
155.7520 Sugar, Sirup, High Fructose (2070 %)
155. 3500 Sugar, Over 6% Non Sugar Solids (216 %)
155.6500 Dextrose Sirup (6855 %)
69
TSUS Number
A
... 1040
157
145.
145.
145.
145.
145.
145.
145.
145.
146.
152.
152.
152.
145.
182.
184.
148.
14 7.
152.
182.
182.
148.
147.
146.
154.
154.
152.
£100
5000
5300
5500
5200
6500
7010
7020
7000
3000
4000
5800
0900
Q200
7070
Q840
3160
5400
3300
4600
6500
2900
7630
4000
4500
4000
146.
146.
i47.
147.
148.
149.
149.
149.
15{).
147
147.
154.
154.
154.
154.
152
152.
152.
152.
152.
152.
152.
820ſ)
8300
7700
8500
982)
1500
2820
2840
0200
. 2100
2600
1500
2500
3000
3500
. 0500
2600
3400
5000
6000
7200
7620
Description
Candy, Confectionery, NES, Cont Chocolate (196 %)
Note: Broken Out in 1986 as 157. 1045 and 157. 1050
Almonds, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (360 %)
Pecans, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (3156 %)
pistachios, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (2010 %)
Walnuts, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (119 %)
Pignolia Nuts, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (207 %)
Litchie Nuts, in Airtight Containers (205 %)
Macadamia Nuts, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (933 4)
Other Nuts, Pickled, Prepared or Preserved (282 %)
75% to 100% increase - 7 TSUS items
[355FOXTE-ZUTHWEFäGETāTUATTTEFEase)
Boysenberry, Frozen (81 %)
Orange Peel, Prepared, Preserved, NES (88 °.)
Apricot Paste and Pulp (86 %)
Mango Paste and Pulp (86 t)
Coconut Meat, Prepared, Preserved (79 %)
Edible Preparations, Over 5%. Butterfat (87 %)
An imal Feeds, NSPF (99 %)
50% to 75% increase - 5 TSUS items
TāDEFOXTETSTAVEFäJETāſīſāTTTEFease)
Pineapples, Except Canned, Prepared, Preserved (66 %)
Oranges, Prepared, Preserved (57 %)
Guava Paste and Pulp (67 %)
Grass Jelly (74 3)
Sauces, Except Thin Soy (51 %)
30% to 50% increase - 6 TSUS items
TāDEFOX7FTUTHWEFăgăTāſīſāTTEFEase)
Papayas, Prepared, Preserved (41 %)
Oranges, Mandarin, Canned (46 %)
Strawberries, Frozen, Over 40 Oz. (42 %)
Ginger Root, Candied (37 '')
Pineapple, Candied (48 %)
Apple, Quince, Pulp, Paste (41 %)
30% or smaller increase - 43 TSUS items
TāDEFOXTESSTERäT7TāVEFågåTāſīſāTTErease)
Black Currants, Prepared (14 $)
Cranberries, Prepared (0 %)
Grapes, Prepared, Preserved (0 %)
Guava, Prepared, Preserved, NSPF (9 %)
Pineapples, Canned (29 %)
Plantains, Prepared, Preserved (ſ) +, )
Plums, Prunes, Canned (15 %)
Plums, Prunes, Except Canned (19 4)
Fruit Mixtures, Canned (0 %)
Lemons, Prepared, Preserved ( 15 %)
Limes, Not Frozen or in 3rine (O %)
Citron, Candied, Glace (ſ) . )
Lemon Peel, Candied, NES (23 +...)
Orange Peel, Candied (ſ) )
Fruit 2eel, Candied, NES (O %)
Fruit Flours, Not Banana or Plantain (0 %)
Citron Peel, Prepared or Preserved, NES (0 %)
Lemon Peel, Prepared, Preserved, NES (0 %)
Fig Paste and Pulp (0 %)
Tamar ind Paste and Pulp (0 %)
Banana and Planta in Paste and Pulp (24 $)
Strawberry Paste and Pulp (0 %)
70
TSUS Number f)escription
152. 7640 Other Fruit Paste and Pulp (0 %)
153. 0420 Strawberry Jelly (0 %)
153.0440 Jellies and Jams, NES (0 %)
153.0600 Jellies and Jams, NES (0 %)
153.0800 Guava Jelly and Jam (0 %)
153. 1600 Orange Marma lade (16 %)
152.8820 Strawberry Paste, Pulp (0 %)
153.0500 Blackberry, Mulberry, Jelly or Jam (0 %)
145. 0700 Coconut Meat, Frozen 10% or Less Sugar Added (9 %)
145. 0800 Coconut Meat, Shredded (0 %)
166. 2000 Ginger Ale, Ginger Beer (0 %)
166. 4040 Beverages, NSPF (23 4)
182. 3000 Cereal Foods and Preparations (0 %)
156. 3065 Chocolate, Sweetened, Under 5.5% Butter fat (29 %)
156. 3050 Chocolate, Sweetened, Over 5.5% Butter fat (0 %)
156. 302ſ) Chocolate, Sweetened, Except Bars, Bulk (0 %)
155.6000 Dextrose (13 %)
145. 4200 Brazil Nuts, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (28 %)
145. 4400 Cashews, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (22 %)
145. 4600 Filberts, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (0 %)
145. 0200 Chestnuts, Shelled, Prepared or Preserved (0 %)
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Senator BURDICK. One last question. Mr. Secretary, you speak of rural
development initiatives. In support of that, you mentioned $400 million
in loans and $75 million in grants. But these levels are cut back from a
loan level of $536 million and grants of $169 million. How can you
describe these cutbacks as an initiative? Congress has done much better
than this over the 10 years. Can anybody explain that, the decrease?
Secretary LYNG. The figures that I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, are the
amounts that are in the budget as it has been Submitted. They are some-
what lower than the amount appropriated by the Congress in the 1988
fiscal year budget.
We think it is an adequate amount, and as we pointed out earlier, it
is a good deal better than what we have submitted to the subcommittee
in previous years, where many of these were zeroed out.
Senator BURDICK. You are telling me, then, that the $400 million in
loans and the $75 million in grants is in the President's current budget,
then? Is that right?
Secretary LYNG. That is correct.
Senator BURDICK. The figures that are in the President’s budget are
reduced from what we have had in past years.
Mr. Dewhurst. The figure in the President's budget for rural develop-
ment of water and sewer grants is $75 million, Mr. Chairman, and there
is $396 million in loans for water and sewer systems, community facility
and business and industrial development.
Senator BURDICK. They are lower than last year?
Mr. DEWHURST. Yes, sir, they are lower.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Harkin.
71
FEEDING PROGRAMS
Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I had another area I wanted to go over with you. As
you know I chair the Nutrition Subcommittee. We had some hearings
on the feeding programs. Senator Leahy, who is the chairman of the
committee, and I have talked together about having Some further hear-
ings and looking into what is happening with our feeding programs.
A couple of things happened in the last couple of weeks. I was in
Iowa about 2 or 3 weeks ago, whenever we were on that break. I did a
workday at the upper Des Moines Community Action Agency and
spent some of the time there when they were giving out food parcels
during that day. I showed up at this place at 8 o'clock in the morning.
They had announced they were going to hand out the food beginning
at 10 o'clock in the morning.
It was 4 degrees above zero, and at 8 o'clock in the morning, there
was already an elderly woman Standing outside to get her food in 4
degree weather. I went out and did Some other things, and by the time
I got back at 10, the line was quite long outside, waiting to get the
packages of food.
Part of the package of food that was being distributed consisted of
Surplus commodities, cheese, rice, honey. I don't know if there was any
nonfat dry milk. I think we were out of nonfat dry milk at the time.
They told me that they had received word that they would not be get-
ting any more of these commodities past next month. I came back to
Washington and received a letter from Assistant Secretary Bode. I think
it was addressed to Senator Melcher, one to me, also, that basically said
that there would be no cheese or nonfat dry milk; that those com-
modities would be terminated in April and the rice and honey by
March. The TEFAP Program is going to be drastically impacted, and
these feeding programs are going to be drastically impacted by these
reductions.
I remember what first led me to look into this when we were up in
Senator Melcher's office before he went to the Far East and we talked
about the reductions in inventories. I did not realize they had been that
drastic.
But when I look at the budget—the President's budget—for nutrition
programs, emergency food and Shelter, the percent change is minus 33.5
percent in this new budget; food donations for low-income groups
down 1.4 percent; TEFAP, minus 100 percent, total phaseout of
TEFAP; WIC and commodity supplemental food down one-tenth of 1
percent, just basically level, and yet the number of hungry people out
. and the people that I see Standing in those lines has not gone
OWI).
There is one other effect, too. It is that we use these bonus com-
modities for the School Lunch Program. I am wondering what your
p0Sition is on this, and what we are going to do to meet the real needs
that people have out there for these commodities that we have been
using for all of these supplemental feeding programs. We have been
using them for several years now.
- 72
TEMPORARY EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The TEFAP and everything else I know was said to be temporary,
but the fact is, these hungry people who are out there aren't temporary;
they are there. I just see a real impact on a lot of poor people in this
COuntry.
Secretary LYNG. Well, Senator, as you and I discussed earlier in that
meeting in Senator Melcher's office, there has been a major change in
the inventories of the Commodity Credit Corporation, not only in the
grains that we were talking about earlier, but also in Some of these
dairy products, honey and other things that have been used in the
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The primary federal plan for feeding the hungry is the Food Stamp
Program. This is after many years of discussion and debate in the
Congress. At a time when I was an Assistant Secretary at the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, we made a choice in this country and went for
food stamps rather than commodity distribution. We felt it was a better
way as a nation.
Food stamps are designed to be adequate to take care of the nutri-
tional needs of needy people. The fact became clear that we had huge
inventories following the period of rapid buildup in the Support price
of dairy products in the early eighties. We built huge inventories of but-
ter, powdered milk and cheese and big inventories of a number of
Other items.
We have now, using the 1985 farm bill, reduced the production, and
we have a much closer balance between supply and demand. Through
the use of programs, like the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance
Program, we were able to reduce those inventories, and now we are to
the point where we simply don't have an inventory and enough butter
or enough cheese to continue the program as we have done it in the
paSt.
Senator HARKIN. Again, I don't mind that So much as long as there
are other sources of money coming in to continue to meet the nutri-
tional needs of these people. We just had a huge increase in the num-
ber of poor people in the last decade, up from about 26 million to 32
million in this country.
A lot of these people are falling through the holes in the Food Stamp
Program. I know we have got to make Some changes in the Food
Stamp Program, but a lot of the people that I saw who were lining up
to get that food simply were not making it on food stamps for a variety
of reasons.
Then the School Lunch Program, they have come to rely on these.
Can you give me any assurances that the School Lunch Program will
not be adversely affected by the loss of the commodities?
Secretary LYNG. The budget calls for us to continue to supply either
in cash or in commodities what is required for the School Lunch
Program.
Senator HARKIN. So the prices won't go up to the families for School
lunches?
73
Secretary LYNG. Well, I can’t guarantee that. That is based upon the
local situation and on the cost of food.
Senator HARKIN. But I mean, you take away these commodities, that
they have been getting—
Secretary LYNG. They aren't going to take away the commodities that
they have been getting. They will get either commodities or money,
which is the way the program works. Most of the help that we give to
the School Lunch Program, the Section 32 funds, are in cash.
Senator HARKIN. So you are Saying that any reduction that they get in
commodities will be made up for with money, cash?
Secretary LYNG. Yes. -
Senator HARKIN. That is good. Because there is Some fear out there
that they would not get the money to make up for the loss of the com-
modities that they have been getting.
Secretary LYNG. Still, in this budget, over $20 billion is in food
programs of the Department of Agriculture, over $1 billion a month in
food stamps. We have a huge program to assist the hungry in meeting
their nutritional needs.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Senator HARKIN. You mentioned the Food Stamp Program. That was
and has been our major program for fighting hunger in America. But
Since 1980, hunger has increased by every Statistic that I have seen in
America; the number of poor people have increased; but food Stamp
participation has declined since 1980. -
Secretary LYNG. Well, we probably could quarrel, Senator, about the
question of need. The Statistics that I See indicate that Since the time
you are talking about, we have added 14 million jobs in the United
States. Unemployment has dropped materially, and we are down to 5.6
or 5.7 percent unemployment, the lowest it has been in 10 or 12 years.
We have noticed over the years that unemployment is a pretty good in-
dex of the need for food Stamps. It is not the only one, but it certainly
1S Oſle.
I am of the opinion that the Food Stamp Program is doing a pretty
good job of meeting the needs of needy Americans.
Senator HARKIN. Mr. Secretary, in 1986, the level of poverty was 32.4
million, and that was an increase over 1980. I also had a figure—I don’t
have it right in front of me, but I remember it—that 20 percent of
those who are now categorized as in poverty—that is a family of four
making less than $11,600 a year—20 percent of those are working.
Twenty percent work. One out of five work. They work. They have a
job, but they make less than $11,600 for a family of four.
That is the kind of thing that we are facing. Sure, the jobs may be
up, but a lot of those are “those kinds” of jobs, and they are still in
poverty; they have a need out there.
Secretary LYNG. They are eligible for food stamps, then.
Senator HARKIN. They are eligible for food stamps. But food stamp
participation has declined, and I am saying, why is that? I am trying to
get a handle on why poverty increased, the number of people in
poverty has increased, but food stamp participation has gone down.
74
Secretary LYNG. I really don't know that those figures that you are
giving me are correct. They don't make Sense to me.
Senator HARKIN. I can give you the Department's own figures on
that. Food Stamp participation has declined.
Secretary LYNG. Oh, I know that food Stamp participation has come
down very, very slightly, but I don't think it is because there has been
an increase in the number of people in poverty.
Senator HARKIN. Oh, you don't think So? Do you think there are no
more people in poverty today than there were 10 years ago?
Secretary LYNG. No; I think there are less.
Senator HARKIN. Do you have Some Statistics to back that up?
Secretary LYNG. Well, I don't have them with me, but I will be
happy to submit them.
Senator HARKIN. Could you? I would like to take a look and see
where you are getting that data. Everything I have seen indicates that
the number of people who fall to the level of $11,600—it was $11,200;
it is now $11,600—is greater today than it was 10 years ago, 8 years
ago, whatever you want. The number of people who fall in that
category has increased.
Secretary LYNG. We will Submit the data for the record.
[The information follows:]
POPULATION IN POVERTY
Total Total number Total percent
population below poverty below poverty
1979........................................................ 222,903,000 26,072,000 11.7
1980....................................................... 225,027,000 29,272,000 13.0
1981....................................................... 227,157,000 31,822,000 14.0
1982........................................................ 229,412,000 34,398,000 15.0
1983........................................................ 231,700,000 35,303,000 15.2
1985........................................................ 236,594,000 33,064,000 14.0
1986........................................................ 238,554,000 32,370,000 13.6
Mr. MYERS. Senator, I think one of the reasons we have fewer num-
bers of people using food Stamps is that we have eliminated a lot of
duplications on food Stamp rolls. We have gotten college students who
don't qualify, in many instances, off food stamp rolls. I really believe
that we have more of the needy people on food stamp rolls than we
had previously. The person on the street who has no home address
qualifies for food Stamps. These are some of the things, the changes
that have been made.
Secretary LYNG. I have here, Senator, information that participation
in the Food Stamp Program has been hovering around 20 to 21 million.
It peaked out in 1983 at 21.6 million and has dropped and is now 18.8
million. That is an estimate.
Senator HARKIN. It is 18.8 million now?
Secretary LYNG. So it has really been a relatively constant figure over
a 10- or 12-year period.
75
Senator HARKIN. I tend to think that a lot of the drop in that food
stamp participation, well, it has to do with Some barriers. I have run
into one, and we have got to do Something about it. I know it was done
to take care of cheating, where two families live together and they com-
bine the incomes and that disqualifies them, so that they don't live
together.
So an individual with a couple of kids won't take in a sister or
brother with a couple of kids and combine and try to live together.
They stay separate. They would be prevented from participating in the
Food Stamp Program if they live together. That is one thing I think
that is wrong, because a lot of people have lived together and they take
care of one another, families, especially, and they are denied food
Stamps.
I think another reason is because of the bonus commodities we have
been giving out. People have access to them. They have access to a lot
of different feeding programs. What I am concerned about, I just repeat
it one more time for everyone's Sake: as these inventories have been
reduced down and what I See in the President's budget, I don’t See any
kind of other increases on the other side of the ledger to meet the need
that is out there for these programs.
Secretary LYNG. Senator, the Food Stamp Program is an entitlement
program. The eligibility Standards don't change, and they don't tighten
it up to meet a budget number. The food Stamp number in the budget
is an estimate of what we expect to use, making. all the other assump-
tions that are made on unemployment and the prices of food and so
Oſl.
But if there is an expansion in the need, this, as an entitlement
program, will continue to take care of the needs of people, eligible
people for food Stamps.
Senator HARKIN. But the question is, who is eligible? That is what I
am saying. There are Some barriers to participation I think we have to
look at, Some barriers for people getting in. They are not eligible be-
cause of the regulations, because of the laws. I think those have to be
changed.
My staff tells me that 32.4 million people in 1986 were in poverty,
19.3 million were on food stamps. So there are quite a few not on food
Stamps. I am trying to figure out exactly why they aren't, if they are
eligible.
Secretary LYNG. They certainly should be eligible.
Senator HARKIN. I don't know that they are eligible. There is some-
thing wrong when they aren't on food Stamps. That is a substantial
amount of people. You are talking about almost 13 million people who,
for Some reason, fall below the poverty line but they are not on food
Stamps.
Secretary LYNG. Let me say that the Department of Agriculture and
the Administrator of the program have set no road blocks to keep those
eligible people from participating in the program.
76
Senator HARKIN. I guess the question is on the eligibility criteria it-
self. That is the real question.
Mr. MYERS. It depends on where you get your definition of the in-
come. If you get it from income tax, it could make quite a difference.
For instance, farmers, might have an adequate level of income to live
on, but with their depreciation and Schedules and things like that, they
would fall in the category of not having much net income. Other self-
employed people might be the same way. So it depends where that 32.4
million figure comes from and how it is calculated.
Secretary LYNG. I think there will be Some hearings. Assistant Secre-
tary Bode told me this morning that within the next week or So there
are going to be hearings in both the Senate subcommittee and the
House on these issues. We are not prepared here with the data, but we
will be glad to forewarn him that as time goes on, these questions will
be asked of him and he will be prepared to respond to them.
Senator HARKIN. I just wanted to discuss it with you, since I found
out about these commodities and what is happening. I See Some things
coming down the road that I think a few steps taken now to prevent
would Serve us well.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take much more time. I just had one
other area I wanted to cover with the Secretary.
NUTRITION EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM
I am told there was a misunderstanding relative to continued funding
on the Nutrition Education and Training Program in this year's budget.
I don't expect you to know all these little programs. I don't know them
all myself, obviously. But we put some money in there for the Nutrition
Education and Training Program under the Extension Service, and I
have learned that there is a misunderstanding about continued funding
of that program. I am told that OMB is saying that it is not being
funded.
I am just wondering if you can just look into that for me.
Secretary LYNG. I will let Mr. Dewhurst comment on that.
Mr. DEWHURST. Yes, Sir, Senator. There was a technical error in the
presentation of the President's budget last year, which was picked up by
the Congress in its final action on the appropriations bill which acciden-
tally deleted the legal citation for that program.
However, unobligated balances from last year are available and can
be used to carry out that program this year. Assistant Secretary Bode
has talked to OMB about that. They have agreed to our proposal. The
technical documents necessary to do that are pending at OMB at the
present time, and So we expect very quickly to be able to release the
funds and proceed with that program this year.
Senator HARKIN. These are unobligated funds from last year?
Mr. DEWHURST. Yes, Sir.
Senator HARKIN. Is that $5 million?
Mr. DEWHURST. Yes, sir; we had actually already spent $1 million un-
der the continuing resolution last fall, so the amount at issue right now
is the remaining $4 million.
77
Senator HARKIN. What you are Saying is we don't need to take any ac-
tion up here?
Mr. DEWHURST. No, sir; So far as we know, the money will be
released very quickly.
Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator BURDICK. Additional questions will be submitted, Mr.
Secretary, to you from Senators Sasser, Domenici, Cochran, Bumpers,
and me. I trust in good time you will have a reply for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were sub-
mitted for response for the record:]
78
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
SUNFLOWERS
Question: Mr. Secretary, as you know, I inserted into the
Fiscal Year 1988 Appropriations Act $10 million for purcahsing
sunflower oil -- which will then be used to promote sunflower oil
exports. How are you implementing this program?
Answer: The Department is in the process of developing the
operational procedures for the Sun Oil Assistance Program (SOAP).
Due to the structure of the sunflowerseed oil industry and the
difficulties involved in purchasing a large quantity of sun
oil, storing it and them releasing the oil to the exporter,
development of the operational procedures for this program is more
complex than has been the case for Export Enhancement Program
initiatives for vegetable oils. The Department is working on a set
of procedures which address these unique cahracteristics of the
industry.
Question: What effect do you expect the program to have on the
sunflowerseed market in this country?
Answer: Under the current Export Enhancement Program
initiatives for vegetable oils and commercial sales made to date,
exports of sun oil are very good. We believe that the S0AP program
will help us to increase our sun oil exports. However, we must be
alert not to displace commercial sales.
Question: What other efforts are being used to promote the
export of sunflowerseed products?
Answer: The National Sunflower Association (NSA) participates
in the FAS cooperator program to increase demand for sunflowerseed
and products in foreign markets. Major emphasis of this activity is
promoting the use of sunflowerseed oil through trade servicing and
technical assistance.
In addition, NSA is carrying out a $3 million Targeted Export
Assistnce program in Japan, Mexico and Venezuela to promote the use
of sunflowerseed oil through consumer promotion.
STORAGE
Question: Are you aware of the critical shortage of rail cars
in some parts of the country and that many farmers and small
elevators are having difficulty in moving grain? How will USDA deal
with this problem?
Answer: In the last month or so, we have begun to hear of
difficulties being experienced in securing rail cars. In fact, CCC
itself, has had some of those experiences. Shipments for P.L. 480,
Title II foreign donations and for Section 416 donations have been
delayed due to rail car scarcity. In some cases, CCC has been
relocated to the bottom of the waiting list for cars so that other
Shippers may be served.
79
There is little the Department can do to improve a situation of
rail car scarcity. In the past, we have sometimes tried to move more
of our shipments on water or by truck, but the Department must keep
an eye on CoSt S, too.
Certainly, when deliveries of loan collateral grain, either
cannot be made because of local storage tightness caused by rail car
shortages or will unreasonably exacerbate such storage tightness,
farmers with maturing farm-stored loans may continue to hold the
grain on the farm. After 60 days, CCC will begin storage payments to
a producer in that situation.
MARKETING L0ANS
Question: Mr. Secretary, over the past couple of years, we
have seen marketing loans for cotton and rice significantly increase
exports for these commodities. Many farm groups believe that other
commodities would also benefit by having a marketing loan for their
commodities.
You have the authority to implement a marketing loan for many
of the commodities, including soybeans and sunflowers, yet you have
declined each year to implement a marketing loan. What is your
justification for refusing to implement a marketing loan for those
commodities where you have the authority?
Answer: The fact that the marketing loan program may have
contributed to export competitiveness in rice and cotton over the
last year or two does not mean that exports of grains and oil seeds
would benefit to the same degree if marketing loans were implemented
for them. Since our share of world trade in rice and cotton has
traditionally been much smaller than has our share of the grain and
soybean trade, price reductions through the marketing loans for rice
and cotton were much more likely to lead to higher exports. This was
especially true in the case of rice. Even so, the marketing loan for
these two crops has cost about $1.6 billion so far, despite that U.S.
exports were helped by reduced production and higher consumption
Overseas. World Stocks of cotton and rice are down for the Second
Straight year.
For grains and oil seeds, however, Congress provided the
authority to adjust loan rates downward if necessary to improve our
Competitiveness in world trade, an authority not provided for rice
and cotton. Thus, the use of the authority to lower loan rates has
proved to be effective and marketing loans for grains and soybeans
have not been needed. In the last two years, the U.S. Share of World
trade in grains and soybeans has climbed back toward historical
levels as we have reduced our price floors. At the present time.
reduced foreign supplies and increased world consumption have
combined to raise the entire world price structure. Thus, marketing
loans would not serve to expand U.S. export markets.
One very important source of our hesitancy about marketing
loans on grains and oil seeds is the potential cost. While very
little, if any, increase in exports could be expected to result from
marketing loans in today's price environment, the potential for
future additional outlays is in the billions of dollars. Any
marginal improvements in market share would come from a potentially
large cost.
80
ASIAN TRIP
Question: Mr. Secretary, you recently returned from a two-week
trip to Asia. Could you please tell the Subcommittee about that trip
-- about what you learned and what you now see for the agricultural
trade outlook in the region?
Answer: The primary purpose of my Asian trip was two-fold --
first, to explore the opportunities for U.S. agricultural trade and
second, to expand our joint understanding with regard to the Uruguay
Round of multilateral trade negotiations going on in Geneva. The
trip gave me the opportunity to meet with leading officials in a
major trading area where no U.S. Secretary of Agriculture has
traveled for a decade. We are always trying to expand our markets,
so we are actively involved in market development activities for U.S.
agricultural products in this region. But, at this particular time,
we are also intensely interested in the Uruguay Round negotiations.
Consequently, the Uruguay Round negotiations were a central
theme in my talks with leaders in Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia,
Malaysia, and the Philippines. All of these countries are members of
the Cairns group which call themselves the "non-subsidizing"
agricultural nations and, as a group, they agree with the U.S.
proposed provisions for the phase-out of export subsidies for
agricultural products. Support and understanding between ourselves
and the member countries of the Cairns group are essential if we are
to attain a freer trade system through the Uruguay Round. From our
perspective, meetings with key decision makers in all of these
countries brought about a better appreciation and understanding of
our various concerns and positions with respect to agricultural
trade.
The five Asian countries I visited purchased over $700 million
of U.S. agricultural products in 1986. The trade outlook for the
region is mixed. Singapore, contrary to the other four countries, is
a good market for high-value products. Quality, diversity of product
lines, service and marketing effort are crucial to improving position
in this market. Its economic growth is dependent on macroeconomic
developments unrelated to agricultural production or trade. We
anticipate a steady growth, closely related to economic growth, for
U.S. processed and high-value products in Singapore.
Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia purchase
primarily bulk agricultural items. Price competitiveness on bulk
items is often more important than service or quality. Concessional
programs will remain important for maintaining trade levels.
Cautious debt portfolio management, continued weakness of currencies
against the dollar, and relatively high U.S. interest rates will
continue to hamper effectiveness of commercial credits.
Use of aid to maximize long term growth, rather than short term
gains, may be more beneficial. A major key to their emergence as
agricultural markets is sustained, strong economic growth and sound
balance of payments management. Agricultural production and trade
development are very important to the economic growth prospects.
Assuming normal weather patterns in the region, and no significant
81
changes in our concessional programs, we anticipate continued
moderate growth in our sales of agricultural products to this
region.
Question: Are you proposing any new initiatives as a result of
the trip?
Answer: Three new initiatives were made as a result of this
trip. First, I informed President Aquino that $30 million of Title
I, P.L. 480 commodity assistance has been allocated to the
Philippines. The programmed commodity is to be determined by the
Government of the Philippines.
Second, I also, informed President Aquino of an Export
Enhancement Program for 500,000 tons of wheat. The Philippines has
already purchased 625,000 tons of U.S. wheat under previously
announced allocations of this program.
Third, the Philippine Secretary of Agriculture and I signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on cooperation in agriculture.
This signing was followed by a meeting of the joint working group
which developed a 12-18 month plan of work under the MOU. The
Philippine Secretary praised the MOU and sees it as a means for
obtaining U.S. expertise in several fields of agriculture. This MOU
is another example of the close ties we have with the Philippines.
In addition to the above, I held discussions with respect to
interest in an Agricultural Trade and Aid Mission. By offering
Specially designed combinations of U.S. trade and food assistance
activities, the goal of such Missions is to develop customers for
U.S. agriculture. The Philippines and Indonesia expressed interest
in a Trade and Aid Mission. We will be having follow-up discussions
With these countries in this regard.
P. L. 480 REDUCTION
Question: Why is the Administration requesting a lowered
program level for P.L. 480?
Answer: In developing a P.L. 480 budget request, it is always
difficult to predict exactly what food aid needs will be the
following year. For FY 1989, we are proposing a P.L. 480 program
level which we believe will be adequate for the United States to
respond to overseas food aid requirements, while meeting the various
Statutory objectives of the program. Projections recently made by
the Economic Research Service indicate substantially reduced needs
next year, based on a projected recovery in production in both Asia
and Sub-Saharan Africa. It should also be noted that if conditions
and needs warrant it, we can employ additional authorities, such as
the Food Security Wheat Reserve, to help meet whatever emergency
Conditions may arise next year.
Question: Has this not been a very successful program for
promoting our exports as well as for reducing our surplus stocks?
Answer: Most people would appear to agree that P.L. 480 has
made a significant contribution to the development of important
Commercial markets overseas, and during its early years, was useful
82
for reducing surplus U.S. commodity stocks. However, since the early
1970s when the level of U.S. commercial agricultural exports began
its substantial growth, the percentage of total annual U.S.
agricultural commodities exported through P.L. 480 has steadily
declined. Under these circumstances P.L. 480 has become less
important as a surplus disposal mechanism, but it remains an
important contributor to long-term market development.
FOREIGN TRADE ZONES
Question: Mr. Secretary, except for five Foreign Trade Zones
(FTZ's) "grandfathered in" back in late 1984 and a couple others
approved last year with special limitations, I understand that the
Department of Agriculture has consistently opposed approval of
applications for new Zones or sub-Zones involving sugar-containing
product operations. It is the position of the Department, as I
understand it, that the establishment of such operations would
legitimize large scale displacement of domestically produced Sugar
and undermine the sugar program mandated by Congress. Accordingly,
the Foreign Trade Zones Board has been responsive to the views of
USDA and has denied all such application.
There are now pending, according to information provided me, at
least three applications for Zone or sub-Zone operations involving
sugar-containing products. One of these applications pending (from
General Foods) states that the company wishes to "use zone procedures
to avoid quota restrictions on foreign sugar." Would you advise the
Committee as to the position of the Department on the pending future
applications to establish FTZ's for sugar operations?
Answer: The Department of Agriculture continues to oppose
approval of any application to establish a foreign trade zone
operation for purposes of producing sugar-containing products for
import into the United States. We also oppose applications by
companies to gain foreign trade zone status for the purpose of
exporting Sugar-containing products if such companies are also
licensed under our quota exempt program which allows them access to
world price sugar provided that the sugar is subsequently exported in
Sugar-containing products.
SUGAR PROGRAM
Question: Mr. Secretary, back in September, 1986, you made an
excellent speech before Harvard University's 350th Business School
Symposia in which you described the European Community's practice of
dumping subsidized sugar on the world market as "predatory" and
"downright immoral." You acknowledged that, in your view, the U.S.
Sugar program is "far from ideal, but, you added, "...it is difficult
to revise our program as long as European dumping continues."
On March 25, 1987, however, you transmitted to the Congress a
proposal entitled, "The Sugar Program Improvements Act of 1987,"
which would have reduced the loan rate to domestic sugar producers --
thus destroying the value of the program to them -- and cost the
taxpayers some $1.5 billion.
The Fiscal Year 1989 budget message contains a recommedation
for cutting the loan rate for domestic sugar producers and, thereby,
rendering the program ineffective. Mr. Secretary, is the European
83
Community still dumping sugar on the world market in a manner you
described as "predatory" and "downright immoral" some 18 months ago?
Answer: We still contend that the European Community has acted
in a predatory manner on the world sugar market, causing depressed
world market prices and reduced export earnings for sugar exporting
countries.
Question: If we give in to those "predatory" trade practices,
and sacrifice our domestic sugar producing industry, what countries
will be the main benefactors?
Answer: We do not intend to give in to such trade practices
and have no intention of sacrificing our domestic sugar producing
industry.
ADMINISTRATION'S PLANS TO "ADJUST" SUGAR PROGRAM AS REFERRED TO IN
BUDGET MESSAGE
Question: Mr. Secretary, in the budget message, the President
sent to the Congress February 18, it states, "The current price
support program for the sugar industry poses significant problems in
the areas of trade policy, foreign policy and agricultural policy."
I don't want to reopen the debate on the sugar program as
regards "agricultural policy," except to note that it was approved as
part of the 1985 Farm Bill by a majority of both Republicans and
Democrats in the House and in the Senate.
As regards to trade policy, the budget message notes "the quota
system runs counter to a free trade policy..." As you may be aware,
Mr. Secretary, domestic sugar producer spokesmen have notified
Special Trade Representative Yeutter that they support the
Administration's goal of total and complete dismantling of all
subsidies and barriers affecting international sugar trade on a
global basis as part of the current round of GATT negotiations.
Ambassador Yeutter responded in a letter dated February 4, 1988
(a copy of the letter follows) stating: We will make no concessions
in our own agricultural programs until and unless the EC and our
other major trading partners begin to get their own houses in order
in this area. Would it not appear, Mr. Secretary, that what's being
proposed in the way of unilaterally dismantling our own sugar program
takes a bargaining chip away from our GATT negotiators and forces
American producers to compete with the national treasuries of other
Sugar producing countries?
Answer: It is our position that any action we may take to
liberalize our domestic price support programs is contingent upon
Similar actions being taken by our trading partner. However, in the
case of sugar we have long contended that existing price Support
legislation has caused numerous market distortions and adverse
Consequences for those involved in the domestic U.S. Sweetener
market. For this reason, regardless of what happens in the Uruguay
Round of multilateral trade negotiations, we will continue to seek
avenues to amend existing legislation and make the sugar program more
market-oriented and rational.
84
LETTER FROM CLAYTON YEUTTER, SPECIAL TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
ExECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
February 4, 1988
Mr. E. Raymond 8tanhope
8taley Continental
1735 Eye streat, NW
8 uite 716
Washington, DC 20006
Doar Mr. Stanhope:
My apologies for not having followed up sooner on the request of
the U. S. Sweetener Producers Group that I reactivate the Section
301 case on the eugar policies of the European Community (EC),
I fully share your frustration with the export subsidy programs
of the European Community, and particularly with the adverse
impact those programs have on the global market for agricultural
commodities such as sugar.
We ought to do everything we can to achieve major reforms in
agricultural trade generally, including sugar, over the next two
or three years. If I felt that "reactivation" of the Section 301
case on sugar would be helpful in that regard, I would reactivate
it, But I'm not persuaded that it would be helpful, and I'm
concerned that it might actually be harmful.
If we were to push forward with the 8ection 301 case, we would be
obligated by law to take that dispute to the GATT, The outcome
would be questionable.
What we must do is attempt to accelerate the Uruguay Round
negotiations in agriculture, particularly during this year. We
will have a "mid-term review" of the Uruguay Round later this
year and it is possible that some or all of the agricultural
issues could be encompassed in that review. In other words, if
we could obtain a negotiated result in agriculture by the time of
that ministerial meeting, that result could be approved by the
ministers, and subsequently, by the relevant governments. So it
is conceivable that agreement on production and trade reform in
augar and other products could occur as early as the end of this
year, and that sugar could receive priority phase-in treatment.
As you know, the EC tabled its own agricultural negotiating
proposal in Geneva on October 27. That proposal contains a
provision which indicates at least some will ingness on the part of
the EC to confront the sugar problem at an early date. We will
know more about the EC's specific intent as the negotiations
unfold. We obviously should take advantage of any negotiating
opportunities that may arise. .
85
$re will make no concessions in our own agricultural programa
until and unlecs the EC and our other major trading partners
begin to get their own houges in order in this area. If we can
cucceed in noving our GATT partners toward a truly open market in
qugar, we believe the U.8. producers will be much better off than
thay are today with a costly program and shrinking market,
In cummary, we believe this ic the proper way to proceed during
the coming year. However, we'll reappraise the situation as the
year unfolds, and we'll be pleased to discuss the matter with you
&t any time. We very much appreciate your excell ent cooperation
cºnd wo ll need your strong support in whatever strategic and
tactical plan we undertake.
Sincerely,
Cl

86
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Question: Please provide the Committee with the activity under
the Export Enhancement Program for Fiscal Year 1987 and the estimated
activity for Fiscal Year 1988. -
Answer: Export sales under the EEP during FY 1987 totaled
$1.7 billion. Through mid-February, EEP sales activity during FY
1988 totaled $1.4 billion.
For the remainder of FY 1988, the Department remains committed
to continue the EEP as it is presently operating. No predetermined
level of program activity for all of FY 1988 has been established.
Rather, final programming results for FY 1988 will be determined by
the number of initiatives which are developed to target U.S.
commodities in response to the subsidizing practices of foreign
competitors. These results will depend on domestic and global market
conditions and price trends.
Question: What is assumed for EEP activity in 1989?
Answer: The FY 1989 budget assumes a continuation of EEP on
the same basis as it is presently operating. As in the case of FY
1988, no predetermined level of program activity has been established
for FY 1989. This will be determined by market conditions, price
trends, and the subsidy practices of our competitors.
Question: I understand that you have recently suspended EEP
activity for barley. When did you impose a suspension and what are
your reasons for it?
Answer: EEP activity for barley has not been suspended,
although it has slowed down from a year ago. Sales and
authorizations for Saudi Arabia are down, but sales to other
destinations are up considerably from a year ago. The reduced level
of total activity this year, and the decline especially for Saudi
Arabia, is related to the supply and market situation. At times this
past year, increases in the EEP bonus levels appeared to be
generating increases in our domestic prices. When this starts to
happen, the subsidy can no longer achieve its purpose of bringing
down the price for export. We also began to see an increase in
barley imports from Canada, and we were concerned that this would
become a serious problem if our increased exports merely resulted in
increased imports. The reason we have continued with several smaller
markets, but have not continued as actively with Saudi Arabia, is
that the Saudi Arabia program is much larger and its possible
negative effects would have been larger. We have no intention of
suspending barley EEP, but we will continue to watch it closely for
the aforementioned reasons.
Question: What are the current barley stocks on hand?
Answer: The latest reading we have is that U.S. barley stocks
in all positions as of February 1, 1988 were estimated unofficially
to have totaled 478 million bushels. The average monthly domestic
and export disappearance amounts to about 11 million bushels;
therefore, the balance on hand as of March 1 will be on the order of
434 million bushel S.
87
Question: What level of barley stocks do you feel is necessary
to maintain, and what are your reasons?
Answer: We have no particular target or minimum level of
stocks to be maintained. The market is the best judge as to the
level of barley stocks needed. Many things are involved. such as
whether demand is increasing, whether the coming year's crop will be
smaller, and whether there are surpluses of other feed grains.
AGRICULTURAL TRADE
Question: The Administration's budget documents cite the
positive agricultural trade balance of $7.3 billion in 1987. No one
would argue that this progress is encouraging for the American
farmer. To what would you attribute the increase in agricultural
exports?
Answer: Several factors can be cited as contributing to the
recent Surge in agricultural export activity. The new, more
market-oriented farm policy implemented with the passage of the Food
Security Act of 1985 has certainly played a major role. More
competitive prices, combined with the various export programs the
Department is implementing, are allowing U.S. exporters to once again
sell in world markets with competively priced U.S. farm products.
Another factor that has bostered agricultural exports is the
depreciation of the U.S. dollar against a number of foreign
currencies such as the German Mark and the Japanese Yen. The lower
dollar has reduced the purchase price of U.S. commodities in many
countries, thus, making our products a more attractive buy to foreign
importers.
Crops affected by adverse weather in several major exporting
and importing countries have also increased our opportunities,
especially for 1988. Examples are the Soviet Union, India and
Thailand. Poor harvesting weather reduced the quality of the Soviet
wheat harvest and the failed monsoon of 1987 in parts of South Asia
greatly reduced crop production. Among the hardest hit were India
and Thail and.
Question: If many of the enhancement programs established by
the 1985 Farm Bill are attributing to this success, why would the
Administration's budget not include more funding for FAS, the agency
responsible for the management of our agricultural trade program?
Answer: This Administration has been very supportive of FAS
and its work. The agency's annual level of spending has increased
Substantially from $54 million in FY 1981 to a projected $89 million
in FY 1989. Between FY 1987 and FY 1989 alone, FAS's annual program
level is projected to increase by $6 million. The agency's
authorized level of staffing has also been increased.
There is no question that the programs FAS administers,
Combined with more competitive U.S. prices and downward adjustments
in the value of the dollar, have contributed to our improved export
performance. The budget request for FAS in FY 1989 is considered
adequate to ensure that these programs will continue to be carried
Out in an effective manner.
88
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
Question: The Administration's budget does not recommend the
privatization of Federal Crop Insurance for the first time in several
years. Why has the Administration made this policy shift?
Answer: The decision not to emphasize the legislative package
which was submitted at the beginning of the 100th Congress,
recognizes that the energies of the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation (FCIC) can be more productively directed to stabilizing
prior program initiatives at this time. The Congress made very clear
its reliance on crop insurance as the preferred form of producer risk
management in the passage of the Crop Insurance Amendments of 1980,
and the 1981 and 1985 Farm Bills. While advantageous in some ways,
we do not believe that actions that might affect producer rates would
be appropriate at the present time.
While the Administration has not changed its view that,
ultimately, the crop insurance program would most appropriately be
delivered, as is other business insurance, through the private
sector, we recognize that it is necessary to direct the energies of
the FCIC and the USDA to assuring the soundness of the program prior
to any serious consideration of withdrawing from primary underwriting
by the Federal government.
Question: The new manager of the FCIC, Mr. Marshall, will have
a significant task in meeting the various objectives of the crop
insurance program to increase covered acreage and, at the same time,
reducing mismanagement, over payments, and fraud found in the
program. Do you believe that real progress can be made in the crop
insurance program this year?
Answer: We are confident that the FCIC's efforts to
aggressively motivate its sales and service contractors (Master
Marketers) and reinsured companies to utilize the emphasis which the
Congress is placing on the program will result in increased
participation. The increasing realization on the part of producers
that crop insurance is the government's safety net is demonstrated by
the fact that, even with decreasing acreage due to farm programs,
FCIC reports marginal increases in both numbers of contracts and
acreage protected during crop year 1987.
The emphasis on management controls which Mr. John Marshall,
the new Manager of FCIC, will bring, along with the very sound
progress that has been made in improving program operation and
controls, will work together to assure concerns which have been
expressed by the Congress.
Question: What goals have you and Mr. Marshall set to
accomplish over short-term and long-term?
Answer: A primary short-term goal is to establish within the
FCIC a sound and stable management structure to respond to criticisms
of the management and decisionmaking process of the organization.
While we feel that meeting expansion priorities as successfully as
they did indicates the soundness of past leadership, we also
recognize the need for more structure to meet the demands for quality
89
control and operational integrity for the long term. We are
confident that we can establish appropriate management systems to
meet both the adminstrative goals that the Congress has emphasized,
and also the need for ongoing soundness in program operations. .
The long-term goals are simply to see the fruition of the
Congressional mandate of a universally available crop insurance
product for all principal crops in major growing areas. The
achievement of this goal will relieve the Congress of the burden of
ad hoc disaster programs, assure greater actuarial integrity for the
program through shared risk, and realize the vision of an American
agricultural enterprise which recognizes the need to assume the
responsibility for assessing individual vulnerability and exercising
appropriate judgements on risk management.
FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION
Question: The Food Safety and Inspection Service is slated for
an increase of $13.7 million in 1989. How many more additional
inspectors would be hired?
Answer: The Agency requests no increase in its staff-year
ceiling for 1989; it will reassign its present ceiling to meet
changing needs. In fiscal 1989, the Agency will increase staffing
for Slaughter Inspection by 109, for Import Inspection by seven, and
for Laboratory Services by six. The continuing implementation of
Discretionary Inspection in Processing Operations will, however,
result in Staff reductions Sufficient to cover all increased needs in
other programs.
Question: What advantages will the relocation of the Agency's
Training Center from Fort Worth to Texas A&M University bring?
Answer: Texas A&M is a university with an established school
of veterinary science and a curriculum in food technology and food
Science. The faculty, courses of study, and facilities offered by
the university will notably improve the quality of training that the
Agency can offer its inspectors and signficantly contribute toward
placing inspection on a more objective, scientific basis.
Question: What will be the major priorities of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service?
Answer: The Food Safety and Inspection Service will continue
to modernize meat and poultry inspection and redirect the program on
a more scientific basis. The Agency will work to more thoroughly
base inspection on the concept of Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point (HACCP). This means that the inspection process must
be reviewed to isolate those factors in meat and poultry products
which are actual threats to public health, and that inspection must
identify and focus upon those points in the slaughter, processing,
and handling of products where threats to food safety can be
Controlled before they arise. In fact, the Agency has been moving in
this direction for some years: since the late seventies the Agency
has promoted the adoption of total quality control in processing
plants, and since the mid-eighties has extended the idea to carcass
quality in slaughter plants. At this time, FSIS is running tests
which will lead to the application of HACCP to microbial control in
90
poultry slaughtering plants. The approach also means that the
regulated industry must share the responsibility for accurate
control.
The reorientation of meat and poultry inspection on a more
scientific basis requires a more technically-trained workforce and
demands more of the Agency's informational resources. Accordingly,
the Agency's 1989 proposals include improvements in the training of
its workforce, and continuation of its plans for revising its
information systems.
Consistent with the HACCP concept, the Agency will bring
processing inspection under the flexible scheduling authorized by
Congress in 1986, inspecting the best-managed plants less frequently
and increasing its inspection of process plants and installing that
approach nationwide late in 1987. The approach requires an analysis
of plant processes and concentrates inspector attention on the points
where processing deviations can cause finished products to fall below
Standard S.
The Agency's proposals for 1989 include an initiative for
improved control over residues in two ways. FSIS will increase by
tenfold its monitoring of six selected compound-species pairs in
order to gain a clearer picture of nationwide residue distributions
and concentrations for these compounds. The Agency will also
increase its use of immediate in-plant testing from about 220,000
annually to over 600,000. One of these in-plant programs will be
directed to the persistent problem of sulfonamide residues in swine.
Together with forthcoming regulatory change requiring traceback of
swine to previous owners, the program may become a prototype of
effective, low-cost residue control.
FSIS will also strengthen its programs for control of microbial
hazards in food. The new Advisory Committee on Microbiological
Criteria will give USDA, together with FDA, a blueprint for
coordinating federal efforts in this area and a set of goals for the
reduction of food-borne pathaogens. FSIS plans for 1989 include
funding for the development of rapid tests that can be used in-plant
for the detection of harmful microorganisms.
Question: When all 18 members of the National Advisory
Committee on Microbiological Criteria are selected, when do you
anticipate that their agenda will be published and when will we be
able to review their assessments?
Answer: The Committee's first meeting will be April 5–6, 1988.
At that meeting, the Committee will lay out their priorities and
assign groups to investigate particular issues. Beyond that, I
cannot say when they will have recommendations for review, although
the Committee knows that we and FDA want them to be expeditious.
91
INVESTIGATIONS
Question: In FY 1987, Congress enacted a supplemental
appropriation of $10 million to carry out investigations of changes
needed in the farm program in order to restore the American farm
economy. What have you done with that money and how are you
proceeding with the investigation?
Answer: The three investigations mandated in the Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1987 were conducted by the Economic Research
Service of USDA. A report discussing the results will be transmitted
to the Congress shortly.
Question: How much money has been spent to date?
Answer: This was an annual appropriation and $350,000 was
obligated in FY 1987 to fund the investigations.
Question: What results do you have so far?
Answer: Results of the investigations show that producers
generally have indicated less than enthusiastic support for mandatory
controls. The effects of mandatory controls depend on numerous
program implementation details. However, any mandatory control
program would reduce market efficiency, expand the Government's role
in agriculture, and require changes in a wide range of statutes and
USDA rules and regulations.
Question: When do you expect to complete your investigations?
Answer: The investigations have been completed. A report
discussing the results will be transmitted to the Congress shortly.
STAFFING
Question: I noted that a recent Congressional Budget Office
report indicates that the workforce at the Department of Agriculture
was reduced by 17 percent over the last 10 years. To what do you
attribute this decline in personnel?
Answer: During the 1980–87 period, employment in the
Department of Agriculture was reduced by over 22,000 staff years, or
about 18 percent. Essentially, it has been an effort on the part of
many of our agencies to get their job done with fewer perople. In
Some cases, this effort has been aided by new technology. In the
Case of the Forest Service, our largest employer, the use of the
Volunteer program has helped a great deal. •
Question: Have certain agencies been harder hit by this
decline than others?
Answer: It has been necessary to actually increase employment
in some areas such as the Farmers Home Administration (+8%) and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (+6%). The
largest reductions have been in the Federal Grain Inspection Service
(-5.9%), the Food and Nutrition Service (-32%), the Forest Service
(-29%), the Economic Research Service (–22%) and the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation (-2.1%).
92
Question: Please provide a table for those ten years, showing
the personnel level for each year. -
Answer: The information follows:
$3
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Staff Years
. (Adjusted for Comparability)
Estimate
Agency Estimated
FY 1980 FY 1981 FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
TAgricuſturalſTResearch Service ....... 8,688 8,564 8,394 8,335 8, 108 8, 112 8,017 8, 128 8, 147 8, 147
Cooperative State Research Service ... 137 147 146 130 128 136 148 150 150 150
Extension Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 211 191 176 172 174 179 173 173 173
National Agricultural Library . . . . . . . 193 197 191 171 153 160 177 176 190 190
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND COMMODITY
~progRAMET
Agricuſtural Stabilization and -
Conservation Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,971 2,773 2,650 2,772 2,779 2,816 2,936 3, 169 3, 288 3, 144
Foreign Agricultural Service . . . . . . . . 877 866 851 818 812 826 803 804 820 820
Office of International Cooperation
and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 201 209 205 195 200 215 218 192 187
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,030 45,424 43, 180 41,850 40, 501 39, 185 36,918 36, 744 36,744 37,000
Soil Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 167 14,764 14,028 14, 156 13,959 13,612 12,894 12,395 14, 177 12,395
SMALL COMMUNITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Farmers Home Administration . . . . . . . . . 11, 342 11,910 10,843 11, 194 12, 301 12, 118 12, 133 12, 289 12,675 11, 700
Rural Electrification Admini Stration 736 708 680 653 626 598 566 524 550 500
Office of Rural Development Policy .. 36 35 18 30 31 26 5 tº º tº gº tº sº
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation ... 1,244 1,510 1,624 1,418 1,314 1, 196 1,095 979 905 865
FOOD AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Food and Nutrition Service . . . . . . . . . . 2,751 2,640 2,466 2, 335 2, 220 2, 171 1,995 1, 879 1,879 1,820
Human Nutrition Information Service . 79 82 71 78 73 79 86 90 90 90
§
MARKETING AND INSPECTION SERVICES
Federal Grain Inspection Service .... 1,886 1,786 1, 147 93.9 884 846 779 768 768 768
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & O - e. e. e. 5,608 5, 222 5, 266 4,850 4,763 4, 812 5,066 5, 204 5, 204 5, 100
Food Safety and Inspection Service ... 10,004 9,749 9,605 9,612 9,580 9,719 9,292 9,353 9,400 9,400
Agricultural Cooperative Service ... . 87 86 88 76 69 65 63 63 63 45
Agricultural Marketing Service . . . . . . 4,618 4,439 4,277 4, 167 4, 176 4,091 4,054 3,961 3,961 3,900
Office of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 47 43 44 43 46 41 35 35 20
Packers and Stockyards Administration 263 237 185 183 194 187 183 187 i87 187
ECONOMICS
Economic Research Service ........ ... 1,039 993 946 903 876 866 846 813 840 860
National Agricultural Statistics
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e e s e e s e º e e º e e l, 305 1, 248 1, 178 1, 142 l, 154 1, 125 1,080 1,059 1,059 1,049
World Agricultural Outlook Board . . . . 23 27 28 28 29 29 26 26 30 31
ADMINISTRATION
ce of the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 101 91 85 95 96 89 75 75 85
Departmental Administration . . . . . . . . 1,996 1,983 1,995 1,923 1,847 1,909 1,913 1,948 1,948 2,000
Office of Budger and Program
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 92 83 79 78 76 71 68 78 78
Office of Governmental and Public -
Affairs . . . . . . . . . . ge e º e º O ſº e º O & © e e º o 193 .184 177 171 167 155 156 151 151 156
Office of the Inspector General . . . . 927 889 861 886 879 851 820 818 818 850
Office of the General Counsel . . . . . . 355 343 341 348 377 371 347 327 360 360
TOTAL, USDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,185 117,440 111,853 109,773 108,598 106,665 102,997 102,579 104,962 102,045
95
F00D AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS
Question: The Administration's budget would operate many of
the federal food assistance programs without significant change in
law. The supplemental feeding programs, however, would be merged
into one account, resulting in a combined appropriation of $1.9
billion for both WIC and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.
Notably, participation among the non-elderly would be allowed to
reach 3.8 million per month ; yet, CSFP now serves about 80,000
seniors per month. In light of the assertion that a combined
supplemental feeding program account would be allocated to maximize
participation of women, infants, and children, how would the elderly
now Served be accommodated?
Answer: Existing elderly participation in CSFP would not be
affected by the combining of the WIC and CSFP accounts. The proposal
to combine the accounts contains language to preserve the level of
elderly participation funded in both the new and old sites from the
FY 1988 appropriation. This proposal limits growth in the elderly
portion of the program, but does not affect existing participation.
Question: What is the policy rationale for combining the
Supplemental Feeding Programs?
Answer: In combining the Supplemental Feeding Programs, our
goal is to offer States the opportunity to provide important services
to more women, infants, and children. Both WIC and CSFP serve
similar target population groups: pregnant, breastfeeding and
postpartum women, infants, and children. However, the cost structure
and services provided under these two programs are different. The
cost of an average food, package in WIC is estimated to be $33.58 in
FY 1988, while the average food package in CSFP for non-elderly is
estimated to be $16.69 (not including bonus foods) in FY 1988.
We think that the States should have the flexibility to
allocate caseload between these two programs and to choose
appropriate benefits and services to be provided to their target
population. For example, a State with a combined appropriation of
$37 million for Supplemental Feeding Programs could provide monthly
benefits to 70,000 participants in the WIC Program or 170,000
participants in CSFP. (These numbers are for average participation
and do not include the value of bonus foods in CSFP.) This is
consistent with existing policy directives which encourage State
level decisionmaking and autonomy in grant programs.
Moreover, the States may be able to provide different
configurations of benefits more appropriate to different categories
of the target population. We feel that services provided to the WIC
and CSFP eligible population can be improved by offering each State
greater flexibility in assigning caseload between these two
programs.
Question: Does the Department wish to discontinue the
distribution of commodities under CSFP, in favor of the voucher
System used by WIC2 0n is the Department seeking broader
distribution of commodities over extending the use of vouchers?
96
Answer: The proposal to combine the WIC and CSFP accounts
does not affect the fundamental nature of each program's food
distribution system. Each program will retain the structure of
benefits and services it provides.
Combining the accounts permits the State to allocate eligible
caseload of women, infants, and children between the two programs and
to choose the appropriate structure of services to its target
population.
This proposal will not affect the relative importance of the
distribution of commodities or the use of vouchers. Its goal is to
expand services for the same dollar level. States would be required
to include a proposal of transfers between the two programs in their
Submission of the State Plan. These plans are subject to approval by
FNS.
Question: Would the combined Supplemental Feeding Programs be
phased in? If so, over what period of time? Would costs increase or
decrease through this joint program?
Answer: The combined Supplemental Feeding Programs would not
be phased in, but would be effective immediately in FY 1989. States
could submit State Plan revisions for FY 1989 to real locate caseload
between the two programs. These plan revisions would be subject to
FNS approval.
Overall program costs for these programs would not be affected
by this proposal. If food costs are lower (from allocating caseload
to CSFP instead of WIC), the States will be able to expand service to
eligible women, infants, and children. The program rules to be
developed will permit transferring funds only if it results in
increased participation of the target population.
TEFAP
Question: The budget proposal for fiscal year 1989 recommends
that funding for TEFAP be terminated. Understanding that stocks of
dairy surpluses are insufficient to guarantee distibutions even
throughout 1988, do you believe that there will be no other
commodities available that would warrant administrative funding for
TEFAP in 1989?
Answer: It is difficult to project commodity inventory
level S. However, Since State and local authorities admini Stered the
program prior to the $50 million annual appropriation, it is our
opinion that the program would continue without Federal funding.
Therefore, we do not support administrative funding for TEFAP in 1989
regardless of the availability of surplus commodities.
Question: If there continues to be a need for emergency food
assistance, how does the Department envision that such demand will be
met without TEFAP2
Answer: The Department is requesting reauthorization of TEFAP
and will continue to distribute available commodities through the
program. We are not, however, requesting administrative funding.
USDA also has other existing legislative authority under which
97
surplus commodities can be made available for distribution to the
needy through food banks or soup kitchens, for example. Through the
provisions for expedited service, the Food Stamp Program is also
available to meet the need for emergency food assistance.
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE PROJECT
Question: In January of 1985, the Agricultural Research
Service published a study addressing the use of solid fuel for
irrigation pumping. The system addressed was a Stirling Engine
System. Could you please summarize for the Committee the benefits
described by this study? Specifically, what power size is needed for
significant market penetration? What economic benefits could farmers
expect from commercial availability of such systems? What fuels
could be used?
Answer: The Agricultural Research Service completed the study
"The Stirling Engine: It Markets Potential for Irrigation Pumping
and 0ther Irrigation Energy-Conservation Concepts," January 29, 1985.
The report concluded that for Stirling engines to compete in the
irrigation pumping market the engines would have to be in the 75 to
100+ brake horsepower (bhp) range. These engines would need to have
an expected life of at least 20,000 hours for powering 75 bhp pumps
and at least 15,000 hours for 100 bhp units if they are to be
economically competitive with diesel and electric-powered units at
fuel prices. Since that time engery prices have declined by
One-third. Accordingly, the cost of coal or biomass fuel must be
lower for these engines to be competitive with the expected life
identified above.
Farmers could be less affected by rising energy costs if they
were able to utilize indigenous coal or other fuels such as biomass.
The study focused primarily on burning coal in a fluidized bed
combustor. However, other fuels such as corn Stover, wheat Straw,
Wood chips and pellets, and animal waste could be used to power
external combustion engines.
Question: Since the study was published, USDA published a
Request for Proposals to address External Combustion Engine Research
and Development. How many proposals were received in response to
that request?
Answer: The Department received 23 proposals from 21 different
applicants.
Question: Could you please provide the Committee with a list
of the responding organizations?
Answer: The names, addresses, and project titles follow:
98
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE PROPOSALS RECEIVED, FISCAL YEAR 1987
1. Dr. Kenneth L. Krolski 8702826 P R O G-C 00 E: C C
President $ F O R M O N T H S
P.O. Box 142 Private Profit
Kentron, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Cedarburg, WI 53012 DNA 2 No
Special Research Grants Program
External Combustion Engines
Ignition System for External Combustion Engine
2. Christopher W. Michaels 8702837 P R O G-C O DE: C C
President $287,500 F O R 12 MO N THS
1850 N. Cherokee Ave, Suite 11 Private Profit Making
M 0 NTEX Int. Corp. H U M A N SUBJECT? NO
Los Angeles, CA 90028 0 NA? No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Novel Generation of Twenty-First Century Carnot Cycle External Combustion Engines
3. Floyd L. Ramp 8702838 P R O G-C O DE: C C
President $122,000 F OR 12 MONTHS
3948 Humphrey Road Private Profit Making
Ramp Research H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Richfield, OH 44286 O N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Dual Fluid Turbine
4. William C. Pfefferle 8702839 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Project Director $197,919 F OR 24 MONTHS
17 West Haycock Point Road Private Profit Making
Precision Combustion, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT? NO
Branford, CT 06405 O N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Efficient Catalytic Combustor Farm Power System Burning Biomass-Derived Fuels
5. Mark S. Rice 8702840 P R O G-C O DE: C C
President $133,236 FOR 20 M O N T H S
7120 Piney Branch Road, N.W. Private Profit Making
Marítime Applied Physics Corporation H U M A N SUBJECT 2 No
Washington, DC 20012 0 N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Biomass-Fueled, Rankine–Cycle Reciprocating Engine for Agricultural Use
6. Edward N. Laughlin 8702841 P R O G-C O DE: C C
President $240,000 F O R 18 M 0 NTHS
224 N. Campo Private Profit Making
Energy 0 ptics, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT 2 No
Las Cruces, N M 88001. 0 N A 2 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines -
Pool Fire Fluidized-Bed Combustor for Power Production From Agricultural By-Products
99
7. Harold M. Keener 8702842 P R O G-C 00 E: C C
Dept. of Agricultural Engineering $138,223 F OR 24 M 0 NTHS
Ohio Agricultural Res. & Dev. Center SAES
Ohio State Univ. H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Wooster, 0 H 44691 O N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
AFBC-EC Engine System for Biomass Power
8. Thomas W. 0akes 8702843 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Project Director $100,000 F OR 12 M 0 NTHS
10303 Centinella Dr. Private Profit Making
FUZETR0 N, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT? NO
La Mesa, CA 92041 0 N A2 NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Electomagnetic Energy for Electric Power Generation Not Using Petroleum
9. Thomas W. 0akes 8702844 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Project Director $100,000 F O R 12 MO N THS
10303 Centinella Dr. Private Profit Making
FUZETRON, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT? No
La Mesa, CA 92041 D N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Steam-Electric Engine for Agriculture
10. Thomas W. Oakes 8702845 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Project Director $100,000 F O R 12 MONTHS
10303 Centinella Dr. Private Profit Making
FUZETRO N, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT 7 No
La Mesa, CA 92041 D N A2 NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engine Using Agriculture Products As Fuel
11. William H. Houtman 8702846 P R O G-C 00 E: C C
Project Director $484,783 FOR 18 M 0 NTHS
7101 Jackson Road Private Profit Making
Stirling Power Systems, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT 2 No
Ann Arbor, MI 48103 D N A2 NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Biomass Fueled Stirling Engine Powered Generator System Demonstration
12. David G.S. Greene 8702847 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Department of Physics $158,916 FOR 12 M 0 NTHS
Public Umi w/College
Towson State Univ. H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Towson, MD 21204 D N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Farm & Forest Fuels Run 4-SQUARE Machinery: Compressors, Pumps, Vacuums, Motors
100
13. James T. Mikula 8702848 P R O G-C 0 DE: C C
Director of Corporate Engineering $484,923 FOR 23 MONTHS
Highway 275 Private Profit Making
Walmont Industries, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT? NO
Walley, NE 68064 DN A2 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
A Biomass Fueled Stationary Power Unit for Agricultural Irrigation
14. Dennis K. Clark 8702849 P R O G-C 0 DE: C C
$147,600 F OR 60 MONTHS
- Private Profit Making
15880 SE Cielo Court H U M A N SUBJECT 7 NO
Clackamas, 0 R 97015 D N A 7 NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Small Farm External Combustion Steam Cogeneration Utilizing Methane
15. John A. Cozby 8702850 P R O G-C O DE: C C
President $250,550 F O R 24 MONTHS
P.O. Box 700 Private Profit Making
Cozby Enterprises, Inc. H U M A N SUBJECT 2 No
Anaconda, MT 59711 O N A 7 NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Advanced Rankine Cycle Umitary Steam Engine With Solid Fuel Combustor
16. Edgar Carnegie 8702851 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Dept. of Agricultural Engineering $217,685 FOR 36 M O N T HS
San Luis Obispo County Public Univ./College
California Polytechnic State Univ. Foundation H U M A N SUBJECT? Nö
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 0 N A2 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Biomass Fuel Agricultural Power Plant
17. Tchong C. Mao 8702852 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Project Director $480,000 F O R 60 M O N T HS
P.O. Box 590243 Private Profit Making
T & TS Co. H U M A N SUBJECT 2 No
Houston, TX 77.259 D N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
The Design and Development of a Buoyant Wheel to Compose a Perpetual Engine
by Utilizing Buoyant Fuel from Water
18. John E. Minardi 8702853 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Project Director $1,282,278 F O R 60 MONTHS
300 College Park Private Univ./College
Univ. of Dayton H U M A N SUBJECT? NO
Dayton, OH 45469 O N A 7 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
High-Efficiency, External-Combustion Engines Using Biomass Fuels
101
19. Wilhiam E. Larsen 8702854 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Dept. of Civil/Agricultural Engineering $186,837 FOR 36 MONTHS
Gallatin County Land Grant-1862
Montana State Univ. ' H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Bozeman, MT 59717 DN A2 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Biomass Fueled, External Combustion, Brayton Cycle Engine for Irrigation Pumping
20. John J. Thomas 8702856 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Medical Research Institute $370,313 FOR 36 MONTHS
3325 West New Haven Avenue Private Univ/College
Florida Institute of Technology H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Melbourne, FL 32904 D NA? NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Biomass Derived-Angelicalactone as External Combustion Fuel
21. John G. Riley 8702857 p R O G-C 00 E: C C
Department of Agricultural Engineering $119,172 FOR 36 MONTHS
Land Grant-1862
Univ. of Maine - H U M A N SUBJECT? No
Orono, ME 04469 0 N A 7 No r
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines -
An Open Cycle, Biomass Residue Fueled External Combustion Engine
22. Robert C. Brown 8702858 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering $355,078 FOR 36 M 0 NTHS
2020 Me/Esm Land Grant-1862
Iowa State Univ. H U MAN SUBJECT? No
A mes, IA 50011 D N A2 No
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustor Fired with Slurry for Agricultural Power
23. Harold J. Schock 8702859 P R O G-C O DE: C C
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering $2,342,676 F OR 60 M 0 NTHS
Land Grant-1862
Michigan State Univ. H U M A N SUBJECT? No
East Lansing, MI 48824 DNA 7 NO
Development of External Combustion Engines
External Combustion Engines
High-Efficiency Stirling Engines for Domestic Farm Power Supply
102
Question: Will this single effort be enough to bring such
systems to commercial reality? Please explain why or why not?
Answer: The Department has funded two applicants -- Walmont
Industries, Inc. and the Department of Agricultural Engineering of
Ohio State University (proposals number 13 and 7, respectively).
These studies of 2-year duration will provide some information on
using biomass fuels to operate external combustion engines for
stationary agricultural power applications. However, this research
effort will not be sufficient to bring the Stirling engine to
commercial reality in the United States.
While the Stirling engine was patented in 1816, there has been
no commercial development of the engine for a variety of reasons.
Consequently, a great deal of testing and development is necessary
before all the components in the system have demonstrated the
durability essential for dependable, long-term trouble free operation
that a farmer expects from an irrigation water pumping system.
Specific areas of emphasis where more research is needed for
developing a dependable external combustion engine include:
-- sealing of hot gases and lubricants;
-- prevention of cooler tube corrosion;
-- development of methods to insure intergrity of castings and
other components;
-- development of automatic control systems; and
-- ultimately, optimization of the various factors influencing
performance.
It appears that a number of these areas likely will require
several years of effort to achieve the required dependability for
commercial adoption.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Question: The Economic Research Service of USDA recently
released a report entitled Managing Farm Nutrients. This report
dealt with the problems of surface and groundwater quality created by
agricultural operations. I surmise from the report that the
Department of Agriculture is concerned about and plans to address
this problem. Could you tell me if you have any immediate plans? I
See this as an ongoing problem. What about long range plans to
reduce water pollution from agricultural operations?
Answer: The Department of Agriculture is concerned about the
effects on Surface and groundwater quality created by agricultural
operations. We promulgated the USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality
Policy in December 1986 and the USDA Policy for Groundwater Quality
in November 1987. Recently, I established a USDA Working Group on
Agricultural Chemicals and the Environment to develop and recommend
103
appropriate strategies for implementing these policies and to serve
as an interim clearinghouse for all matters relating to agricultural
chemicals and the environment. They expect to complete these tasks
by summer and we will be reviewing their proposals for the next
budget
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
PROGRAM REDUCTIONS
Question: During the White House - Congress summit last year,
it was agreed by the Administration, that a reasonable,
non-confrontational budget would be submitted for FY 1989. As I look
over the USDA portion of the budget request, I notice that you are
asking for the same programs to be reduced significantly or
eliminated that you have requested every year. Congress, however,
always goes back and funds these programs. In this light, how can
you claim that your budget request is in the spirit of the summit
agreement?
Answer: Because of the summit, this budget does not include a
number of proposals which were made in prior years. These include
proposals for new user fees, changes in the food assistance programs,
changes in the farm price support programs, changes in the method of
Sharing forest service revenues, and privatization of the crop
insurance program. In addition, the budget includes funding for
Certain conservation and rural development programs which were
proposed for termination in prior budgets. Proposals to reduce or
reform programs in the areas of housing, REA, research special
grants, and some traditional conservation programs are part of the
actions recommended by the Administration to live within the
discretionary budget totals set by the summit. For these reasons, we
believe the President's budget is entirely consistent with the summit
agreement.
NAL GRANT
Question: In the FY 1988 Continuing Resolution, $370,000 was
appropriated to the National Agricultural Library for a grant to the
University of Arkansas Leflar School of Law to set up a National
Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information. Officials from
the law school have met with officials of the NAL, and everything is
ready for the awarding of the grant. However, NAL officials state
that they may not now award the grant pending a possible rescission
request? Have you requested a rescission of funds for the program?
If not, how soon can we get this necessary program off the gound?
Answer: No rescission has been proposed in this area nor do
We anticipate such a proposal. USDA agencies, including NAL, have
been instructed to carry out their programs in the normal manner. We
understand that NAL has provide the law school with information
needed to assist them in completing the necessary documentation for
requesting the grant. As soon as the paperwork is completed, funds
will be made available.
104
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
Question: In the 1988 Continuing Resolution, the Animal
Damage Control Program of APHIS is instructed to continue research
for developing an environmentally safe toxicant or repellent for
blackbirds, starlings, and grackles that damage rice and Sunflower
production. I have learned that ADC intends to only continue
research on damage to sunflowers. This is contrary to Congressional
intent, and I would like to know how you intend to rectify this
Situation.
Answer: APHIS is continuing with its ongoing research program
to develop environmental safe toxicants and repellents for
blackbirds, starlings, and grackles that damage rice as well as
sunflowers. The major objective of this program is to provide
scientific information for the registration of an effective roost
toxicant. APHIS has submitted an experimental use permit application
to the Environmental Protection Agency to field test the roost
toxicant CPT at field sites in the midsouth as well as northern
sunflower growing regions. Although these field tests will not be
conducted in rice growing areas, the field tests are aimed at
developing a control tool broadly useable for protecting rice,
sunflowers, and other crops; and reducing nuisance roost problems.
This winter, the agency conducted an Arkansas-based field application
of a nontoxic chemical formula which would contain a toxicant during
an actual field trial. The purpose was to review methods for
evaluating the effectiveness and potential hazard to such control
tool.
APHIS is currently testing other control approaches to reduce
bird damage to rice. The other approaches include testing a lethal
bait in Louisiana which is designed to reduce local bird damage to
sprouting rice, and a nontoxic seed coat repellent for rice.
Question: In the 1988 Continuing Resolution, $225,000 was
provided to the ADC for aquaculture and rice animal damage control
research in the Delta States of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
I have learned that the Department intends to channel all these funds
into aquaculture research in Mississippi. This, also, is contrary to
Congressional intent, and I would like to know how you intend to
rectify this.
Answer: APHIS intends to conduct research and operational
control activities which benefit all of the Delta States. Of the
$225,000, the Agency plans to devote $75,000 to operational bird
control programs at aquaculture sites in the Delta, and $150,000 to
establish a research station at Mississippi State University. The
goal of the research effort will be to develop methods to reduce
agriculture damage caused by nuisance animals in Arkansas, Louisiana,
and Mississippi. APHIS also plans to devote an additional $100,000
to expand ongoing blackbird research programs in Louisiana and
Arkansas in FY 1988.
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS POULTRY ISOLATION UNIT
Question. In the 1988 Continuing Resolution, $500,000 was
provided to the University of Arkansas through CSRS for the upgrading
of the poultry isolation unit to be located at the University.
105
University officials have been negotiating with CSRS officials on the
possible use of these monies for critical construction needs of the
unit. CSRS officials have refused so far. Can you help resolve this
situation favorably?
Answer: The FY 1988 appropriation provided $500,000 for a
Special Research Grant to upgrade the poultry isolation unit at the
University of Arkansas. Special Research Grants are authorized under
Section 2(c) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 U.S.C.
450i (c.). This legislation provides that no grant may be made under
this authority "for the planning, repair, rehabilitation,
acquisition, or construction of a building or facility."
Accordingly, consistent with a grant proposal received from the
University of Arkansas and in discussions with College of Agriculture
administrators, these funds will be used for the hiring of personnel
and purchase of equipment for the isolation unit.
Construction of the facility will be supported by a
Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) Building and Facilities
award of $363,750 to the University. This combined funding will
permit the development of a state-of-the-art poultry isolation
facility at the University which is located in the most densely
populated poultry area in the United States. Research will include
the use of biotechnology techniques in the development of vaccines
for virus diseases affecting poultry. -
WATER AND WASTE GRANTS
Question: Knowing of the emphasis by the Department on rural
development, how do you justify the reduction of FmHA rural water and
waste grants to $75 million, $50 million below the authorized level ?
Answer: Preserving the Water and Waste Disposal Grant Program
was one of the priorities I established in preparing the Department's
budget. Frankly, given the restrictions in meeting budget and
deficit targets, it was fortunate that we were able to recommend a
funding level of $75 million. Although the funding is less than
previous years, we will make better use of the funds by giving
increased preference to very low income communities.
106
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
SUGAR RE-EXPORT PROGRAM
Question: Mr. Secretary, in December 1987, the Congress
passed and the President signed legislation to create a special
import-export program to stimulate additional sugar sales from the
Caribbean and the Philippines. This legislation was passed because
USDA lacked specific statutory authority to use CCC commodities to
implement this program. Can you indicate when USDA will promulgate
final regulations to implement this program?
Answer: We are currently in the process of developing, as
expeditiously as possible, proposed regulations for this program.
When the proposed rule is cleared, it will be published in the
Federal Register. It is then subject to a period of public comment.
After the comment period, the proposed rule will be redrafted as a
final rule, cleared and then published as a final rule.
Question: It has been suggested that Congress should make
this program permanent rather than effective for only one year. What
would be the Administration's position regarding permanent authority
for the re-export program?
Answer: We do not believe it is at all appropriate to
continue this precedent whereby the assets of the Commodity Credit
Corporation are used to promote exports of foreign produced
commodities. We believe the Congress must address the deficiencies
of the basic sugar program legislation rather than making permanent a
Commodity Credit Corporation subsidy for the countries and sugar
refining companies adversely affected by current law.
FARM CREDIT SYSTEM ASSISTANCE BOARD
Question: It is my understanding that USDA will be providing
financial assistance to the newly created Farm Credit Assistance
Board. Does the budget for USDA include such assistance? Please
provide details for the record.
Answer: The Financial Assistance Board is charged under the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 with determining the financial
assistance and administrative streamlining required of troubled Farm
Credit insitutions. Funding for assistance allocated by the Board is
provided by the Financial Assistance Corporation.
The Corporation obtains funds through issuance of federally
guaranteed bonds. Interest on the bonds for the first five years is
paid by Treasury for the second five years, half by Treasury, and
half by the System, and for the last five years entirely by the
System. The 1989 budget requests appropriations to Treasury of $175
million to reimburse the Corporation for estimated interest expenses
on bond issued in 1988 and 1989. The request assumes issuance of
about $1.5 billion in 1988 and $0.5 billion in 1989.
107
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP)
Question: Secretary Lyng, the FY 1988 omnibus Continuing
Resolution included statutory language that I proposed requiring
appropriations above the level needed to support certain specific
caseloads in states operating Commodity Supplemental Food programs in
1987 to be used to fund additional projects for women, infants and
children in new states that had applied for funding. Would you
please give the Subcommittee a status report on the funding of
projects to serve women, infants and children in new states that had
applied for CSFP funding?
Answer: During the fiscal year 1988 caseload cycle, six State
agencies awaited authorization for a Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP). The six States (New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Minnesota, New York, Kansas and Oregon) were approved to operate a
CSFP in January 1988.
Question: What amount of the $50 million appropriated will be
directed to these new programs in FY 1988?
Answer: The cost of food, allowable admini Strative
reimbursement, and State and local inventory expenses for the total
20,755 caseload slots is estimated to be about $4.8 million.
Questions: Would you please give me the names of the States
and the anticipated caseloads of women, infants, and children to be
served in new programs in these States in the current fiscal year?
Answer: The six States agencies and their authorized women,
infants and children casel oad level S are listed below:
State. Authorized Caseload
New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,478
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,068
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,788
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © tº e 1,549
Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,943
Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ſº e º & © e º ſº tº Q Q & C © e º 'º e º ſº tº 929
Total, Caseload Slots for New States . . . . 20,755
108
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator BURDICK. This ends today's hearing. The committee would
like very much to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today.
Secretary LYNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. You had quite a workout. Our next hearing will be
held next Tuesday, March 1, at 10 a.m., in this same room. At that
time, the subcommittee will hear from representatives of the Agricul-
tural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research Service, and the
Extension Service. The Subcommittee now Stands in receSS.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., Tuesday, February 23, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 1.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1989
TUFSDAY, MARCH 1, 1988
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 11:06 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, Sasser, Harkin, Cochran, Kasten, Specter,
and Grassley.
|DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF DR. ORVILLE G. BENT LEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
ACCOMPANIED BY: &
ROBERT LONG, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND
EDUCATION
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY B. KINNEY, JR., ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY: -
MARY E. CARTER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
WILLIAM TALLENT, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
THOMAS J. ARMY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
JOHN R. VICTOR, BUDGET OFFICER
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
Senator BURDICK. The subcommittee will please come to order.
Today, we will continue our hearings on the fiscal year 1989 budget for
the Department of Agriculture. Specifically, we will hear today from the
representatives of the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative
State Research Service, and the Extension. Service. With us we have Dr.
Orville Bentley, Assistant Secretary for Science and Education; Mr.
Robert Long, Deputy Assistant Secretary; Dr. Terry Kinney, the
Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service; Dr. John Patrick
Jordan, Administrator of the Cooperative State Research Service; Dr.
Myron Johnsrud, Administrator of the Extension Service; and Mr.
Steve Dewhurst, the budget officer for the Department of Agriculture.
Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.
(109)
110
OPENING REMARKS
While the budget request for the Agricultural Research Service shows
an increase of $20 million in program funds, construction funds are
reduced over fiscal year 1988 by $47 million.
The Cooperative State Research Service is characterized by a $49 mil-
lion cut in its operating budget, and the Extension Service budget
proposed by the President calls for a $58 million reduction.
I am pleased that the budget request does reflect Some changing
priorities in the area of research and extension. For example, a budget
request has been submitted for the first time for a special focus on
water quality research and management, and the Extension Service
budget includes funding for new national priorities which have been es-
tablished by the extension community.
Nevertheless, I am very concerned about Some of the reductions
proposed, such as funding for higher education and funding for some
of the other special grants under both research and extension.
For example, the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program
is cut by more than one-half for fiscal year 1989. I will have many ques-
tions on the budget, but at this time, I would like to again welcome you
to the committee. We look forward to having your testimony. We have
your statements, which will be made a part of the record in full.
Therefore, if you care to Summarize, it would be appreciated.
Senator Kasten, do you have an opening statement?
Senator KASTEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a formal opening state-
ment, but I would like Simply to welcome Assistant Secretary Bentley
and Dr. Kinney and the other witnesses back to Our Subcommittee, and
I look forward to their testimony.
I want to extend a special welcome to Dr. Luis Sequeira, who is the
new Chief Scientist of the CSRS Competitive Research Grants
Program. Dr. Sequeira has had a long and distinguished career at the
University of Wisconsin as a plant pathologist. This is the first time that
he appears as part of the team here.
I would note that competitive research grants are especially important
to the University of Wisconsin, So Doctor, you are in the right place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Dr. Bentley.
STATEMENT OF DR, ORVILLE G. BENTLEY
Dr. BENTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your wel-
come. My colleagues who are here with me at the table—you have al-
ready given their names—we look forward to making a presentation on
our 1989 budget and the program proposals for research and extension.
We have carefully constructed the budget to address the more critical
issues facing producers today and those that will be with us for the long
term. We have built a strong, refocused information dissemination com-
ponent to assure that the research we produce reaches the end users.
Our plans have been shaped through the input of advisory groups, state
representatives, commodity and producer organizations, research and ex-
111
tension professionals, and the Congress. Of course, the Budget Summit
Agreement is also reflected. I am confident that our proposals will be
an important factor in the continuing improvement of the farm Sector
competitiveness in the world marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, before I address our specific proposals, I would like
to take a moment to recognize Dr. Terry Kinney, and to express our
most sincere appreciation for the outstanding contributions he has made
in the 7 years as Administrator of ARS. As you know, Terry has an-
nounced his plans to retire from the federal service this year. He is sit-
ting here beside me at this hearing. - -
Now, let me address some items in a very broad Sense, Mr. Chair-
man. I would like, then, after I make my Statement, to turn to my col-
leagues in ARS, CSRS, and the ES who are here to amplify some of
the remarkS.
GROUND WATER QUALITY
The first item that I would like to talk about is ground water quality
which is one of the most widely discussed issues in agriculture today.
Producers and consumers alike are concerned that certain agricultural
chemicals are turning up in nontarget locations. Our proposals address
the range of related issues affecting production and the ultimate use of
farm products. We are proposing a package of research and extension
programs to address the ground water and related pesticide issues. The
cornerstone is a $5 million ARS program increase to examine the ef-
fects of various farming Systems on ground water quality and to
develop efficient systems which also protect vital water resources.
A component of the program would concentrate on the development
of new pesticide application techniques to better target chemicals to the
site of activity. In a related area, we are proposing funds to enhance the
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program at the
universities and Extension Services. This program provides the best
mechanism to gather vital pesticide useage and benefit data as an input
to the EPA regulatory process.
FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY
The next topic is food safety and quality. In addition to the nutrient
value of foods, today's health-conscious consumers are focusing on the
presence of contaminants in foods. Recent academic Studies and press
reports have implicated our food production and processing Systems in
the contamination of foods by bacteria, drug, and pesticide residues.
Regulatory agencies, both those in the Department and those outside,
will be responsible for setting tolerances for contaminants.
We are proposing a multifaceted approach first to develop production
and processing technologies to provide producers with the tools to
avoid or minimize contamination. Second, we propose funding to
develop new rapid test methods for use by USDA regulatory agencies
in detecting residues in meat and dairy products. This comprehensive
approach will assure that producers have the means to produce residue-
free products and at the same time, regulators have the tools to identify
those not in compliance.
112
Dr. Kinney will be able to provide details on the specific research
plans.
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
Our university cooperators remain an important part of the total
agricultural research and technology transfer system. We are proposing
continued full funding for the basic Hatch formula, which has Sup-
ported countless significant research advances in its 100-year history and
leverages over five times the federal contribution.
For the first time since 1985, we are proposing funding for Selected
high priority special grants, including a new proposal to provide Startup
funding for a National Biological Impact Assessment Program [NBIAP).
This is in connection with the planned research activities that we expect
in the area of biotechnology. It is a project to predict and monitor the
performance of genetically engineered organisms in the environment
and to facilitate the exchange of research information related to agricul-
tural biotechnology. NBIAP will be an important mechanism in assur-
ing the continued environmentally Sound development of biotechnology
as an increasingly significant factor in American agriculture.
COMPETITIVE GRANTS
Response to our competitive grants program continues to be over-
whelming, with only about one out of four Scientifically meritorious
proposals receiving funding. Research funded through this program has
brought about Solutions to Some of the farmer's most vexing and costly
problems, including: The development of the basis for improved
models to more effectively predict the timing of fungicide applications;
the improvements which will lead to more efficient livestock production
systems; and new understandings of the mechanisms associated with
nitrogen fixation in certain plants which forms the basis for more effi-
cient crop production.
Mr. Chairman, we have just listed three of these illustrative contribu-
tions made from this very fine program. Unfortunately, though, funding
for this successful program has declined 15 percent in real terms since
1985. We Strongly urge your Support for our proposal to provide
modest increases for most of the ongoing grant categories and to initiate
a new program to examine the effects of Stratospheric ozone depletion
on major crop and forest Systems. Increased ultraviolet light resulting
from the observed depletion of high atmospheric ozone will affect
agricultural production, and it is important that we begin immediately
to understand the interactions and the mechanisms involved.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
Last year, I presented a proposal for a program of competitive
research centers focusing on plant Sciences to be jointly funded and
operated with the National Science Foundation and the Department of
Energy. We originally planned a $10 million program, but actual
budgets will accommodate a more modest program of about $5.3 mil-
lion, of which $2 million will come from the USDA program. We are
113
currently Soliciting proposals and plan to award the first grants later this
year. The 1989 USDA budget specifically requests $3.4 million to con-
tinue this effort in 1989. Mr. Chairman, we are excited about the poten-
tial for the significant advances through this approach, given the broad
federal participation and the active involvement of the private sector.
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Last year, we announced a comprehensive review of the extension
programs to focus on identified national priority topics. Mr. Chairman,
I was pleased that in your opening remarks, you made reference to that
as well as Mr. Kasten's reference to the Competitive Grants Program.
Working closely with Extension leaders and clientele, these broad ini-
tiatives have been further refined and refocused. I am especially proud
of the proposals we have developed for the Extension Service, which
reflect the first stage of funding for the new programs. We are propos-
ing $22 million in new earmarked funds, including a $10 million
program to continue to address issues in farm profitability and competi-
tiveness.
All of these funds will require full matching by the recipients, and in-
novative projects with broader regional and national application will be
stressed. I urge your support for this new direction for extension, which
will provide that crucial final step of transferring information to users.
RURAL REVITALIZATION
Mr. Chairman, we have all become increasingly concerned with
changes in our rural communities. We are supporting the Secretary's
commitment to rural revitalization with increases for research, exten-
sion, and information dissemination to assist local officials and rural
residents in enhancing the quality of life in these areas.
A $2 million increase for research at the 1890 institutions will focus
on rural development and Small-scale farm needs. Extension and the
National Agricultural Library have teamed to Support a new informa-
tion center to be operated by NAL in support of the rural development
needs.
Mr. Chairman, this is a brief Summary of our budget, and as I have
noted, it makes a number of proposals to address current and long-term
research and extension needs of agricultural producers and rural resi-
dents. We have taken a hard look at our programs and have refocused
to emphasize the highest priorities and to strengthen the link between
research and extension.
At this time, I will be happy to answer any questions, or whatever
you would desire. We can turn to comments from the agency represent-
atives here this morning. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator BURDICK. Thank you very much. We will hear from a few
more witnesses before we turn to the question period.
114
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. ORVILLE G. BENTLEY
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to
present to you our 1989 budget and program proposals for research and extension. We
have carefully constructed the budget to address the most critical issues facing
producers today and those that will be with us for the long-term. We have built in a
strong, refocused information dissemination component to assure that the research we
produce reaches the end users. Our plans have been shaped through the input of ad-
visory groups, state representatives, commodity and producer organizations, research
and extension professionals, and the Congress. Of course, the budget summit agreement
is also reflected. I am confident that our proposals will be an important factor in the
continuing improvement of farm sector competitiveness in the world marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, before I address our specific proposals, I would like to take a mo-
ment to recognize Dr. Terry Kinney and express our most sincere appreciation for the
outstanding contributions he has made in 7 years as Administrator of ARS. As you
know, Terry has announced plans to retire from the federal Service this year.
GROUND WATER QUALITY
One of the most widely discussed issues in agriculture today is ground water quality.
Producers and consumers alike are concerned that certain agricultural chemicals are
turning up in nontarget locations. Our proposals address the range of related issues af-
fecting production and the ultimate use of farm products. We are proposing a package
of research and extension programs to address ground water and related pesticide
issues. The cornerstone is a $5 million ARS program increase to examine the effects of
various farming systems on ground water quality and develop efficient Systems which
also protect vital water resources. A component of the program would concentrate on
the development of new pesticide application techniques to better target chemicals to
the site of activity. In a related area, we are proposing funds to enhance the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program at the universities and extension Serv-
ices. This program provides the best mechanism to gather vital pesticide usage and
benefit data as an input to the EPA regulatory process.
FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY
In addition to the nutrient value of foods, today's health-conscious consumers are
focusing on the presence of contaminants in foods. Recent academic studies and press
reports have implicated our food production and processing systems in the contamina-
tion of foods by bacteria, drug, and pesticide residues. Regulatory agencies, both those
in the Department and those outside, will be responsible for setting tolerances for con-
taminants. We are proposing a multifaceted approach to first develop production and
processing technologies to provide producers with the tools to avoid or minimize con-
tamination. Second, we propose funding to develop new rapid test methods for use by
USDA regulatory agencies in detecting residues in meat and dairy products. This com-
prehensive approach will assure that producers have the means to produce residue-free
products at the same time regulators have the tools to identify those not in compliance.
Dr. Kinney will be able to provide details on the specific research plans.
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
Our university cooperators remain an important part of the total agricultural research
and technology transfer System. We are proposing continued full funding for the basic
Hatch formula, which has Supported countless significant research advances in its 100
years and leverages over five times the federal contribution. For the first time since
1985, we are proposing funding for Selected high priority special grants, including a
new proposal to provide startup funding for a National Biological Impact Assessment
Program. This is a project to predict and monitor the performance of genetically en-
gineered organisms in the environment and to facilitate the exchange of research in-
formation related to agricultural biotechnology. It will be an important mechanism in
assuring the continued environmentally sound development of biotechnology as an in-
creasingly significant factor in American agriculture.
115
COMPETITIVE GRANTS
Response to our competitive grants program continues to be overwhelming, with only
about one out of four scientifically meritorious proposals receiving funding. Research
funded through this program has brought about Solutions to Some of the farmer's most
vexing and costly problems, including:
Development of the basis for improved models to more effectively predict the
timing of fungicide applications.
Improvements which will lead to more efficient livestock production systems.
New understanding of the mechanisms associated with nitrogen fixation in certain
plants which forms the basis for more efficient crop production.
Unfortunately, funding for this successful program has declined 15 percent in real
terms since 1985. We strongly urge your support for our proposal to provide modest in-
creases for most of the ongoing grant categories and to initiate a new program to ex-
amine the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion on major crop and forest systems.
Increased ultraviolet light resulting from the observed depletion of high atmosphere
ozone will affect agricultural production and it is important that we begin immediately
to understand the interactions and mechanisms involved.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
Last year, I presented a proposal for a program of competitive research centers focus-
ing on plant Sciences to be jointly funded and operated with the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy. We originally planned a $10 million
program, but actual budgets will accommodate a more modest program of about $5.3
million, of which $2 million will come from the USDA program. We are currently
soliciting proposals and plan to award the first grants later this year. The 1989 USDA
budget specifically requests $3.4 million to continue this effort in 1989. Mr. Chairman,
we are excited about the potential for significant advances through this approach, given
the broad federal participation and the active involvement of the private Sector.
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Last year we announced a comprehensive review of extension programs to focus on
identified national priority topics. Working closely with extension leaders and clientele,
these broad initiatives have been further refined and focused. I am especially proud of
the proposals we have developed for the Extension Service which reflect the first stage
of funding for the new programs. We are proposing $22 million in new earmarked
funds, including a $10 million program to continue to address issues in farm
profitability and competitiveness. All of these funds will require full matching by the
recipients and innovative projects with broader regional and national application will be
stressed. I urge your support for this new direction for Extension, which will provide
that crucial final step of transferring information to users.
RURAL REVITALIZATION
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have all become increasingly concerned with changes in
our rural communities. We are supporting the Secretary's commitment to Rural Re-
vitalization with increases for research, extension, and information dissemination to as-
sist local officials and rural residents in enhancing the quality of life in these areas. A
$2 million increase for research at the 1890 institutions will focus on rural development
and small-scale farm needs. Extension and NAL have teamed to support a new in-
formation center to be operated by NAL in Support of rural development needs.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, our budget makes a number of proposals to address the
current and long-term research and extension needs of agricultural producers and rural
residents. We have taken a hard look at our programs and have refocused to em-
phasize the highest priorities and to strengthen the link between research and exten-
sion. At this time, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
116
STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY B. KINNEY, JR.
Senator BURDICK. I recognize at this time, Dr. Kinney.
Dr. KINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I
am pleased to appear before you again to present the Agricultural
Research Service budget and to report on the progress we have made in
research in the past year.
We have provided you with a bag of materials that represent some of
the end products of research that we have been doing over the years or
research that we are continuing to do now. In addition, we have two
demonstrations that we won’t take time with now because of the
shortage of time.
Senator BURDICK. Pardon me, Doctor. Would you bring that
microphone over to you?
Dr. KINNEY. Oh, I'm Sorry.
Let me repeat. We have, in the bag of materials that we have
provided to some of the members here, Some examples of the end
product of research that ARS has done. In addition, we have two ex-
hibits. One is an exhibit of filters that have resulted from research that
was done at our Northern Regional Research Center on what we call
the Super slurper, the starched graph polymer that is highly absorbent.
It is used for filtering water from gasoline or other materials.
The other demonstration is an instrument. Carl Norris, on the end of
the front row there, is an engineer who developed the technology that
went into the instrument. This instrument actually measures protein,
moisture, hardness and quality of wheat. It is being widely used now in
the industry.
But these are examples of the end product, the application of some
of our research. The primary aim of our research is to solve problems
that confront American agriculture, and toward this goal, I feel that we
are embarking on one of the most exciting and productive eras of
agricultural research.
OUTLOOK ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Today, the Agricultural Research Service has the organization, the
talent, and the experience to come up with practical answers to
problems faced by farmers, ranchers, agribusiness, export markets, and
consumers. We also have the ability, the System, and the dedication to
Support sister agencies who need research, often on an emergency or im-
mediate basis.
This excitement that we feel throughout the agency, in all of our loca-
tions, is the result of the progress that we have made. I don't know of
any time in recent history, Mr. Chairman, when morale among ARS
Scientists has been higher or their sense of optimism keener, optimism
about Solving problems.
I recall no time during my tenure at ARS when our relationships
with all commodity and industry groups, with the state agricultural ex-
periment Stations, with other federal agencies and other cooperating
groups was better. They individually and jointly have expressed satisfac-
117
tion with the programs, the priorities and the cooperation with ARS.
We jointly are optimistic and enthusiastic about this cooperation.
Fueling this optimism is the continuing Support of the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Congress for agricultural research across the board.
I want to just mention a few of the areas, without going into detail,
where we are doing research that we are excited about. Biotechnology is
a new tool; the use of surpluses; technology transfer is an activity that
we think is absolutely necessary, and we are spending a great deal of
time on it; production efficiency, it goes without saying; ground water
contamination; export markets; biological control; germplasm collection
and storage and utilization or evaluation; help for the family farms;
new products for consumers, something we have been working on for
decades; food quality and Safety.
This just summarizes the areas that we think are demanding con-
tinued attention. It is little wonder, Mr. Chairman, with such a promis-
ing array of research goals and technologies and opportunities that our
Scientists are excited about the future and the importance of their con-
tributions to agriculture and to the national economy.
ARS Scientists are enthusiastically refocusing their talents, their
energies and their resources to these challenges. Just in the past few
months, we have concentrated more directly on the important problems
of preserving the quality of the nation's ground water resources and im-
proving the quality and Safety of our food Supply. Additionally, ARS
Scientists are enthusiastic about our recent initiatives to upgrade and
modernize our research laboratories around the country, including the
major effort underway at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
They are enthusiastic, too, about the nationally important programs
that they have developed with the leadership of the national program
Staff and with the direct involvement of the Administrator.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET
Mr. Chairman, the ARS budget request for 1989 is $560,957,000. It
proposes increased funding in several different program areas. Our No.
1 priority is to increase research to improve the nation's ground water
quality.
Other important programs to be strengthened are: research to im-
prove pesticide application techniques; research on the effects of the
depletion of stratospheric ozone on crops; and research to reduce bac-
terial contamination and pesticide residues in foods.
Significant components of this research are in Support of regulatory
agencies. I also recommend that we speed up the repair and main-
tenance of federally owned research facilities. We request increased
funding to finance pay increases that became effective in 1988; construc-
tion funds for the expansion and renovation of the present National
Seed Storage Laboratory at Fort Collins, CO, are also proposed in the
1989 budget.
Details about this and other recommendations are Spelled out in the
explanatory notes that we submitted for the record.
sº
118
INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTS
Mr. Chairman, I have Several information documents that I would
submit for your consideration for inclusion in the record. They include
a list of actions that we have taken in response to the 57 directives that
we have received from the Congress last year; a report on the technol-
ogy transfer activities of ARS; a report on the ARS Fellowship Pro-
gram, which is a relatively new program; a report on the ARS Research
Associate Program, which now includes about 300 post-doctorates in
ARS; and finally, a report on an institution we started a couple of years
ago and that is an ARS Hall of Fame, wherein we have inducted a
number of our outstanding Scientists.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I will respond to ques-
tions at the appropriate time.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator BURDICK. The documents you referred to will be received for
the file.
Dr. KINNEY. Thank you.
[The statement and information documents follow:]
STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY B. KINNEY, JR.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you to
present the Agricultural Research Service budget recommendations for 1989 and to
report on the progress we have made in research this past year.
OUTLOOK
The primary aim of our research is to solve problems that confront American agricul-
ture. Toward this goal, I feel we are embarking on one of the most exciting and
productive eras of agricultural research. Today the Agricultural Research Service has
the organization, and the talent and experience to come up with practical answers to
problems faced by farmers and ranchers, agribusiness, export markets, and consumers.
We also have the ability, the System, and dedication to support sister agencies who
need research, often on an emergency basis, to carry out their regulatory respon-
sibilities to American agriculture. This excitement is felt throughout the agency, in all
our locations. I do not know of any time in recent memory, Mr. Chairman, when
morale among ARS scientists has been higher or their sense of optimism keener.
AREAS OF RESEARCH
Fueling this optimism is the continuing support of the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Congress for agricultural research, as our agency focuses on important areas of
research. Here are a few examples of what is happening:
We have many new research tools, including modern techniques of biotechnology,
that will help us solve many of agriculture's most vexing problems.
We are taking a more realistic approach to developing marketable products derived
from surplus farm commodities.
We are carrying out new programs of technology transfer, with closer relations
with industry, that will shorten the time between research and its application.
We are finding new ways to reduce farm production costs, a key step toward in-
creasing farm income and making our products more competitive in world
markets.
We are engaged in a high-priority program to develop better strategies for farm
producers to minimize ground water contamination from agriculture.
We are making U.S. agricultural products more acceptable to foreign markets.
119
We are developing new, novel, and environmentally safe biological controls for in-
| sect and weed pests.
We are improving our germplasm collections as “insurance” against disaster, like
the disease that infected iceberg lettuce this winter.
We are pursuing ways to help small family farmers increase their incomes.
We are providing the consumer with an increasingly varied, appetizing, and
nutritious diet of quality foods, year-round.
We are developing new and more effective ways to detect and prevent con-
taminants in our food supply and to maintain the highest standards of food
quality and safety possible.
It's little wonder, with Such a promising array of research goals, that our Scientists
are excited about the future and the importance of their contributions to agriculture
and the national economy. ARS Scientists are enthusiastically refocusing their talents,
energy, and resources to meet these challenges. Just in the past few months, we have
concentrated more directly on the important problems of preserving the quality of the
nation's ground water resources and improving the quality and Safety of our food Sup-
ply. Additionally, ARS Scientists are enthusiastic about our recent initiatives to upgrade
and modernize our research laboratories around the country, including the major effort
underway at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET
Mr. Chairman, the ARS budget request for 1989 is $560,957,000. It proposes in-
creased funding in Several different program areas. Our No. 1 priority is to increase
research to improve this nation's ground water quality. Other important programs to be
strengthened are: research to improve pesticide application techniques; research on the
effects of the depletion of Stratospheric ozone on crops; and research to reduce bac-
terial contamination and pesticide residues in foods. Significant components of this
research are in support of regulatory agencies. I also recommend that we speed up the
repair and maintenance of federally owned research facilities. We request increased
funding to finance pay increases that became effective in fiscal year 1988. Construction
funds for the expansion and renovation of the present National Seed Storage Labora-
tory at Fort Collins, CO, are also proposed in the 1989 budget. Details about this and
other recommendations are spelled out in the Explanatory Notes.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions the
committee may have.
120
1 -
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Actions in Response to Congressional Directives
(1988)
Citrus Canker. Continue citrus canker research at the University of
Florida and Orlando at same level as 1987.
ARS will continue its research on the citrus canker problem at
the same level as in 1987 in cooperation with the University of
Florida. Research will include the development of resistant
varieties, a comparison of nursery strain with the better known
Asian strain of the pathogen, and development of chemical
controls. Improved methods to detect the pathogen in the
environment and how it grows will also be emphasized .
Barley Germplasm Evaluation. Increase barley germplasm evaluation,
enhancement and storage programs.
The barley germplasm program will be strengthened in FY 1988 at
Aberdeen, Idaho; Madison, Wisconsin; and Urbana, Illinois.
Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus. Take lead role in development and
implementation of programs to control barley yellow dwarf virus and
report by January 1, 1988, progress achieved in 1987 and efforts
planned for 1988. Increase barley yellow dwarf research by $188,000
in line with budget increase.
The Agency is taking the lead role in development and
implementation of programs to control barley yellow dwarf virus.
A report is being finalized and will be provided to the
Committee.
Forage Seed Research Center. Provide $180,000 for final staff
position at Forage Seed Research Center, Corvallis, Oregon.
Funds will be used to add one SY position (Geneticist/Agronomist)
to the National Forage Seed Production Research Center staff.
Appalachian Fruit Research Center. Provide $90,000 for equipment to
accelerate research capabilities for peaches and apples at Appalachian
Fruit Research Center, Kearneysville, West Virginia.
Initially the funds will be used to purchase needed research
equipment to accelerate research capabilities for fruit research
programs. In the next fiscal year, genetic engineering research
will be initiated to transfer specific genes to improve quality
and pest resistance in apples, peaches, and other tree fruits.
Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Lab. Provide $138,000 to
establish a cropping management system on marginal soils at the
Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Lab at Beckley, West Virginia.
Funds will be used to establish a forage crop management system
on marginal soils for enhanced lamb production in the Appalachian
region.
Potato Research. Provide $1,250,000 for additional potato research
and expects ARS to work with National Potato Council and direct
research to facilities and universities that have ongoing programs.
Research should be coordinated with the regional potato research
funded by CSRS. Amounts specifically provided are:
121
8.
10.
1.1 -
12.
Potato scab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50,000
Ring rot disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Early Dying disease . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
ARS is actively working with the National Potato Council to
determine how best to distribute the $1,250,000 to existing ARS
and University potato research programs. Research proposals have
been solicited and will be evaluated by an industry-Federal-State
panel of experts. The research will be directed to ring rot
disease, early dying disease, potato scab, and marketing
problems.
Potato Research Laboratory, East Grand Forks, MN. Provide an
additional $237,000 for technical and operating support for the Potato
Research Laboratory at East Grand Forks, MN.
These funds have been allocated to the ARS potato research
laboratory in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, to strengthen
operational and technical support of existing research programs
on potato quality and marketing. ARS program officials will meet
with the Red River Valley Potato Growers Association in the
Spring of 1988, to ensure the research is directed to highest
priority industry needs.
Tri-State Potato Breeding Program. Continue the tri-State potato
breeding program for Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
ARS will continue to provide funds for extramural research with
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, for cooperative potato breeding
programs. Emphasis will be on evaluation of selections which
have promise as commercial varieties in specific production
a Tea S. e.
Delta States Research Center. Provide increase of $400,000 to
establish multi-discipline research at the Delta States Research
Center, Stoneville, MS, to develop application systems for chemicals
and that would eliminate adverse effects on environment. Research
should focus on ground and aerial application of insecticides,
herbicides, fungicides and plant growth regulators.
Funds will be used to develop new and innovative technologies for
safe application of pesticides and growth regulators that are
cost-effective and significantly reduce drift and environmental
contamination.
Grasshopper Fungus. Provide $69,000 existing funds for grasshopper
fungus research be designated to continue research on biological
control of grasshoppers at North Dakota State University.
ARS will continue to provide funds for extramural research with
North Dakota State University to develop fungal biocontrol agents
for grasshopper control. This research will be directed to
support the grasshopper IPM project in North Dakota and Idaho.
Sunflower and Sugarbeet Research Facility. Provide $500,000 above
request for operation and maintenance of the sunflower and sugarbeet
research facility at Fargo, ND.
The increased funds will be used to support the operations and
maintenance of the new crop science 1aboratory at Fargo, North
Dakota, which will be occupied for the first time in 1988.
122
13.
14
15.
16.
17
18.
19.
Pea and Lentil Research. Continue pea and lentil research in
Northwest, including cooperative program to control lygus bugs on peas
and lentils, and expects ARS to review proposal to create
International Institute Program at Moscow, ID. ARS is to report to
Committee on how to structure the program.
ARS will continue funding pea and lentil research in the
Northwest at the FY 87 level. In addition, ARS will review the
industry proposal to create an International Institute Program
for cool season legume research at Moscow, Idaho, and report to
the Committee on how such a program might be structured.
Vegetable Oils as Fuel. Conduct research at Moscow, Idaho, on use of
vegetable oils as replacement for diesel fuel be continued at same
level.
Research to develop the potential of vegetable oil as an
alternate source of liquid fuel for agriculture is being
continued at the FY 1987 funding level.
Biological Control Program. Cooperate fully with University of
Florida in its biological control program.
ARS will continue to cooperate with the University of Florida in
biological control and participates actively in cooperative
research on mole crickets, lesser cornstalk borer, and
Diaprepes.
Pollinators of Alfalfa. Continue work on nonapis pollinators of
alfalfa with emphasis on larval mortality factors and should continue
extramural agreements.
Research on nonapis pollinators of alfalfa will be continued
through inhouse initiatives at the ARS Bee Biology and
Systematics Laboratory, Logan, Utah, as well as external
agreements with University cooperators in Oregon, Washington,
Utah, and Idaho. Guidance on objectives of the cooperative
agreements are provided by the Northwest Alfalfa Seed Pollinator
Research Advisory Committee consisting of industry
representation.
Morris, Minnesota. Provide $100,000 and hire a systems analyst to
staff at Morris, Minnesota, for low-input research.
Funds will be used to hire a systems analyst. A user model will
be developed which will include soil mapping information, tillage
and residue management, and fertilizers, chemicals and climate.
Sugarcane Crossing House, Canal Point, Florida. Use up to $300,000 to
construct a new crossing house at sugarcane breeding station in Canal
Point, Florida.
ARS has awarded a contract to design the crossing house. The
design is scheduled for completion in July 1988. It is the
Agency's intent to move forward with the construction of the
facility because it serves the entire U.S. sugarcane industry.
Sweet Potato White Fly. Continue efforts to develop a viable
biological control for sweet potato white fly.
ARS will continue its current program to develop viable
biological controls and integrated pest management systems for
the sweet potato white fly.
123
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
National Soil Tilth Center. Develop a detailed proposal for the
National Soil Tilth Center, Ames, Iowa.
ARS is preparing a detailed plan for the research to be conducted
at the new National Soil Tilth Center. The report will be
presented to Congress when completed. Construction of the Center
is scheduled for completion on October 1, 1988. Soil chemistry,
biology, and physics research will be directed to solve
groundwater quality problems, and to improve farmer profitability
by reducing cost inputs and maintaining crop yields and quality.
Small Farms Research Center. Provide full funding for Small Farms
Research Center at Boonesville, Arkansas.
ARS is providing funding in FY 1988 at the same level as in
FY 1987 and commensurate with present program need.
Coastal Plains Soil and Water Research Center. Expand research at
Coastal Plains Soil and Water Research Center at Florence, South
Carolina.
Significant research conducted at the Florence 10cation includes
integrated water and nutrient management programs to optimize
production with limited water supplies. This research program
will be strengthened by integration with cotton production
research .
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. Support full
funding for Systematic Entomology Laboratory.
ARS plans to continue full funding support for the ARS Systematic
Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Scientists and
industry representatives have assisted in ranking projects of the
laboratory in priority order. Resources will be directed to
those projects of highest priority to American agriculture.
Muscadine Grapes. Support continued funding, $250,000, on muscadine
grapes with emphasis on crown gall disease in cooperation with
Mississippi State University.
ARS will continue providing $250,000 for muscadine research which
will be cooperative with Mississippi State University. Emphasis
will continue on control of crown gall disease, other production
problems, and development of improved quality muscadine products
for consumer consumption.
Meadowfoam. Provide an additional $250,000 for Federally supported
cooperative research on meadowfoam at Oregon State University and
coordinated with oil utilization research at Peoria, Illinois.
Plant production research aimed at realizing the potential of
meadowfoam as a signficant domestic crop will be initiated at
Oregon State University in concert with industry problems and
needs. This research will complement accelerated work at Peoria,
Illinois, to facilitate the use of seed oil in the cosmetic
industry.
Banded Moth Research. Continue banded moth research at the Metabolism
and Radiation Laboratory in Fargo, North Dakota, at $35,000 level.
ARS is currently funding research on the banded sunflower moth at
the Metabolism and Radiation Laboratory in Fargo, ND, at an
124
annual level of $168,000 and the cooperative agreement with North
Dakota State University remains in effect through FY 1988.
27. Klingers town, Pennsylvania. Provide authority to allow purchase of 4
acres of land at Klingers town, Pennsylvania •
The Agency is currently negotiating the purchase of this land.
28. Toxic Contaminants. Continue assessment of toxic contaminants in
Great Lakes at $190,000 level.
ARS will continue assessment of toxic contaminants in the Great
Lakes at the $190,000 level, through a cooperative agreement with
Michigan State University.
29. Dwarf Bunt Research. Continue dwarf bunt research at $130,000 level
which includes $50,000 for program started last year to eliminate
dwarf bunt in Michigan Wheat.
ARS will continue to support its dwarf bunt research program
including the $50,000 cooperative agreement with Michigan State
University.
30. Eastern Filbert Blight. Rapidly devote $100,000 additional resources
to developing and propagating varieties and pollinizers resistant to
Eastern Filbert Blight. ($65,000 additional provided and ARS absorb
$35,000.)
ARS plans to use $100,000 to initiate a program to develop new
filbert varieties tolerant to blight, to develop a rapid method
of propagation for commercial increase of blight-tolerant
varieties, and develop improved methods for blight control in
existing orchards planted to blight-susceptible varieties.
31. Lane, Oklahoma. Continue FY 1987 funding level of $1,136,000 at the
South Central Agricultural Research Center at Lane, Oklahoma, and
$217,000 in connection with Tishomingo Fish Hatchery.
Lane, Oklahoma, will have a funding level of $1,136,000 in FY 88
for fruit and vegetable research and $217,000 for continued
research on catfish production in connection with the Tishomingo
Fish Hatchery.
32. Agricultural Research and Development Consortium. Continue at the
$2,000,000 level in FY 1988 a grant to the Peoria, Illinois,
consortium for furthering the commercialization of agriculturally
related products.
Research for furthering the commercialization of agriculturally
related products will be continued at the $2,000,000 level in
FY 1988.
33. Yazoo Basin Demonstration Project. Provide $3,492,000, the same as
the budget request for the National Sedimentation Laboratory for
continuation of the Yazoo Basin Demonstration Project, and to make the
facilities available when needed to the Soil Conservation Service.
This important project at the National Sedimentation Laboratory
will continue to be fully funded and the facilities made
available to Soil Conservation Service and other agencies as
needed.
125
34.
35.
36.
37
38.
39.
40.
Soybean Oil for Printing Ink. Provide up to $45,000, from available
funds, to be used for research at the Northern Regional Research
Center on the utilization of vegetable (soybean) oil for the
production of printing ink.
Funds will be used to develop a resin for binding carbon black to
paper fibers. Using this fabricated resin plus soybean oil and
carbon black, a printing ink will be developed and tested .
Human Nutrition Research at Tufts University. Provide an additional
$1,000,000 for the Human Nutrition Research Center at Tufts
University.
Funds will be used to determine nutritional requirements of the
elderly for optimal health, function and performance; to
determine the relationship of nutrition to the aging process; and
examine the role of diet in the function of major chronic
degenerative conditions.
Human Nutrition Research at Baylor University. Provide an additional
$2,250,000 for the Human Nutrition Research Center at Baylor
University.
Funds will be used to determine iron deficiency anemia in
children--the principal nutritional deficiency of children in the
United States.
Baylor University Furnishings. Proceed to procure all laboratory
equipment and furniture and fixtures needed to make the USDA facility
at Baylor fully functional when complete.
The equipment to make the facility fully functional is being
procured. -
Human Nutrition Research at Grand Forks, ND. Provide an additional
$500,000 for the Human Nutrition Research Center at Grand Forks, North
Dakota.
Funds will be used to identify effective food sources of boron
and manganese using animal models; evaluate foods as sources of
boron and manganese for humans; determine boron and manganese
dietary requirements; and study effects of interactions of boron
and manganese with other nutrients in humans.
Human Nutrition Research at LAIR. Provide an additional $250,000 for
the Human Nutrition Research Center at LAIR, California.
Funds will be used to determine requirements for fatty acids for
humans; determine effects of nutritional deficiencies on
immunocompetence; and simplify and field test computerized food
scale method of assessing dietary intakes.
Far East Research Facility. Continue to pursue the establishment of a
Far East Research Facility that would work to assist U.S. exporters in
reducing non-tariff trade barriers and improve the quality of U.S.
agricultural exports to the Far East.
ARS scientists currently work to resolve concerns of U.S.
exporters and importing Asian countries related to quality and
insect infestation of U.S. agricultural products. ARS has
strengthened its domestic research program with the addition of
one export scientist at the Fresno, California, location to
improve the quality of U.S. agricultural exports to the Far East.
83—470 O – 88 – 5
126
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Pecan Aphid Research. Provide an additional $175,000 for research on
the pecan aphid. -
Funds will be used at Byron, Georgia, and Stoneville,
Mississippi, for development of biocontrol alternatives to
chemical pesticides for pecan aphid control.
Tracheal and Varroa Mite Research. Provide necessary resources to
tracheal and varroa mites research and to pesticide research of
importance to the beekeeping industry.
An ARS honey bee research unit has been established at Weslaco,
Texas, to conduct research on the chemical control and management
of the tracheal mite. In response to the discovery of the varroa
Inite in the United States, $50,000 of the Administrator's
contingency funds was immediately released to initiate a crash
program of research at Beltsville, Maryland, to develop
regulatory treatments for control of the mite. In addition,
resources will be redirected from bee nutrition research,
Beltsville, Maryland, to discover chemical treatments for the
management and control of varroa mites in bee hives. For the
longer term, resources at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, have been
redirected to genetically select or engineer honey bee stocks
which produce a variety of honey bees resistant to varroa mites.
Plant and Moisture Plant Stress Laboratory. Provide an additional
$250,000 to expand the plant and moisture stress research at the Plant
and Moisture Stress Laboratory located at Texas Tech University.
Funds will be used to determine plant enzyme activity changes
related to environmental stresses.
Corns tarch-Based Biodegradable Plastic. Provide $350,000 to support
the work on corns tarch-based biodegradable plastic underway at NRRC
and to use the funds to accelerate the movement of this new product
into widespread commercial applications.
ARS will hire a permanent scientist with training in polymer
engineering and a support scientist to continue research on
corns tarch-based biodegradable plastic at the Northern Regional
Research Center, Peoria, IL. New knowledge to be developed will
be enhanced by producers of plastic beverage bottles.
Trifly Research. Use $500,000 of increased funds for a large-scale
experiment in Hawaii to determine whether the eradication of the
trifly complex, including the medfly, can be achieved. The program
should be in cooperation with the University of Hawaii.
Funds will be used to conduct demographic studies of the
Mediterranean fruit fly and its host plants on Kauai and Niihau;
to evaluate the sterile insect technique to eliminate the
Mediterranean fruit fly; and to determine environmental impact of
the proposed trifly program.
Fruit Research. Give increased attention to the important work on
fruit research at Wenatchee and Yakima.
ARS will continue to work closely with State and industry
officials on expansion and coordination of research to serve the
Washington and Northwest fruit industries. Emphasis will be
given to research to increase fruit exports and planning for a
new research facility at Yakima.
127
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Bird Garden at National Arboretum. Use $50,000 to relocate the bird
garden at the National Arboretum .
Funds will be used to relocate the existing bird garden at the
National Arboretum into a wooded area to provide cover and a
natural habitat for birds and to provide better opportunities for
the general public to make bird observations and participate in
educational programs on birds.
Aircraft. Examine the number of aircraft needed at College Station
and Weslaco, Texas, and reduce the total number needed at the two
stations •
A review of existing aircraft and related program requirements
has been completed. One aircraft stationed at College Station is
being considered for elimination from the fleet due to
maintenance concerns and being excess to program needs.
Old West School of Veterinary Medicine. Use $1,800,000 from the
appropriation for the Old West School of Veterinary Medicine and
provide funding for the Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center,
Nebraska, with about half of the funds used for equipment for herd
health system and the other half used for equipment for the meat
safety assurance program •
The funding will be allocated as directed to acquire equipment
and otherwise support herd health and meat safety research
programs at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center,
Nebraska.
Low-Input Research. Maintain funding for the low-input research
projects involving crops, soils, production methods and weed, insect,
and disease pests on individual field or other areas.
The Agency's comprehensive research program to reduce farm
production costs will be continued. These efforts have the
potential for increasing farm profitability and preserving the
quality of the environment.
Pest Control Techniques. Direct research to development of programs
that educate consumers and allow safe use of pest control techniques.
ARS is conducting research on a number of pest problems of the
urban and semi-urban environment with the objective of improved
safe use of pesticides while reducing the dependence on pesticide
use. The research approaches include chemical, biological,
environmental management, and genetic technologies with the
long-term goal of developing integrated strategies for pest
control.
Kenaf Research. Provide an additional $300,000 for research on kenaf
at Weslaco and Lane.
Increased funds of $150,000 will be directed to Lane, Oklahoma,
for research on agronomic production systems of kenaf. An
additional $150,000 will be directed to Weslaco, Texas, for
research on mechanization for harvesting and handling system.
Grasses. Increase research efforts, within available funds on
water-conserving, stress-tolerant, low-maintenance grasses.
ARS is conducting research in the area at Mandan, ND; Logan, UT;
Lincoln, NE; El Reno, OK; Temple, TX; College Station, TX;
128
54.
55.
56.
57.
Watkinsville, GA; Beckley, WV; Beltsville, MD (turfgrass); and
University Park, PA. Germplasm evaluation and enhancement will
be expanded in FY 1988.
Long-Term Objective Oriented Research. Advise the Committee prior to
the 1989 hearings of the feasibility of assembling a team to deal with
long-term objective oriented research.
The report is being prepared and will be provided to the
Committee when completed .
Cranberry and Blueberry Research. In conjunction with CSRS, submit a
plan to the Committees for upgrading the Rutgers University Center for
cranberry and blueberry research at Oswego Lake, New Jersey.
ARS is working with CSRS and Rutgers University representatives
to develop and submit a plan to the Committee on upgrading the
cranberry and blueberry research center at Oswego, New Jersey.
Interagency Task Force for Effective Control of Pest and Diseases .
The Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the -
Environmental Protection Agency shall establish an interagency task
force for the effective control of pests and diseases. The task force
shall consist of a representative of the Agricultural Research
Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Forest
Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency and three representatives from private industry.
The task force shall be organized under existing authority of law and
may use up to $150,000 of each agency's appropriation for necessary
expenses.
USDA, EPA, and FDA officials have met to organize the interagency
task force to evaluate the availability and status of effective
controls for agriculture and forest pests. Private sector
representatives will be involved in the evaluation. Initial
emphasis will be on gypsy moth, fire ant, grasshoppers, tussock
moth, and pine bark beetle.
Gypsy Moth. For a number of years the Committee has dealt with the
spread of gypsy moth. The Committee feels it is essential that the
Department develop a coordinated plan for a research and extension
program to control or eradicate the gypsy moth. The plan should be
developed jointly by the Agricultural Research Service, Extension
Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Forest
Service and should be completed and ready for implementation by the
start of the hearings on the fiscal year 1989 budget request. This
comprehensive plan should include the critical evaluation of
alternative management strategies for dealing with the gypsy moth in
diverse situations, including public parks, commercial forests, and
urban and suburban communities.
The Department has established a Gypsy Moth Working Group to
coordinate the control, research, and education programs of
involved USDA agencies. These include FS, APHIS, ARS, ES, and
CSRS; FS is the lead Agency. The State Departments of
Agriculture and private sector are also represented through the
Gypsy Moth Management Board. The Working Group has delineated
agency functional responsibilities and established a plan to
implement and coordinate programs. Alternative gypsy moth
management strategies will be evaluated in 1988 in the
Appalachian Gypsy Moth IPM Demonstration Project in Virginia and
West Virginia.
129
NEW PROGRAM ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has taken a number of
initiatives to implement the Federal Technology Transfer Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-502) and Executive Order 12591 "Facilitating
Access to Science and Technology." Included are:
O Conducted a Patent Awareness Training Program designed for ARS
Research Leaders and Managers to bring them up-to-date on
pending technology transfer legislation and the basic
fundamentals for patenting research results.
O Initiated with the support and encouragement of the Assistant
Secretary for Science and Education, a Departmental study on
how the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can best
implement Public Law 99-502 (P.L. 99–502).
O Conducted orientation briefings on technology transfer at ARS
locations.
O Developed an orientation package featuring a short video tape
on technology transfer to be used by locations, in particular,
for new employees.
O Streamlined the patent process which included issuance of
guidelines to patent committees for selecting the most
important inventions to patents, increasing the number of
patent advisors and assigning inventions to them on the basis
of their specialization.
O Stepped-up licensing activities. In FY 1987, ARS granted,
through National Technical Information Service, 15 royalty
bearing licenses on patented technology.
O Provided industry and action agency users access to the latest
ARS research results via a database called TEKTRAN (Technology
Transfer Automated Retrieval System). Through TEKTRAN,
summaries of the latest ARS research are made directly
available to industry and action agencies. Approximately 400
industrial firms, universities and Government agencies
requested and were granted access to the system this fiscal
year.
O Initiated ARS location technology transfer meetings. The
objectives of these meetings are to make the industry more
aware of the kinds of research that is done in ARS
1aboratories, what some of our accomplishments are that may be
sitting on the shelf waiting to be picked up, what our
facilities are, and what scientific expertise is available at
that laboratory. To date, such meetings have been held at 15
ARS laboratories.
O Designated the ARS Northern Regional Research Center (NRRC) at
Peoria, Illinois, as a Technology Share Laboratory as
prescribed in Executive Order 12591. Such designation requires
130
that the laboratory be a participant in an Industry-
University-Government (6 diverse industry firms, University of
Illinois, and NRRC) laboratory consortium to generate and share
technology of mutual interest. The organization for the six
diverse companies is called the Biotechnology Research and
Development Corporation (BRDC), and each company contributes
funds annually to match additional funds provided by the State
of Illinois and ARS. These funds are used to support research
in the broad areas of microbial biotechnology and bioprocessing
at the University of Illinois and NRRC.
ARS FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
The ARS Fellowship Program was initiated in 1983 with the first
three fellowships awarded in February 1984. A total of 26
fellowships have been awarded at a total cost of approximately
$200,000.
Fellowships Awarded:
1984 1985. 1986. 1987. Total
8 8 8 2 26
Discipline of
Fellowship Location (No.: ARS Participants) Participant
CANADA (1)
London, Ontario Research Center,
Canada Agriculture Chemistry
AUSTRALIA (1)
Glen Osmond Waite Agricultural Plant
Research Institute Pathology
WEST GERMANY (2)
Stuttgart University of Hohenheim Plant
Physiology
Munchen Botanisches Institute der
Universitat Munchen Chemistry
FRANCE (1)
Jouy-en-Josas Ministere de L'Agriculture Dairy Science
IRELAND (1)
Belfast Veterinary Research Laboratory, Veterinary
Ministry of Agriculture Medicine
SWITZERLAND (1)
Zurich Mikrobiologisches Institute Microbiology
ISRAEL (1)
Rehovot Weizmann Institute of Science Plant
Physiology
131
Discipline of
Fellowship Location (No. ARS Participants) Participant
ENGLAND (11)
Milton Keyenes The Open University Genetics
Brighton University of Sussex Microbiology
Sutton Bonington University of Nottingham Animal
Physiology
Huntington Houghton Poultry Veterinary
Research Station Medicine
Harpenden Rothamsted Experimental Plant
Station Physiology
Norwich John Innes Institute Chemistry
Essex University of Essex Plant
Physiology
Littlehampton Glasshouse Crops Plant
Research Institute Pathology
Liverpool University of Liverpool Entomology
London University of London Veterinary
Medicine
UNITED STATES (7)
CA, San Diego Salk Institute Plant
Physiology
FL, Tallahassee F1orida State University Plant
Pathology
GA, Athens University of Georgia Plant
Genetics
MD, Frederick Frederick Cancer Genetics
Research Facility (Animal)
NJ, Princeton Princeton University Soil
Science
NY, Albany Albany Medical College Physiology
NC, Research
Triangle Park Environmental Protection Agency Chemistry
ARS Research Associateship Program
In 1983, ARS requested and received from the Office of Personnel
Management a special authority for annually appointing 25
postdoctoral research associates. The ARS positions filled under
this authority were intended for persons with no more than 3 years
postdoctoral experience.
With the eventual removal of any numerical limitation on the number
of associates that could be hired annually, ARS aggressively
expanded the program. During Fiscal Years 1986, 1987, and 1988,
the Administrator funded 301 positions. Additional postdoctoral
positions are funded each year by individual ARS research units so
that at any one time there are 320 to 350 Research Associates
working with ARS under Federal appointments.
In 1987, ARS incorporated into its recruitment procedures for the
program, a minority "outreach" effort, with the goal of increasing
minority representation in the scientific disciplines where
132
minorities were found to be most underrepresented in the Agency's
professional work force. Of the 100 positions funded in 1987 by
the Administrator, 14 have been filled by persons from the
underrepresented groups. This effort is continuing in 1988, with
the expectation of hiring an additional 8 to 15 minority
scientists.
In 1988, in an effort to expand interactions with the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), ARS will fund for 2 years
four Research Associate positions at the HBCU's to conduct on-site
research of mutual interest to ARS and the HBCU. The Associate
will be physically located at the HBCU to work actively on a
day-to-day basis with HBCU staff, but will receive supervision from
an ARS research unit which has already established and demonstrated
active research interest and collaboration with HBCU's. The four
participating HBCU's are: Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley,
Georgia; North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, North
Carolina; Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas; and
University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland.
ARS plans to continue hiring outstanding young scientists through
this program as one means to strengthen Agency talent in the latest
technologies.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE HALL OF FAME
The ARS Science Hall of Fame was inaugurated in 1986 to annually
recognize one or more outstanding ARS scientists who have retired,
or are eligible to retire, who have made a major impact on
agricultural research and are still professionally active and can
serve as role models for younger ARS scientists, subject to the
following criteria:
o The selectee's research must have contributed significantly
to the solution of a major agricultural problem and reflect
credit on the Agricultural Research Service.
o The selectee is recognized nationally and internationally by
his or her peers in the scientific community.
o The selectee's character and record of achievement is worthy
of emulation by younger agricultural scientists.
o The selectee must be either retired or eligible to retire
and must continue to be professionally active.
The winners are appropriately recognized at an awards ceremony held
annually in June. Each receives a plaque commemorating the award
and a duplicate plaque citing the achievements of each will be on
permanent display in the new ARS National Visitor Center scheduled
for formal opening in 1988 at the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center. The names of the winners are also displayed in the ARS
Administrator's Office.
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN PATRICK JORDAN, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
CLARE I. HARRIS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
WILLIAM D. CARLSON, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
GRANTS AND PROGRAM SYSTEMS
LUIS D. SEQUEIRA, CHIEF SCIENTIST, COMPETITIVE RESEARCH
GRANTS PROGRAM, OFFICE OF GRANTS AND PROGRAM SYSTEMS
OPENING REMARKS
Senator BURDICK. Our next witness will be John Patrick Jordan.
Dr. JoRDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a complete copy of my
testimony, and if I may summarize Some of the high points, I would
proceed, sir.
The Cooperative State Research Service is the agency of the USDA
through which federal research funding for the states is channeled and
coordinated on behalf of the USDA in cooperation with all of the State
and territorial agricultural experiment stations; the Colleges of 1890, in-
cluding Tuskegee University; all of the forestry Schools and all of the
colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States of America. In addi-
tion to land-grant universities, there are other universities, not of the
land-grant model, which are participants in the System.
As conveyed in Public Law 100–7, 1987 marked the beginning of the
Second century for the act authored by William Henry Hatch of
Missouri that established a national system of State agricultural experi-
ment stations. The activities of the year, Mr. Chairman, focused over-
whelmingly on the future with only a modest look backward at the ac-
complishments of the first century. Emblematic of that future look was
a symposium, the results of which are in your packet, entitled “Agri-
cultural Research for a Better Tomorrow,” that was held at the National
Academy of Sciences.
The Smithsonian exhibit, and there is a flyer in your packet about it,
entitled, “The Search for Life,” is on display now in the National
Museum of American History. It will go on tour and then return to the
Smithsonian as a permanent exhibit. This exhibit emphasizes the impact
of Science on agriculture and on health and gives you a look into the fu-
ture for the potential of these impacts as well as a record of the history
of those impacts.
This spring, USDA and the National Academy of Sciences will
cosponsor a national Symposium entitled, “Focus: Future Opportunities
and Challenges Unique to Science.” In addition to the participation by
many of the 360 absolutely outstanding graduate Students who are
(133)
134
recipients of the National Need Fellowships provided through CSRS,
there will be world renowned leaders in industry, academia, and
governmental research and education.
REPORT OF SELECTED SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Each year, Mr. Chairman, you have allowed me to report on a few
Successes in the system. This year, I would like to focus on those that
emphasize responsiveness to national needs. The number of exciting ad-
vances made over the last year is large, indeed. But one of the most in-
teresting, supported through the Hatch Act, is the discovery that daily
injections of pig growth hormone (porcine somatotropin) makes young
pigs grow faster with a dramatically leaner carcass. This pertains specifi-
cally to the national goal of diet and health issues. This work has been
principally done at Cornell University, Pennsylvania State University,
and the University of Illinois.
Scientists at Oregon State University have used the McIntire-Stennis
Cooperative Forestry Research money to develop a technique for
predicting the strength of wooden beams by Sonic techniques. This is
important not only in the construction of new buildings, but also in
terms of determining the strength and stability of existing buildings.
Scientists at the Washington State Agricultural Experiment Station
have demonstrated that adequate dietary intake appears to compensate
for Something that has been really on our minds, namely, the urinary
loss of calcium and magnesium Stimulated by caffeine consumption.
Calcium losses exaggerate the metabolic problems of Osteosporosis and
hypertension, problems for all of us, but particularly significant in the
post-menopausal woman.
Among the Special grants, the Pesticide Clearance Program is par-
ticularly important. The New York Regional Laboratory at Cornell com-
pleted residue determinations on 100 crop-commodity studies, 63 field
evaluation trials on food crops, and 39 trials on ornamental crops.
These studies, plus those conducted in the other three regions, resulted
in the IR-4 preparing 65 proposals for tolerance in obtaining from EPA
26 new food use tolerances and 306 ornamental registrations.
All four regions of the nation, Mr. Chairman, and many of the in-
dividual States have mounted substantial integrated pest management
programs. The goal, of course, is to Synchronize the management of
pests with the production of commodities in a manner that will maxi-
mize economic yield, efficiency of production and grower profits and at
the same time, resolve environmental and biological problems as-
Sociated with past pest control approaches.
Economic studies have substantiated over $510 million annually as
direct benefits to the farmers and ranchers of Texas resulting from the
IPM program for cotton in that one state alone. Balancing of com-
ponents in timing of the program is now done very well with the aid of
personal computers through a technique developed at Texas A&M
University.
135
I have before you at the moment two graphics. The first one em-
phasizes the fact that we can load into the personal computers various
data bases, not only in terms of the physical environment and the
biological environment, but also land use planning information and en-
dangered Species information. Then we can begin to produce a com-
posite map which can, in fact, be put on top of an infrared photograph,
and we can determine exactly when and where to use pesticides, biologi-
cal control measures, or cultural practices to help reduce the depend-
ency on chemicals in the production of food, fiber, fuels, floraculture,
and forest productS.
In order to combat brucellosis, research is needed to develop vaccines
and diagnostic agents. Recombinant DNA techniques are being used to
clone the genes for the major surface proteins of Brucella. A major
protein has been cloned and its structure determined. Studies are cur-
rently underway at Iowa State University to determine whether this
protein is immunogenic and can be used in diagnostic tests or perhaps
as the basis of a vaccine, a very innovative approach.
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
The CSRS explanatory notes, Mr. Chairman, carry a large number of
Stories of Successes. If I may now, Sir, I would like to return to the issue
of the budget recommendation, which for CSRS in fiscal year 1989 is
for $257.5 million. It reflects the Budget Summit Agreement and at the
Same time recognizes the commitment of this nation to the concept be-
hind the Hatch Act of 1887. The budget continues to reflect strong Sup-
port for the state-federal partnership of food and agricultural research,
which was established by that act.
The Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and Evans-Allen programs are the foun-
dation upon which the remaining federal funds, including special and
competitive research grants, plus funds from the State legislatures and
private industry create spikes or peaks of excellence. Funding of these
base programs has a high priority because it Supports the basic labora-
tory facilities, Scientists, and graduate Students necessary, for the long-
term stability of agricultural research. These programs allow maximum
flexibility in terms of Station level decisions to support research of the
highest priority and at the same time, assure the strong working relation-
ship between USDA and the State Agricultural Experiment Station sys-
tem. The budget recommendation contains a $2 million increase for the
Evans-Allen program specifically earmarked for rural revitalization
research, emphasizing the needs of Small-scale farmers, an area in which
the Colleges of 1890 have taken national leadership. Funding for the
Hatch Act remains at the fiscal year 1988 level, which is a Substantial in-
crease above fiscal year 1987, and we are very pleased with that. There
is a decrease of $4.5 million in the McIntire-Stennis program below
what was appropriated for fiscal year 1988, but nevertheless, essentially
higher than fiscal year 1987.
The Competitive Research Grants Program has earned a fine reputa-
tion in the scientific community because of the quality of research and
136
leadership that we have been able to attract to the position of Chief
Scientist. As Senator Kasten has already indicated, Dr. Luis Sequeira, a
member of the National Academy of Sciences, is our current Chief
Scientist, and he is with us today.
The Competitive Research Grants Program also is considered a high
priority with fiscal year 1989 funding recommended at 28.6 percent
above fiscal year 1988. This will allow USDA to participate in a joint
Plant Science Centers Program with the National Science Foundation
and the Department of Energy. The increase will also bring funding for
human nutrition to $3 million per year, a level we consider to be mini-
mum for a viable program. An increase of $1 million is requested for
the Animal Science Program. There is also a $2.6 million increase for
the high priority Biotechnology Program in animals and plants. As an
example of the importance of this effort, the National Academy of
Sciences recently published a book entitled “Agricultural Biotech-
nology: Strategies for National Competitiveness 1987.” The basis of
much of this proposed increase lies in that book. Technology to clone
genes and transfer agriculturally important organisms is making rapid
progress, but we need to know much more about what is behind these
actions in order to take full advantage of the advancement of this im-
portant area. We critically need this foundation information to keep us
competitive in agriculture. A new program of research is proposed to ex-
amine the effects of the depletion of stratospheric ozone on major
crops. This request of $7.4 million will allow the United States to join
an international effort for further Study of changes in Stratospheric
ozone and their effects.
The Plant Science Centers, if I may return to that issue, Mr.
Chairman, is an especially promising joint venture involving USDA,
NSF, and DOE. Addressing the erosion of available basic knowledge,
the growth in plant Science research is believed necessary to ensure the
future competitive position of U.S. agriculture. The program is
developed and patterned after the very successful Engineering Centers
Program of the NSF. The program is designed to utilize the combined
talent and other resources of academia, federal laboratories and in-
dustry, as well as State and local agencies. It will Stimulate and provide
long-term stability for disciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdiscipli-
nary plant science research and the training at the undergraduate,
graduate, and post-doctoral levels.
Funding is being requested for Selected special research grants which
address important national needs, Such as acid precipitation, minor use
animal drugs, pesticide clearance, pesticide impact assessment, and the
National Biological Impact Assessment Program. This request also
provides funding for research and demonstration projects on the
development of alternate crops and the use of agricultural products,
Such as guayule, hybrid Striped bass, crambe, and winter rapeseed.
Strengthening grants are recommended for the Colleges of 1890 and
Tuskegee University at the level of $2 million. As a part of the overall
spending reduction package, however, no funding has been recom-
137
mended for the Morrill-Nelson Permanent Appropriation, graduate
training grants, rangeland research, and certain other grants programs.
Support for these activities can be provided in both the base-funded
programs and the Competitive Research Grants Program.
PLANNING
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would now like to turn to the
issue of planning. In reporting the activities of the Stations, you have in
your package a Summary prepared by one State, but it is typical of
those prepared by each state in the nation, which show where they have
been over the past 100 years and where they intend to go in the future.
In that same vein, they join the CSRS in preparing a magazine called
“Fertile Fields,” which gives you that same perspective across discipli-
nary boundaries on a national basis. A year ago, I brought to this com-
mittee a report prepared jointly by the Experiment Station Committee
on Organization and Policy and the Cooperative State Research Service
entitled, “Research Initiatives: A Research Agenda for the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations.” This year, in your packet, is a mid-
term update of that same document. It does not contain all the same
detail. What it merely does is refocus, readdress, and restructure Some
of the objectives and the 21 major initiatives that came out of that ef-
fort. In 1989, Mr. Chairman, we will overhaul that once more, starting
at ground zero with the thorough investment of time, energy, and effort
to obtain the inputs of the various publics for agricultural research once
again.
Many of the initiatives have objectives in the fields of economics.
CSRS, in cooperation with the Economic Research Service and, of
course, the university System, has completed an indepth study of the
economic components of this plan. Over 560 inputs were received, out
of which 51 crisply stated researchable questions were identified. They
have been arranged in a report in priority order. The cost of conducting
each research project has been determined, the length of time required
to complete each project has been estimated, and the cost of not con-
ducting the research project has also been carefully addressed.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The point of this, Mr. Chairman, is to emphasize to you and mem-
bers of the subcommittee how carefully the State Agricultural Experi-
ment system is in preparing its plans. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
prepared remarks. I will be pleased to answer questions at the
appropriate time.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN PATRICK JORDAN
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Cooperative State Research
Service is the agency of the USDA through which federal research funding for the
states is channeled and coordinated on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, in
cooperation with all of the State and Territorial Agricultural Experiment Stations: the
Colleges of 1890, including Tuskegee University; all of the forestry Schools; and all of
the Colleges of Veterinary Medicine in the United States. In addition to land-grant
138
universities, there are other universities, not of the land-grant model, which are par-
ticipants in the System.
There are many institutions, at least one in every state and many of the territories,
in this system. But, they operate as a well-coordinated System to jointly address
regional and national needs as well as their particular State and local agendas. The
multistate approach of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations' Regional Research
projects has proven a very effective means of bringing needed expertise together to ad-
dress complex problems. These “centers without walls” provide needed multidisciplinary
approaches to problems and yet are easily disbanded as needs change.
As conveyed in Public Law 100–7, 1987 marked the beginning of the second century
for the act authored by William Henry Hatch of Missouri that established a national
system of State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The activities of the year focused
overwhelmingly on the future with only a modest look backward to see the accomplish-
ments of the past century. Emblematic of that future look was a Symposium, the
results of which are in your packet, entitled “Agricultural Research for a Better
Tomorrow,” which was conducted at the National Academy of Sciences. Even the
Smithsonian exhibit, entitled “The Search for Life,” portrays so very well the impact of
Science on agriculture and on health, and provides much food for thought about its
potential impacts for the future. In your packet is a flyer which indicates the contents
of the exhibit which is on display now at the National Museum of American History.
Later in this year it will begin a 2-year tour, only to return to the Smithsonian as a
permanent exhibit.
Also, emblematic of the forward look, the USDA and the National Academy of
Sciences will cosponsor a National Symposium in April, entitled “FOCUS: Future
Opportunities and Challenges Unique to Science.” In addition to participation by many
of the 360 absolutely outstanding graduate students who are recipients of National
Need Fellowships provided through CSRS will be world renowned leaders in industry,
academic, and governmental research and education. *
REPORT OF SELECTED SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The number of exciting advances made over the last year is large indeed. But, one
of the most interesting, supported through the Hatch Act program, is the discovery and
the detail study that daily injections of pig growth hormone (porcine somatotropin)
make young pigs grow faster with a dramatically leaner carcass. This work has been
done principally at Cornell, Pennsylvania State, and Illinois Universities. Treated pigs
grew 15 to 18 percent faster than untreated animals, reaching market weight 7 to 10
days sooner with a 30-percent gain in feed efficiency. At the same time, carcasses of
the hormone-treated pigs had 55 percent less fat and 15 to 18 percent more muscle.
These results have important implications for both producers and consumers as more ef-
ficient methods of producing leaner meat becomes more and more critical in addressing
the diet and health issue.
Scientists at Oregon State University have used McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
Research money to develop a technique of predicting the strength of small wooden
beams by Sonic techniques. They have been able to correlate beam strength with the
presence of defects or decay and to estimate the amount of wood affected. The tech-
nique is accurate 95 percent of the time and provides a new means of quality control.
This will enable wood products to better compete in the materials market.
Scientists at the Washington State Agricultural Experiment Station have demonstrated
that adequate dietary intake appears to compensate for urinary losses of calcium and
magnesium stimulated by Caffeine Consumption. Calcium losses exaggerate the meta-
bolic problems of Osteosporosis and hypertension. Thirty-seven women over 33, who
consumed at least the equivalent of two cups of coffee per day were studied before
and after they gave up caffeine. A strong cup of coffee caused urinary calcium and
magnesium losses in all Subjects by causing the kidney to become less efficient at keep-
ing the calcium passing through it. Only the women with intake less than 600 milli-
grams per day of calcium showed increased bone turnover and lower serum calcium
when they were consuming caffeine.
Soil solarization is a nonchemical method for controlling weeds. It is a special mulch-
ing process utilizing Solar energy which causes hydrothermal disinfestation. It also
139
causes chemical and biological changes in soil, reduces soilborne pests, and stimulates
growth in yield of crops. Tuskegee University Scientists showed that the technique con-
trolled weeds such as purple nutsedge, crab grass, barnyard grass, Florida pusley, pig
weed, cocklebur, morning glory, and coffee weed by effectively increasing soil tempera-
ture 45 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the top 5 centimeters of soil. This research was
funded from the Evans-Allen program.
Among the Special Grants, the pesticide clearance program is particularly important.
The New York Regional Laboratory at Cornell completed residue determinations on
100 crop-commodity studies, 63 field evaluation trials on food crops, and 39 trials on
ornamental crops. These studies, plus similar studies in the other three regions, resulted
in the IR-4 project preparing 65 proposals for tolerance in obtaining from EPA 26
new food use tolerances and 306 ornamental registrations.
All four regions and many individual States have mounted Substantial integrated pest
management programs. The goal is to Synchronize the management of pests with the
production of the commodity in a manner that will maximize economic yield, increase
the efficiency of production and grower profits by reducing costs of production, while
sustaining agricultural productivity, and resolving environmental and biological problems
associated with past pest control approaches. Economic Studies have substantiated over
$510 million annually as direct benefits to Texas as a result of IPM programs for cot-
ton in that State. Balancing of components in timing in the program is now done very
well with the aid of personal computers through a technique developed at Texas A&M
University.
In order to combat brucellosis, research is needed to develop vaccines and diagnostic
agents. Recombinant DNA techniques are being used to clone the genes for the major
surface proteins of Brucella. A major protein has been cloned and its structure deter-
mined. Studies are currently underway at Iowa State University to determine whether
this protein is immunogenic and can be used in diagnostic tests or as the basis of a
vaccine.
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
The budget recommendation for fiscal year 1989 for CSRS is $257,489,000. It reflects
the budget summit agreement and at the same time recognizes the commitment of this
nation to the concept behind the Hatch Act of 1887. The budget continues to reflect
strong support for the state-federal partnership in food and agricultural research which
was established by that act. The Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and Evans-Allen programs are
the foundation upon which the remaining federal funds including Special and competi-
tive research grants plus funds from the state legislatures and private industry create
peaks of excellence. Funding of these base programs has a high priority because it sup-
ports the basic laboratory facilities, scientists, and graduate students necessary for the
long-term stability of agricultural research. These programs allow maximum flexibility
at the station level to support research of the highest priority and at the same time as-
sure the strong working relationship between the USDA and the State Agricultural
Experiment Station system. The budget recommendation contains a $2 million increase
for the Evans-Allen program for rural revitalization research emphasizing needs of
Small-scale farmers. Funding for the Hatch Act remains at the fiscal year 1988 ap-
propriated level of $155,545,000. A decrease of $4,525,000 is proposed for the McIntire-
Stennis program.
The Competitive Research Grants Program has earned a fine reputation in the Scien-
tific community because of the quality of research and the leadership we have been
able to attract to the Chief Scientist position. Dr. Luis Sequeira, a member of the
National Academy of Sciences and our current Chief Scientist, is with us today.
The Competitive Research Grants Program also is considered high priority with fiscal
year 1989 funding recommended at 28.6 percent above fiscal year 1988. This will allow
the USDA to participate in a joint plant Science research grants program with the
National Science Foundation and Department of Energy (Plant Science Centers). The
increase will also bring funding for human nutrition to $3 million per year, a level we
consider to be minimum for a viable program. An increase of $1 million is requested
for the animal Science program. There is also a $2.6 million increase for the high-
priority biotechnology program in animals and plants. As an example, the importance
of biotechnology in agriculture was recently highlighted in the National Academy of
140
Sciences (NAS) study and publication, “Agricultural Biotechnology—Strategies for
National Competitiveness 1987.” Technology to clone genes and transform agriculturally
important organisms is making rapid progress. We need to more fully know what genes
transfer in order to fully take advantage of the advancement in technology. We criti-
cally need this foundation information to keep us competitive in agriculture. A new
program of research is proposed to examine the effects of the depletion of stratospheric
ozone on major crops. This request of $7.4 million will allow the United States to join
an international effort for further study of changes in stratospheric ozone and their
effects.
The Plant Science Centers Program is an especially promising joint venture involving
USDA, NSF, and DOE. Addressing the erosion of valuable basic knowledge, the
growth in plant science research is believed necessary to ensure the future competitive
position of U.S. agriculture. The program is developed and patterned after the very suc-
cessful engineering centers program of NSF. The program is designed to utilize the
combined talent and other resources in academia, federal laboratories, industry, and
state and local agencies. It will Stimulate and provide long-term Stable Support for dis-
ciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary plant Science research and training at
the undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral levels.
Funding is being requested for Selected Special Research Grants which address im-
portant national needs Such as acid precipitation, minor use animal drugs, pesticide
clearance, pesticide impact assessment, and the National Biological Impact Assessment
Program. This request also provides funding for research and demonstration projects on
the development of alternate crops and uses for agricultural products such as guayule,
hybrid striped bass, crambe, and rapeseed. Strengthening grants are recommended for
the Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee University at the level of $2 million.
As part of the overall spending reduction package, no funding has been recom-
mended for the Morrill-Nelson Permanent Appropriation, Graduate Training Grants,
Rangeland Research, and other grant programs. Support for these activities can be
provided in both the base-funded programs and the Competitive Research Grants
Program.
PLANNING
Mr. Chairman, this committee is well aware of the strategic planning process that the
State Agricultural Experiment Station System has implemented, including related
programs in veterinary medicine, home economics, forestry, and at the 1890 Land-
Grant Schools. Last year, I shared with members of the committee a publication en-
titled “Research Initiatives: A Research Agenda for the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations.” This year I have placed in your packet an update of that document which
has just come off the press. It does not contain as much detail as the base document,
but is to serve as a midterm vehicle to adjust initiatives and priorities among 21 major
initiative areas. Pages 6 and 7 contain an array of 104 objectives under those 21 initia-
tives. The document is independent of the Source of money and shows where the over-
all system is moving. It will be overhauled in 1989 with the same thorough input that
made the base document So Valuable.
Many of the initiatives have objectives in the field of economics. CSRS, in coopera-
tion with the Economic Research Service, has completed an indepth study of the
economic components of this plan. Over 560 inputs were received, out of which 51
crisply stated researchable questions were identified. They have been arranged in
priority order, the cost of conducting each research project determined, the length of
time required to determine each project has been estimated, and the cost of not con-
ducting the research project has also been carefully addressed. The point of this, Mr.
Chairman, is to emphasize to you and the members of the subcommittee how carefully
the State Agricultural Experiment Station System is in preparing its plans.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to answer any
questions.
141
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
LUIS SEQUEIRA, CHIEF SCIENTIST, COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM
Dr. Luis Sequeira was appointed Chief Scientist of the Cooperative State Research
Service's Competitive Research Grants Office in October 1987. He provides administra-
tive guidance and scientific expertise to the Competitive Research Grants Program,
Born in Costa Rica, he earned Bachelor of Arts, Master of Science, and Ph.D. degrees
in biology from Harvard University. He was awarded the Parker Postdoctoral Fellow-
ship from Harvard University and upon completion of research on coffee diseases at
the Instituto Biologico in Sao Paulo, Brazil, he became assistant plant pathologist for
United Fruit Company. Over an 8-year period, he progressed to Director of the Coto
Research Station in Costa Rica. During his 27 years at the University of Wisconsin in
Madison, he moved through the ranks to become J.C. Walker Professor in the
Departments of Plant Pathology and Bacteriology. Dr. Sequeira has taught Several
courses at the University of Wisconsin, including disease physiology and plant
bacteriology.
Dr. Sequeira was a National Science Foundation Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at the
University of Reading in England and was a Resident Scholar at the Conference and
Study Center of the Rockefeller Foundation in Bellagio, Italy.
Dr. Sequeira is a Fellow of the American Phytopathological Society and a member
of the National Academy of Sciences. He has served as president of the American
Phytopathological Society and was senior editor and editor-in-chief of “Phytopath-
ology.” He has been a member of the editorial boards of “Plant Physiology” and the
“Canadian Journal of Microbiology.” Dr. Sequeira has served on Several committees for
the National Research Committee for the International Union of Microbiological
Societies.
Dr. Sequeira's collaborative research with numerous students and colleagues has
covered a wide range of topics in the physiology of hostparasite interactions, including
growth regulator metabolism and recognition phenomena. Most recently, the emphasis
of his research has been on disease resistance in plants and on the molecular genetics
of plant-pathogenic bacteria. Dr. Sequeira has participated in plant breeding research
aimed at developing disease resistant varieties of potato and lettuce.
ExTENSION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF MYRON D. JOHNSRUD, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DENZIL. O. CLEGG, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD R. RANKIN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, MANAGEMENT
OPENING REMARKS
Senator BURDICK. It is now my pleasure to introduce the next witness.
He hails from North Dakota State University, and I know we will be
interested in what he has to say. Dr. Johnsrud.
Dr. JohnsRUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to appear before your committee again and discuss our fiscal
year 1989 budget proposal for the Extension Service. As the previous
people have indicated, you have my prepared testimony, and I am
going to abbreviate that a bit in the essence of time. -
As indicated in my testimony last year to this committee, the
Cooperative Extension System was in the midst of a Serious Self-
examination and renewal effort. This was largely in response to
concerns expressed by the General Accounting Office, the Office of
Technology Assessment, and others.
We have completed this examination and have identified several
priority initiative areas. Our primary goal, which is shared by our exten-
sion leadership across the country and promoted for a long time by our
clientele users, is to make our extension programs more effective and
useful, which then Serves as an element in undergirding our agricultural
community, which is now competing in a global environment.
This morning, your committee was given a copy of a red booklet,
which should be before each of you, that identifies the eight national
priority initiatives, and on pages 2 and 3, these are summarized in terms
of the eight initiative areas and the issues within each of those initia-
tlveS.
This effort involved both our extension staff around the nation in
identifying these initiatives and Extension Stakeholders, including in-
dustry, commodity groups, various organizations, State and local govern-
ment, cooperating agencies, policymakers, volunteers, and others. In all,
200 organizations and individuals are involved, and if you have an inter-
est, you can turn to pages 22 and 23, and you will See the long array of
people who were involved in identifying these initiatives. So there has
been extensive input.
I would hasten to add that those eight priority initiatives, as they
Show on pages 2 and 3, and reading from left to right, are listed al-
phabetically. We have not placed a priority order on those in terms of
(142)
143
programming effort. We are looking at alternative agricultural oppor-
tunity; building human capital; competitiveness and profitablity to
American agriculture; conservation and management of natural re-
Sources, family and economic well-being; improving nutrition, diet and
health; revitalizing rural America and water quality. Those are the top
headings, but the critical items are the issues under each of those.
Those issues constitute the primary agenda for programming in the ex-
tension System.
As a result of this effort, we also Set in place the Strategic long-range
planning process, a responsive, proactive framework for the future. As
issues and concerns of the nation and people shift, we will then refocus
our effort based on this strategic planning process.
ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN
We will continue to identify emerging issues of national concern and
those issues relevant to Extension's mission will be targeted for action.
The driving force is the need to provide relevant informational, educa-
tional and problem-solving programs directed at Such issues as the fol-
lowing, and I will just cite a few.
Integrated systems approach for more effective information delivery
and to Solve problems within the context of total agricultural produc-
tion, marketing and management Systems; in other words, a Systems ap-
proach to the business of agriculture; helping rural families analyze and
evaluate nonfarm employment opportunities as a supplement to their
traditional livelihood; working with local officials to understand the in-
teractions of land use and chemical use to water quality and to advise
scientific strategies and programs pertaining to water quality.
Another issue would be reducing the incidence of foodborne illnesses
by teaching food service personnel, food processors, and consumers
recommended food handling, preparation, and processing practices;
helping community leaders establish new opportunities in economic
development, jobs, housing, institutional building, and human resource
development.
These are examples of issues within those initiatives that we are ad-
dressing. As the cooperative extension System moves to this type of
issue-based programming, it is reallocating resources to reach more clien-
tele than before with programs that concentrate on Solving problems.
The national extension initiative effort provides the environment
within which the cooperative extension system can evolve toward a
more effective process of problem Solving than we have in the past.
The Extension Staff at all levels in the System will have to take more
risks, cooperate with all segments of the agricultural community and
other clientele groups, develop coalitions and overcome constraints; in
short, make things happen.
It is my observation that things are happening and we are moving in
that direction with vigor.
144
1989 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Let me turn quickly to the 1989 budget proposal. The President's
1989 budget request for the Extension Service totals $299.5 million.
This is a decrease of $58.4 million, or 16.3 percent below the fiscal year
1988 appropriations, which was $357.96 million. Specifically, our budget
request basically maintains Support for the extension core programs
provided to both 1862 and 1890 Institutions. The proposed funding
levels of $228.5 million under sections 3(b) and 3(c) formula funds is
being complemented by proposed funding totaling $22 million, targeted
for implementation of national priority programs in the following areas:
First, $10 million for national priority initiative projects, which will
be used to fund highly focused and innovative projects dealing with the
national priority initiatives and using the following criteria: High poten-
tial for problem-solving; integrated Systems approach; research-based;
targeted to multiple goals; involvement of public and private sector and
full State matching.
Second, $10 million for agricultural competitiveness and profitability.
We are requesting this to develop educational programs which will in-
corporate an interdisciplinary Systems approach by integrating market-
ing, production, financial management and policy information, focusing
on agricultural competitiveness and profitability. The proposed $10 mil-
lion would be distributed as follows: 4 percent for administration and
of the remainder, 80 percent will be allocated to states, using the Smith-
Lever 3(b) and 3(c) formula which requires full matching, and 20 per-
cent for special projects in Support of this initiative.
Third, $2 million for rural revitalization, which is requested to in-
crease the capacity of the State extension services to conduct rural
revitalization programs. Funds will be used to increase staff expertise
and to fund the special projects.
This proposed new funding, which will be required to be matched by
States by an equal Sum, together with the section 3(b), 3(c) formula
funds, represent a net increase of almost $9 million over the fiscal year
1988 enacted levels for these basic programs.
These proposed levels will allow our state and local partners to ad-
dress national priorities and respond at the same time to local and
regional problems.
Consistent with the proposed research budgets, an increase of
$947,000 is requested to expand Extension's effort in the pesticide im-
pact assessment program. This program assures accurate benefit and use
data are available to assist EPA with the assessment of pesticides and
chemicals essential to agricultural production, and it also relates closely
to current concerns about water quality.
In the recent times, we have implemented a number of expanded
food and nutrition education program delivery improvements which will
allow us to continue to reach critical clientele at a reduced level of
funding.
This can be achieved by intensifying cooperation with food stamps,
WIC and other programs; also through increased volunteer training and
145
by blending the historic one-to-one interaction between the program
aides and the clientele with Small group Settings and teaching tailored
to the shortest possible timeframe.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The proposal will, in essence, terminate the current food stamp fund
transfer for the EFNEP program. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are ex-
tremely grateful to you and your committee for continuing support of
our efforts in Extension. We will be glad to answer any questions
regarding our budget proposal. Thank you.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. MYRON D. JOHNSRUD
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to dis-
cuss with you the President's proposed fiscal year 1989 budget for the Extension
Service.
I indicated in my testimony last year to this committee that the Cooperative Exten-
sion System was in the midst of a serious self-examination effort. This is largely in
response to critical concerns raised by the General Accounting Office, the Office of
Technology Assessment, and others. We have completed this examination and have
identified Several priority program initiatives.
Our primary goal, which is shared by our Extension leadership across the country
and promoted for a long time by our own clientele users is, of course, to make
Extension programs more effective and useful, Serving as a key element in undergirding
our agricultural community which is now competing in a global environment.
Through identification of eight National Priority Initiatives, Cooperative Extension
creates a more focused program. This effort involved both our Extension staff around
the nation and Extension Stakeholders—industry, commodity groups, organizations, state
and local governments, cooperating agencies, policymakers, Volunteers, and others
deeply involved with Extension. These program initiatives, listed alphabetically, are:
Alternative Agricultural Opportunities
Building Human Capital
Competitiveness and Profitability of American Agriculture
Conservation and Management of Natural Resources
Family and Economic Well-Being
Improving Nutrition, Diet, and Health
Revitalizing Rural America
Water Quality
This effort also sets in place a Strategic, long-range planning process—a responsive,
proactive framework for the future as the critical concerns of the nation and people
also shift and refocus. Through strategic planning, Extension will continue to identify
emerging issues of national concern. These issues, relevant to its mission will be tar-
geted for action.
The driving force is the need to provide relevant informational, educational, and
problem Solving problems directed at issues such as:
Providing educational programs utilizing interdisciplinary approaches for more effec-
tive delivery and to solve problems within the context of total production,
marketing, and management Systems.
Developing producers' knowledge of basic economic principles and increase under-
standing of policies affecting agricultural trade.
Helping rural families analyze and evaluate nonfarm employment opportunities as
a supplement to their traditional livelihood.
Working with local officials to understand the interactions of land use and chemi-
cal use to water quality and devise Scientific Strategies and programs pertaining
to water quality.
146
Enabling consumers to minimize nutritional inadequacies and abuses in foods,
diets, and Supplements and teaching them to recognize and use reliable nutrition
information.
Reducing the incidence of foodborne illnesses by teaching food service personnel,
food processors, and consumers recommended food handling, preparation, and
processing practices.
Teaching young families and the working poor the financial, management, and per-
Sonnel skills required to become and remain Self-sufficient.
Encouraging farmers to adopt conservation practices and reduce soil erosion.
Helping community leaders establish new opportunities in economic development,
jobs, housing, institutional building, and human resource development.
Increasing the ability of both adults and youth to develop the Self-confidence
needed to resist such societal problems as drug and alcohol abuse, School drop-
out, child abuse, teen pregnancy, and Suicide.
As the Cooperative Extension System moves to this type of issue-based program-
ming, it is reallocating resources to reach more clientele than before with programs that
concentrate on solving problems.
The National Extension Initiatives effort provides the environment for the Cooper-
ative Extension System to evolve toward a more effective process of problemsolving
than in the past Extension staff at all levels of the System will have to take more
risks, cooperate with all segments of the agriculture community and other clientele
groups, develop coalitions, and overcome constraints; in Short, make things happen.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET PROPOSAL
The President's fiscal year 1989 budget request for Extension Service totals
$299.542,000. This is a decrease of $58,421,000 or 16.3 percent below the fiscal year
1988 appropriation of $357,963,000.
Our budget request basically maintains support for Extension core activities provided
under formula payments to both 1862 and 1890 institutions. The proposed funding
level of $228.5 million under section 3b and 3c formula funds is being complemented
by proposed new funding totaling $22 million targeted for implementation of National
Priority Programs in the following areas:
$10 million for National Priority Initiatives Projects—The proposed $10 million will
be used to fund highly focused and innovative projects dealing with the national
priority initiatives and using the following criteria: high potential for problem
Solving; integrated System approach; research-based; targeted to multiple goals:
evaluation component; involvement of public/private sector; full state matching.
$10 million for Agricultural Competitiveness and Profitability—Requested to develop
educational programs which will incorporate interdisciplinary Systems approaches
by integrating marketing, production, financial management, and policy informa-
tion focusing on agricultural competitiveness and profitability. The proposed $10
million would be distributed as follows: 4 percent for administration and, of the
remainder, 80 percent will be allocated to States using the Smith-Lever 3b and
3c formula with required full matching, and 20 percent for special projects in
support of this initiative.
$2 million for Rural Revitalization—Requested to increase the capacity of the State
Extension Services to conduct rural revitalization programs. Funds will be used
to increase staff expertise and to fund special projects.
The proposed new funding, which will be required to be matched by the states by
an equal sum, together with the Section 3b and 3c formula, represents a net increase of
almost $9 million over the fiscal year 1988 enacted levels for these basic programs.
These proposed levels will allow our State and local partners to address national
priorities while responding at the same time to local and regional problems.
Consistent with the proposed research budgets, increased funds are being requested
to expand Extension's effort in the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (+$947,000).
This program assures that accurate benefit and use data are available to assist EPA
with the assessment of pesticides and chemicals essential to agricultural production and
relates closely to current concerns on water quality.
147
We have implemented a number of EFNEP delivery improvements which will allow
us to continue to reach the critical clientele at a reduced funding level. This can be
achieved by intensifying cooperation with food stamps, WIC, and other programs; in-
creased volunteer training; and, blending the historic one-to-one interaction between
EFNEP aides and clientele with small group program setting and, with teaching
tailored to the shortest timeframe possible. Our proposal will, in essence, terminate cur-
rent food stamps funds transfer for the EFNEP program.
We are extremely grateful for the continuing Support of this committee to our efforts
in Extension. We will be glad to answer your questions regarding our budget
proposals.
GROUND WATER QUALITY
Senator BURDICK. Senator Kasten.
Senator KASTEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate
the fact that you will allow me to ask a few questions before you, as
chairman, go ahead. I appreciate that very much, and I thank you. I
wanted to ask a question of both Dr. Kinney and Dr. Bentley. I am
happy that we are beginning to see that USDA is going to be devoting
Some resources to ground water quality problems.
Let me specifically ask Dr. Kinney, what are we going to do? What is
the research? Can you tell us exactly what you are seeking to do, maybe
in 30 or 45 seconds, because I have got a series of questions on this
pOlnt.
Dr. KINNEY. We can Submit for the record a complete rundown, but
basically, the ARS responsibility is to work with the Soil Conservation
Service; with the universities; with the Conservation Districts and
others to determine the fate of pesticides in the soils, different types of
Soils. w
So we are going to work on a national basis looking at geophysical
areas, at all aspects of the fate of chemicals on Soils.
RESEARCH AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
Senator KASTEN. I am happy you mentioned the local groups.
Basically, we have got two, I think, important problems here. Maybe
there are more than two. One is tolerance standards for health pur-
poses, how pesticides or fungicides or other contaminants affect human
health. I think that research on this question ought logically to be done
on a national level.
In other words, the pesticide residue is going to have the same kinds
of health impact on consumers in Wisconsin, as in Florida or Maine.
But the other part of this issue is how these chemicals get into the
ground water; how long they stay in the ground water before breaking
down organically; how they move through the ground water, that whole
set of issues. It seems to me that the answers to these questions depend
largely on local circumstances.
Soil is different in Arizona than it is in Wisconsin. You have got sub-
Soils that differ; water table levels are different. Acidity levels are dif-
ferent in different parts of the country. This whole set of issues needs
to be dealt with primarily at the state or local level by universities, like
the University of Wisconsin.
148
Dr. KINNEY. Yes, that is true.
Senator KASTEN. My question is: Shouldn't we be or couldn't we be
working not through ARS, necessarily, but also through CSRS with this
research? Can you take me through the reasoning by which you wound
up putting all of the money in ARS as opposed to CSRS, where I think
Some of these issues ought to be dealt with.
Dr. KINNEY. Senator, let me just briefly comment that for many
decades, ARS has played a lead role at more than 20 locations
throughout the United States in various aspects of ground water quality.
But most of that has been in cooperation with soils departments in
the land-grant institutions, So that we both have a role to play. In addi-
tion, we have the responsibility for satisfying the needs of the Soil
Conservation Service and the Conservation Districts, for their tech-
nologies.
Someone has to bring all this information together at the national
level, and we do that in working with the State agricultural experiment
Stations, the Soil Conservation Service, and others. So I don't think it is
an either/or situation, and it may be that this year, we just happen to
give top priority to the ground water quality, as we have for the last
Several years.
Senator KASTEN. I just looked at the $5 million all being in ARS, and
I just wanted to be sure the universities' point of view was understood.
I appreciate your answer to my question. Because what you are saying
to me is that despite the fact that it looks like all the research might be
conducted in Beltsville, MD, or someplace else, that is not the case.
Dr. KINNEY. No, it is not.
Senator KASTEN. You are working across the board?
Dr. KINNEY. Right.
Senator KASTEN. I don't object to you or EPA doing the work here
on tolerance levels. I think we have got to figure that out on a federal
basis. But the other questions relating to the whys and wherefores or
ground water contamination are different, and they are, important. First
of all, I am happy that ARS is getting into it. This is an important
problem in Wisconsin and other places; it is vital for our state and
others that a program of research on ground water quality is ac-
celerated, and I commend USDA for the Start you are making now in
the 1989 budget.
I look forward to working with you on this subject.
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION
I have one final question of Dr. Jordan. You have budgeted $7.4 mil-
lion for research on the effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on crops
and forests. I have done a little work on tropical forests in Brazil and
other places. I commend you for this initiative. The depletion of the
Earth's ozone layer is a Serious long-term problem that needs attention.
Could you tell us, first of all, how this initiative developed; what
kind of research, Specifically, you have in mind; and how you ended up
with $7.4 million?
149
Dr. JoRDAN. Senator, the initiative is not only derived from within
the CSRS system, including the universities, but also in response to the
request by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA is concerned
about three areas having to do with the impact of increased ultraviolet
light on crops, on aquaculture, and finally, on forest products, trees,
forest biological systems, and So forth. It is in response partially to these
concerns that the initiative comes forward. What it says, basically,
Senator, is that we know a fair amount about the effects of increased
ultraviolet light on Skin, Skin cancers, animals, human beings, and So
on. What we don't have a very good handle on is the impact of in-
creased ultraviolet light on plant life, particularly crops and so forth.
This is an attempt to quantify and know at the front end what the
potential impacts will be. .
Senator KASTEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have a
couple of technical questions that I would like to have submitted for
the record. I appreciate having the opportunity to ask these questions
ahead of you. Thank you.
Senator BURDICK. I would say to the whole entire panel—we have a
right to Submit questions, and we expect a reply in a brief period of
tline.
Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN
Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair-
man, I have an opening Statement I would like to Submit for the
record. -
Senator BURDICK. Certainly, it will be received.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN
Mr. Chairman, agricultural research and the distribution of the benefits of that
research through the Extension Service are of great importance to American agriculture.
In the Midwest, we are just coming out of a very difficult economic period. But, we
are by no means in economic health.
Our farmland is like a factory. Farmers have three choices; They can continue to
produce the same products at full production and watch their prices fall, they can cut
back leaving a significant amount of land idle, or they can retool their factory and find
new uses for their capacity. In the long run, the last option, diversification, is clearly
the best.
In the 1970's, diversification meant moving into the world market through trade.
Now, we know the limitations of that effort. Certainly, we must expand our agricul-
tural trade to the extent possible, and considerable knowledge and research is needed
in that area. But, I believe that we must diversify by finding new nonfood uses for our
agricultural products. That is the route that can allow farmers to make full use of their
resources and provide a maximum benefit for our nation.
Farmers must also protect their greatest resources, their land, water, and a clean en-
vironment. And, happily. this can to Some extent be done in ways that will actually
reduce their costS.
We must find new efficient ways to control infestations without harmful chemicals,
we need to reduce what we add to the land that pollutes the water, and we must
change our methods of farming to Save our irreplaceable topsoil.
A large part of the answer to our problems in both areas, diversification of products
and protection of our resources, rests with research. We are very fortunate that scien-
tific breakthroughs in recent years have given us the tools to reach our goals.
150
We must continue our basic research efforts. And, we must target our applied
research toward our goals. We must look at what is likely to be done by the private
sector and place government efforts elsewhere so our resources can be maximized.
Last, and perhaps most important of all, successful research needs to reach the field.
The Extension Service has done a great job of bringing the latest advances to farmers.
That must continue. And, we also need to bring the latest advances to industry as well.
When I look at the proposed budget, I do not See a clear direction aimed at where
agriculture must go. I see too much of an emphasis on the past and not enough on
the future.
INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE TRADE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Senator HARKIN. Dr. Bentley, if any of these questions are such that
you would feel better submitting a written answer later on, just tell me,
and it will be perfectly fine.
How is the administration progressing in the implementation of the
International Agriculture Trade Development Center Program author-
ized in the 1985 farm bill?
Dr. BENTLEY. There are Some recommendations and programs that
have been developed. I would prefer, if I might submit that as a written
response, not because I don't think that it is moving ahead at the ap-
propriate pace, but I can't give you the detail that I can give with just a
little review of the materials, if that would be all right, Senator.
Senator HARKIN. I would appreciate that very much, because I just
wanted to find out why the administration did not request funding for
these centers this year and whether it was at the request of the
Department of Agriculture that they not be funded. If you can Submit
that to me I would appreciate it.
Dr. BENTLEY. Yes, Sir.
[The information follows:]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS FOR AGRICULTURE
Funds were appropriated in fiscal years 1987 and 1988 for seven International Trade
Development Centers for Agriculture. Two were funded in fiscal year 1987: The
Northern Crops Institute at North Dakota State University and the International Trade
Development Center at Iowa State University. The former received a grant for equip-
ment to use for demonstration purposes. The equipment is used to obtain technical in-
formation on durum wheat milling and the mixing of animal feeds from regionally
produced grains. The information is used to develop products that will be more readily
acceptable in export markets. The latter grant is to develop programs and conduct
research to enhance exports of agricultural and related products produced primarily by
Small to medium-sized businesses in Iowa and the Midwest.
Four additional centers were funded in fiscal year 1988 along with the appropriation
of funds for an existing trade center funded in fiscal year 1986 at Oklahoma State
University. The four additional centers are proposed for Washington State University
(IMPACT), University of Washington (CINTRAFOR), University of Kentucky, and the
Mid-America World Trade Center in Wichita, Kansas. CINTRAFOR is an operating
program to enhance the export of forest and wood products. IMPACT is intended to
enhance the export of Specialty crops. The University of Kentucky center is expected
to concentrate its efforts on the export of breeding Stock and specialty crops. The Mid-
America center is a nonprofit organization that will cooperate with seven states to en-
hance the exports of various commodities and products produced in those states.
Proposals for grant applications have been requested from these institutions.
Funds for trade centers have not been explicitly requested in prior budgets by the
administration. The Hatch Act formula program provides states with the discretion to
151
use funds for research programs judged to be of a high priority for their state or
region. These funds may be used for international trade and marketing research pur-
poSeS.
HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH CENTERS
Senator HARKIN. I also want to ask about the Human Nutrition
Research Centers. Which of the Human Nutrition Research Centers
operated by the Agricultural Research Service presently has a major
focus in the area of food Selection and health maintenance? In par-
ticular, which of the centers presently focuses its efforts on developing
the knowledge base necessary to assist the general population in selec-
tion of the best foods, not necessarily the best nutrients, from which
one can maintain a healthy life?
Again, I would be glad to Submit this in writing to you, if you would
like to have it, and you can respond in writing. Perhaps that is the best
Way.
Dr. KINNEY. I think, Senator, we would prefer to respond in writing.
[CLERK's NOTE: See Submitted questions.]
SOIL TILTH LABORATORY
Senator HARKIN. I have a number of questions here, Mr. Chairman,
that I would like to Submit in writing. But perhaps you can just answer
this last one off the cuff. We have a Soil tilth laboratory that is com-
pleted at Iowa State University. It is now ready, but I understand there
is no funding for the soil tilth research. Can you tell me why that is?
Dr. KINNEY. That laboratory has just been completed, Senator, and
we are working with the Iowa State people to develop the specific plans
for the laboratory. We need $3.5 million to support about 20 scientists
at that facility.
Senator HARKIN. Is that what you are recommending?
Dr. KINNEY. That is what is required for operating the facility at op-
timum capacity as it is planned. We are not recommending that level of
funding in this budget.
Senator HARKIN. Why not?
Dr. KINNEY. Probably for the same reason, Senator, that we didn't re-
quest funding for a number of other facilities that are coming on board.
It was something that we had to defer given the priorities.
INDUSTRIAL USE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS
Senator HARKIN. As you know, I have a considerable interest in
biotechnology. We have discussed my bill, S. 970, before, Dr. Bentley.
In the May 15 hearing that I chaired last year, you submitted a fiscal
year 1987 table on ARS research and utilization and another table on
the Support of new crops.
I was looking at this table on page 19 of the hearing transcript from
last May. It shows $102,204,000 for research on commodity conversion
and delivery. The thrust of S. 970 is to look upon nonfood uses of
crops. At the hearing last year, I mentioned the disparity between the
research on growing crops and research on nonfood uses.
152
I think maybe there was a misunderstanding, because this table in-
cludes also, obviously, food uses. Could you help now by breaking
down for me again how much research is being done on finding new
nonfood uses of crops? I would like to have a look at that.
Dr. BENTLEY. Senator, we can do that. We now have information on
nonfood uses. Of course, you speak to Something that I personally think
we should be investigating more and will have to give more attention to
in the future. Sometimes it is more difficult.
I have just been handed a note that it is estimated it is about 20 mil-
lion dollars' worth of research being done on nonfood uses in ARS.
Senator HARKIN. $20 million?
Dr. KINNEY. That is just ARS.
Dr. BENTLEY. $20 million, but we would like to fill out the record; we
would respond in a full report, but it is roughly that amount of that
Sum that was given before. Then, of course, there is work on nonfood
uses being done in the State agricultural experiment stations with both
state and federal funding of grant funds, as well.
Senator HARKIN. I just want to get a better handle on that $20 mil-
lion. What is the total ARS budget?
Dr. KINNEY. About $540 million in 1988.
Senator HARKIN. So $20 million of that is for nonfood uses. That is
the disparity that I am talking about; it is a gross disparity. Anyway,
that is what S. 970 is designed to do—to eliminate that disparity. Let
me just cover a few Selected items. On the first list that you had here,
research for processed nonfood was $12.668 million. That was fiscal
year 1987. I am referring to this table on page 19 of last May's hearing.
What would be the figure for the fiscal year 1989 budget proposal for
that line? Again, I am getting into Specifics, and you probably don't
have a handle on it, but I would like to get this information back from
yOu.
Dr. BENTLEY. We can get this for the record.
RESEARCH ON NEW CROPS
Senator HARKIN. It is my information that a number of these have
been cut. I would also like to know what is included in that category.
There was one here, $2.7 million for new crops.
I would like to know what the fiscal year 1989 funding is for that. I
understand that funding is down, and I would like to know: Why the
decrease? I am raising these issues because it is a public record; because
I want to find out why there was a decrease in Some of these lines.
Dr. KINNEY. Senator, if I could briefly respond, you said $2.9 million?
Senator HARKIN. $2.731 million you have listed here for new crops.
That is fiscal year 1987.
Dr. KINNEY. Yes; that is the ARS portion of the budget only. And
that is not being decreased.
Senator HARKIN. That is true, yes.
Dr. KINNEY. And that is not being decreased. There may be a
decrease elsewhere, but not in ARS. The 1988 figure, according to our
153
budget, in ARS is $3.6 million, $2.9 was 1987; essentially $3 million in
1987; $3.6 million in 1988, and we did not ask for an increase in 1989,
but we don't intend to decrease it, either.
Senator HARKIN. So it is the same in ARS, right?
Dr. KINNEY. Right.
SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE CROPS
Senator HARKIN. I am also told that CSRS is being reduced; that al-
ternative crops research is going from $0.7 down to $0.4; is that right?
Dr. JoRDAN. That is correct.
Senator HARKIN. What is the correlation between this and ARS2 This
is alternative crops research. How does that correlate with the new
crops research under ARS2
Dr. KINNEY. Our new crops research program is a basic program that
is conducted at a number of locations, about 13 different locations,
throughout the United States. We are working on about nine different
new crops and have been for many years, so that the work that CSRS
is involved in, while it is cooperative, it is really a separate effort that is
primarily at the university system.
Senator HARKIN. Is there any duplication?
Dr. KINNEY. No.
Dr. JoRDAN. No; the university component of this carries it out into
the demonstration phase, Senator. It takes much of the information
developed by both the University Research Program and ARS and puts
it together into a format that will be most understood by industry and
allows them to determine whether, in fact, it makes Sense for them to in-
west in it.
Senator HARKIN. I just see that Alternative Crops Research and the
Ag Trade Centers have been zeroed out there.
BUDGET DECREASES
Then you have the critical Ag Materials Act, cut from $4.9 million
down to $0.7 next year. That is a big cut from $4.9 million down to
$700,000.
Dr. JoRDAN. The $4.9 million, Senator, includes the Polymer Institute
at the University of Southern Mississippi; the Center for Physical
Acoustics at the University of Mississippi, and the guayule research
program. The guayule program is in the budget request for fiscal year
1989.
Senator HARKIN. Perhaps Senator Cochran would like to know, and I
would as well, why are these programs the only ones being cut out?
Dr. JoRDAN. The facility construction at the Polymer Institute will be
done.
Senator HARKIN. All right.
Dr. JoRDAN. It will be a completed project.
Senator HARKIN. I See. That is a decrease.
Dr. JoRDAN. It is because the work is done.
154
Senator HARKIN. I see. Is there any decrease at all in the research por-
tion of that $4.9 million?
Dr. JoRDAN. No, sir. The guayule research program funding level of
$668,000 in 1988 will be maintained in 1989.
Senator HARKIN. None whatsoever?
Dr. JoRDAN. That is correct.
Senator HARKIN. Any increase?
Dr. JoRDAN. No. It is exactly the same figure, sir.
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS
Senator HARKIN. I see. One more thing, Dr. Bentley, and also Dr.
Jordan, on the CSRS budget. The budget document indicates you in-
tend to spend $21 million in CSRS for competitive grants and biotechni-
cal research. It is an increase of $2.6 million over last year. Can you
provide a division of the funding between, again, nonfood product-
oriented research and food product research on that? Can you provide
me with a breakdown of that?
Dr. JoRDAN. If I may do that for the record, Senator, our normal way
is dividing the biotechnology program by plant and animal categories.
We can do it on food and nonfood uses. The basic research, a great
deal of it will be a matter of Some interpretation, but we will try to ad-
dress it with good logic and lay it out for you.
[The information follows:]
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS
The fiscal year 1987 competitive research grants in the biotechnology category were
split $6.6 million for animal and animal-associated organisms and $11.4 million for
plants and plant-associated insects and microorganisms.
All of the animal biotechnology research would be considered food product research
as a majority of the projects are carried out directly on food animals or their infectious
organisms. Even a project that uses nonfood animals as an experimental system has an
ultimate objective to understand problems in food animals.
In the plant research areas, $2.8 million was spent on research directly related to
food products, and $0.3 million on research directly related to nonfood products. The
remaining research projects addressed biotechnology problems in general using various
plants ($4.7 million), plant-associated insects ($0.8 million), or plant-associated microor-
ganisms ($2.8 million) as experimental Systems. The results from these research ac-
tivities would apply to both food products and nonfood products. For example, studies
on secondary metabolites in plants may lead to the development of new crops that
produce chemicals used for industrial or medical purposes; basic understanding of cel-
lulose synthesis in plants may lead to improved fiber-producing crops; and fundamental
research on genetic engineering in plants will provide basic information necessary to
develop new uses for crop plants.
NONFOOD USES
Senator HARKIN. I would appreciate that. Dr. Bentley, as we look to
using agricultural materials for nonfood uses, I think we have to look
not only at modifying plants and materials from the plant, but at the
whole system, from beginning to end, down to the types of waste that
are being produced.
Let me just give you an example. There is a facility being built in
155
Cedar Rapids, IA, to use fermentation to make certain catalysts. I don't
know that I understand all of that.
This would make it easier, believe it or not, to make artificial snow
for recreational Services. It is a value-added product they get from corn.
The problem is, that in doing this fermentation process, there is waste
material that is very high in protein, as I understand it. Yet what they
intend to do with this waste material is just sort of dump it into the
sewer System.
Cedar Rapids' sewer can handle it, but it sort of puts them right to
the limit. There ought to be some way that you can take that protein
and other material that is left over and do something with it.
If we can find Some ways to cut down on this waste and find some
way of reducing the cost of the fermentation, then perhaps many new
products can become viable. I mention that only because there is a
whole stream, to use an analogy, and I think that we shouldn't just look
at the beginning of the stream, but on down the stream, where there
may be some research components that would help in the non-food
uses of the plants.
Again, I just want to bring that to your attention as other areas to
look at in this kind of research. What I would like to know is, are there
any limits, legislatively or otherwise, to your funding Some kind of com-
petitive grants or the like in those areas that would be downstream, let's
say, from the initial agricultural component?
Dr. JoRDAN. Senator, CSRS has the responsibility for those, and the
mechanisms range all the way from very fundamental research, which
we generally tend to do in a competitive mode, to targeted programs in
the special grants program, which also undergo merit review, to the
formula-based programs, to those that go into the demonstration arena
so we have a capacity and an authority, Senator, to do each and every
one of those levels.
Senator HARKIN. So the answer is that basically, there is nothing
really restricting you from doing that?
Dr. JoRDAN. That is correct, Sir.
Senator HARKIN. Sir?
Dr. BENTLEY. Can I just comment? No, there is not. I don't know of
any restrictions. There are restrictions of money, of course, to do work
on that. This is something I agree with very much, but you have to
look at the total change that the System would make. We find this in
connection with the alternative energy uses, and in various places we
have to think about the total System. *
There have been Some innovative things done in industry. One group
in Decatur, IL, is using the effluent of this type for production of
vegetables in greenhouses. It is most profitable to do it during the
winter season because of the sale of the products from that particular
location.
Now, that is not as easy to do in hydroponics. People thought at the
beginning that they could just put up Some equipment and put the
material through and the vegetables would grow. They found out that
156
you have to be very careful how you control all of these items. I think
that a few times they experienced a complete die-off of a whole green-
house and material because Somebody didn't watch Some of the various
parameters as far as the nutrient media is concerned.
That is one illustration of things that we can do. Then there is a mat-
ter of whether you can find ways of concentrating protein and getting it
out. There is an economic side, because you are usually dealing with a
great deal of effluent water, and that costs money to handle. Of course,
we dry it down to transport it.
So I agree with you. There is a whole series of these things, and if we
can find better ways to use them, we can then begin to charge off Some
of the costs of the nonfood use product. We all have to remember that
when using proteins for animal feeds, we have got Some very good
Sources, and natural ones, Soybeans being a good example of it. Also,
you have got a price on competition to look into, but that doesn't mean
we shouldn't continue to look at them. I think that we will see changes
in this, especially if we have the capability to manipulate organisms, to
do things. We are even talking about biopulping of timber products,
which is Something that, 25 years ago, I doubt if anybody ever dreamed
could be done. -
I think this is the time it arises and the reason we get So excited
about some of the things we might be able to do in the future.
Senator HARKIN. I just want to compliment you on what you just Said
a little bit ago and on your history of trying to move into more research
of nonfood uses, I believe. I would hope that we would, both ARS and
through CSRS, move more in that direction and get a better balance of
these research dollars for nonfood uses of Some of these products.
USES OF STIRLING ENGINE
I will just wrap up, Mr. Chairman, by Saying you mentioned alterna-
tive energy uses. I have a long and abiding interest, from my days on
the House side where I was on the Science and Technology Committee,
in the uses of the Stirling engine. In July 1987, you published a request
for proposals for external combustion engine research, for development,
to use Solid fuels for agricultural water pumping.
I have a series of questions here dealing with that. I want to know
how many proposals you received and how many were from univer-
sities; how many grants were given out; Some of the tradeoffs between
diesel fuel and the costs of this. Again, I don’t have the time here, but I
would like to Submit these to you and get Some information, because I
think this is another area, alternative energy uses, using external com-
bustion engines, that we should look at.
Dr. BENTLEY. We are already preparing responses to questions on the
external combustion engine research asked at this subcommittee hearing
with Secretary Lyng.
Senator HARKIN. Is that on that Specific subject?
Dr. BENTLEY. Yes; the questions are on the external combustion en-
gine and we will be glad to respond to your questions.
157
Senator HARKIN. Again, I want to compliment all of you on moving
in this direction.
Dr. BENTLEY. If I can summarize, we would thank you for trying to
do that and take a look at it. We don't wish to move precipitiously; we
want to be realistic and try to make Sound decisions, and Sometimes
you have to think it through rather carefully because there may be
more ramifications. What seems to be a simple Solution can have a lot
of other ramifications.
You have already referred to Some of them; the economics of it;
there is the Scientific validity of the idea and all of that that needs to be
considered. We are doing it, and I assure you we think this is an im-
portant area to investigate. We have been doing it for a long time, but
we think it has got a renewed significance for right now.
Senator HARKIN. If I could just get your support for S. 970? Thank
yOu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Cochran.
Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is getting late, and
I appreciate very much your recognizing me. I am going to make just a
few brief comments and then Submit all the questions I have so that
they can be answered and included in the record. I shall not take up
the time of the committee or the witnesses with my questions.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET ITEMS
I see that the ARS budget is reduced by about $26.5 million,
primarily due to lack of requests for buildings and facilities funds.
However, I am pleased to See an increased interest in the funding for
the areas of improved ground water quality, pesticide application tech-
niques, and new test methods to detect bacterial residues in foods.
These are very important areas of research, and I am glad to see that
the Department continues to place a high priority on them.
In the Cooperative State Research Service, I am also pleased to note
an expanded Competitive Grants Program to provide increased em-
phasis on biotechnology, plant and animal Sciences, and human
nutrition.
There is even a small increase of $2 million for the 1890 Institutions
to support research on rural and Small-scale farming issues. However, I
am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that CSRS and Extension
Service special grants have again been eliminated.
With regard to the Extension Service, I feel that at no time has there
been a greater need for the transfer of new technology to the agricul-
ture producers than now So that they can maintain profitability and
competitiveness in world markets.
Last year, there were Some Small increases provided to the states
through the Smith-Lever formula funds. Funding for programs, such as
the Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide Impact Assessment, financial
management and renewable resources allowed the States to continue
quality programs that have been SO Successful in the past.
83—470 O – 88 – 6
158
Continuation of EFNEP, Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program, allowed for expansion and strengthening of the nutrition
programs to low-income people in our states. The Rural Development
Centers received small increases to address revitalization in rural
America.
I worry that we may not be providing the leadership reflected in the
budget that is necessary to help meet these needs in our states. Other
than that, I am going to Submit these questions and observations. Some
of the issues I have touched on are old ones like fire ants, but I See that
maybe we have Some progress in that area, Dr. Kinney. I am hopeful
that we can come up with an effective control agent in that area. So
that is one area I have touched on, and you get a chance to tell us what
is going on in many of these areas.
I notice that Dr. Kinney, who has been the ARS Administrator for 7
years now, is retiring. This is his last appearance before the committee,
and I just want to commend you for the fine work you have done and
wish you well in your future activities.
It has been a pleasure Seeing you on these occasions and working
with you during your tenure as Administrator of ARS.
Dr. KINNEY. Thank you.
Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any other comments,
but I would like to submit these questions for the record. I also have
Some questions from Senator Hatfield. He would like to have them
answered for the record. Thank you very much.
GROUND WATER QUALITY
Senator BURDICK. I have one last question, and I will submit the
balance of my questions for reply. One of the big issues that I believe
affects all three agencies here is that of water quality research and
management. Last year, the conference committee noted the importance
of water quality research and asked the President to submit a budget re-
quest reflecting the importance of the fiscal year 1989 budget.
The President has done that and has requested an increase to im-
prove ground water quality through the Agricultural Research Service.
The experiment stations and the state universities and land-grant col-
leges are proposing a $25 million initiative on water quality through the
Cooperative State Research Service and $15 million for extension work
related to water quality. They cite this issue as a No. 1 priority for the
nation.
What is your assessment of the water quality situation in this
country?
Dr. BENTLEY. I would like to just make a few comments, Senator. Of
the issues that have been identified as high-priority issues through our
whole process, whether it is the Joint Council and so forth, is one of
water quality.
It has been identified as a need, and I think there is a lot of redirect-
ing of effort within the state systems, both in Extension and the CSRS,
to address that issue, as well as the funding within ARS.
159
We are also working with the other agencies of the government to try
to get better communications through a joint effort, so that we can max-
imize the utilization of resources that we have, data bases, both from
the past and present, So we can address that issue. It involves working
with EPA, working with the USGS, outside of the agencies, to some
degree, the National Science Foundation, but there is also a need to
bring these kinds of activities together, and we have a working group
within the Department.
I have asked my associate, Mr. Bob Long, who is here beside me, to
be the one to give special attention to this with regard to the research
and education activities. I think there is going to be a need for con-
tinued funding of this program over time, because it is very important
that it addresses agricultural issues but also issues related to the waste
disposal Systems, toxic wastes and So on.
It is a complicated issue because of the variability. I believe that
Senator Kasten pointed out so well a great variability of soils and a
great variability in the biological systems involving water. I think it is
an area of continuing interest and concern.
DIRECTION OF WATER QUALITY RESEARCH
Senator BURDICK. What direction do you feel that this water quality
initiative should take?
Dr. BENTLEY. I will first attempt to answer and ask my colleagues to
add to my remarks. One of the first pressing issues is to find out what
is happening to complex organic materials as they percolate through the
soil. There are some serious questions about when it has been degraded
in the Soil and its influence of how it moves within the Soil and later
down into the water table.
There have been some very interesting studies that show the move-
ment of materials is extensive and that it is hard to predict exactly what
is happening. One of the reasons is we are beginning now to find
residues of materials that had been used 30 years ago starting to show
up in the water supplies in Some places.
That is the nature of the problem. I think that has to be studied. Our
major emphasis in the past has been on Smaller ions. Inorganic ions, for
example, are minerals. Now we have to look at these other complicated
ISSUICS.
That is one issue, how does it move; what is happening, So we have a
better data base. Then, of course, it is a matter of what can we do now
to prevent problems, say, 10 to 15 years from now. We want to know
how these things happen. I am thinking about the agricultural applica-
tions. Many of the products can be modified—the way we apply and
utilize these products. That is one area, the systems of farming and
agriculture is another area that is being looked at.
So these are three general ones. Mr. Long, do you care to add to
that?
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, only to the extent that we have a different
issue in front of us than we have examined through research and other
160
efforts in the past. In the past years, we have looked at water quality
primarily from the agricultural standpoint, of the salt content and
degradation of the water quality from the standpoint of its use in
agricultural production.
What has come into the circle in the last few years, and it has caused
you and the rest of us considerable concern, is that organic compounds,
frequently referred to as pesticides, are now showing up in water in
various areas, including our drinking water. That is a deep concern.
There is a great deal that we have to learn about this, and we do not
know what we need to know at this point in time.
Considerable research effort on our part and on the part of others
and also what we can tolerate in terms of these materials will be, in the
years ahead, one of the important issues.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley.
SOIL TILTH LABORATORY
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say to
the members of the panel from USDA, that I am sorry that I was not
able to be here for your opening Statements. I probably am asking some
questions that were previously asked, as I know for sure that Senator
Harkin had asked you questions earlier about why funding was not
included for the Soil Tilth Center.
As a followup of Senator Harkin's question, I would like to State that
I have received a letter this week from Peter Myers, the Deputy
Secretary, following up on Several questions that I asked Secretary Lyng
last week.
I had asked the Secretary if the Department was still committed to a
continuation of the Soil Tilth Laboratory at Iowa State University. Mr.
Myers' response indicates that the Agricultural Research Service has
been working with Iowa State Scientists to prepare a plan for the staff-
ing and operation of the center.
Could you tell me Something about this plan and the status of the
implementation?
Dr. KINNEY. Senator Grassley, let me comment briefly. Last year, we
redirected out of management savings over $400,000 into that labora-
tory. We currently have five Scientists and about $1 million committed
to that facility. It is about 50 percent completed. We expect it to be
completed in October of this year.
As part of the fiscal year 1989 budget request, $400,000 and about
two scientists of the $4 million ground water quality package are
Scheduled for that Soil Tilth Laboratory. So we will have about $1.4 mil-
lion and 7 staff-years, about one-third of the full operation. We expect
to complete that in increments as quickly as possible.
As I said earlier, we are working with the colleagues at Iowa State
and at other locations to develop the final program there.
Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I just hope that the Department will do
everything they can to work out the funding so that we can assure the
operation of the facility as intended and, hopefully, on time.
16]
PLANT SCIENCE CENTERS
Dr. Jordan, you discussed earlier the Department's support for the
Joint Plant Science Centers. I know, then, that you had an expression
of interest in this program, and I appreciate that. If you could go into
more detail about these centers, I would be interested to know USDA's
long-term plan for the development and utilization of these centers.
Dr. JoRDAN. This is a joint program involving NSF, DOE, and
USDA. The fiscal year 1989 proposal totals $10 million for the three
agencies. The intent is to focus on centers without walls. We are talking
about intellectual centers, not about geographic ones, per se. We are
talking about cooperative programs put together with Scientific talent
from wherever it may be.
The expectation is that these will be funded in the range of $0.5 to
$2.5 million per year and will be selected from a set of proposals that
will be reviewed jointly by the three agencies, ranked and then the
issue of which centers will be funded by which agency will be deter-
mined after the selection process has been completed.
Dr. Bentley has given national leadership to this, in cooperation with
Mr. Erich Bloch from NSF and their counterparts in the Department of
Energy. We are talking about basic fundamental knowledge in the plant
science areas, and Dr. Luis Sequeira will be the chief Scientist that
initiates this program.
Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to Submit Something for the record.
Are you finished? -
Dr. JORDAN. Yes, Sir. .
Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to submit for the record an internal
Department of Agriculture memo that inspires great concern. I think
this memo indicates there is an awful lot of foot-dragging in the
Department regarding these Plant Science Centers.
For instance, just Some statements, although I am going to include
the entire memo in the record.
We conclude that no funds have been dedicated to the establishment of Plant
Science Centers. There was no reference request or comment made regarding the na-
tional distribution of funds beyond the fact that the money would be used for competi-
tive grant programs in Plant Science with an emphasis upon biotechnology,
I could go on and on, but I am not going to.
I think that you shouldn't have any doubt as to what congressional in-
tent was in this program. I think these memos indicate otherwise, and
of course, I hope that the attitude expressed in the memo is not
prevalent throughout USDA.
I am going to look forward to working with the people in USDA, to
working on any questions that you have, so that you are convinced that
our support for this program is Solid.
Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions.
[The information follows:]
162
MEMO FROM MICHAEL HOBACK, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
To: Orville G. Bentley, Assistant Secretary, Science and Education
Subject: Competitive Research Grants for Plant Sciences
As you requested, I have reviewed the letter from Newton O. Cattell, director of the
Midwestern Universities Alliance, regarding competitive research grants for plant
science (Cooperative State Research Service).
I have reviewed the Conference Report which accompanied H.J. Res. 395, making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988. The
conferees merely referenced the appropriation of $42,372,000 for competitive grants,
and inserted the distribution table which indicates an appropriation level of $12,126,000
for plant science, the same funding level as fiscal year 1987. No directive or ex-
planatory language was included. The bill, H.J. Res. 395, contained only the reference
to the actual amount of the appropriation.
The Senate appropriations report included no directives or explanatory language
beyond the following: “The Committee continues its commitment to the competitive
grants method of fostering and promoting increased levels of basic agricultural research
in our Nation.” Likewise, the House appropriations report contained no directives or ex-
planatory language on competitive research grants other than to amounts included.
The administration had requested $15,484,000 for competitive research grants for
plant science, an increase of $3,358,000 over fiscal year 1987. The stated purpose of the
proposed increase was for use in funding the plant Science centers. As the conferees ap-
propriated $12,126,000 for fiscal year 1988, the same as contained in the fiscal year
1987 continuing resolution, we can conclude that no funds have been dedicated for the
establishment of plant science centers. We can also conclude that, in the absence of
report language, it would appear feasible to use a portion of the plant science funds
for a competitive program for the establishment of the centers.
Mr. Cattell suggests in his letter that Congress intended that $1.642 million be used
for the establishment of a regional consortia because of an “increase” on the “biotech-
nology” (plant science category) line from $3.8 to $5 million. This “non-add” (advisory)
item was included by the conferees without explanation. As you are aware, I had
numerous conversations with various staff members regarding the competitive grants ap-
propriation during the conference process. There was no reference, request, or com-
ment made regarding the actual distribution of the funds beyond the fact that the
money would be used for a competitive grants program in plant science with an em-
phasis on biotechnology.
MICHAEL HOBACK,
Confidential Assistant,
Science and Education.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator HARKIN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley.
I have no further questions. The following Senators have submitted ad-
ditional questions, Dr. Bentley: Senator Burdick, Senator McClure,
Senator Byrd, Senator Chiles, Senator Kasten, myself—Senator Harkin,
Senator Bumpers, Senator Cochran, and Senator Hatfield.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were sub-
mitted for response for the record:]
163
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Question: In the fiscal year 1988 appropriations bill, we
requested nine feasibility studies on research facilities. What is
the status of these studies?
Answer: The guidelines for the nine feasibility studies for
research facilities were sent to the universities on February 12,
1988. Upon receipt of proposals from each university, CSRS will
execute a cooperative agreement with the institution. In the
meantime documentation is being prepared by each institution for
evaluation, following which we will make a site visit and prepare
the final feasibility report.
Question: When do you expect to complete them and send them
to the Committee ?
Answer: The Cooperative State Research Service hopes to
submit these feasibility studies to Congress in July.
Question: We also requested a report reviewing the proposals
for Biotechnology Centers. This report was requested prior to the
fiscal year 1989 hearings. Have you submitted this report?
Answer: At this time the biotechnology report is going
through the Department's clearing process and should be submitted
SOOIl e
Question: What is your assessment of the need for a
high-containment poultry research laboratory?
Answer: In fiscal year 1988, $375,000 has been appropriated
to upgrade the poultry lab and isolation facility at the University
of Arkansas.
Disease losses across the poultry industry are estimated to be
more than $2.0 billion annually.
A research facility for investigations that would solve a
substantial portion of the losses due to highly infectious viruses,
bacteria and toxins and allow a research team to reduce losses by
finding answers to serious disease outbreaks should make a very
significant contribution.
Question: What is your assessment for other high-containment
facilities?
Answer: High containment facilities, whether they are used for
animal holding during infectious or toxic disease trials, security
for study of certain products of biotechnology in animals, or as
isolation-security for laboratories involved with unknown
microbials or highly infectious agents in Animal Health research,
are necessary tools in the application of the latest scientific
technologies and methods. Not all institutions will necessarily
need high containment facilities in order to make significant
164
contributions to research and problem solving in this area.
However, there must be adequate facilities available that will
allow the proper security for research and evaluation studies when
handling potential pathogens which could jeopardize the well-being
of our U.S herds and flocks, our wildlife and the environment. Of
course, many animal pathogens have human health related concerns
which must be a major consideration in assuring proper security.
BARLEY
Question: I understand that the Agricultural Research Service
has developed a new comprehensive plan of research for the barley
yellow dwarf virus problem.
Could you please explain what your plan involved and the
funding contemplated in fiscal years 1988 and 1989 for this
research?
Answer: The plan included a description of the problem, a
summary of progress made to date, and a description of the research
to be undertaken in the future. The plan was reviewed by ARS,
State agricultural experiment station, and private sector
scientists who expressed satisfaction with it. Our program for
1988 and 1989 will be supported by $1,118,300.
Question: I understand that much of this work will be done at
the Plant Gene Expression Center at Albany, California.
Do you expect all of the barley yellow dwarf virus work to be
done at this location, and if not, where else will the research be
conducted?
Answer: In addition to research at Albany, California, there
will be major research programs at our Ithaca, New York, and
Urbana, Illinois, locations with smaller projects at Pullman,
Washington; West Lafayette, Indiana; University Park, Pennsylvania;
and Brookings, South Dakota.
Question: What results do you expect from this effort and
what is your timeframe for achieving those results?
Answer: The barley yellow dwarf virus affects oats, barley,
and wheat and is spread by many species of insects. Varieties of
these crops have been developed that have various levels of
tolerance to this disease, but none are totally immune to infection
by the virus. This being the situation, our goal is to produce
breeding lines of all three crops that are immune to the virus or
its insect vectors by developing and utilizing genetic engineering
and other biotechnological techniques. This will require 5 to 8
years.
PLANT GENE EXPRESSION FOR DISEASE RESISTANCE
Question: Also, please identify how other specific disease
problems affecting major economic crops could be addressed at the
Plant Gene Expression Center, and cite the resource requirements
for each disease problem.
165
Answer: Comparable research approaches involving
identification and location of resistant disease genes, developing
gene transfer techniques, and understanding how to achieve and
regulate gene expression can be done at the Plant Gene Expression
Center for many crop diseases, just as will be done for Barley
Yellow Dwarf Virus on barley, oats, and wheat. Major crop diseases
that could be addressed are wheat rust, potato blight, and
sugarbeet leaf spot, just to name a few. The resource requirements
for each disease problem at the Plant Gene Expression Center are
$250,000 per year. -
BARLEY RESEARCH
Question: Please explain the amount of work you are doing on
barley germplasm enhancement and evaluation. For example, how many
samples do you have, and at what rate are you classifying them?
Answer: The National Plant Germplasm System maintains 25, 558
different samples of barley seed including wild types, and provides
program support for genetic and cytogenetic stock collections.
Complete field descriptions have been obtained for over 8,000 of
the samples. Evaluations for priority diseases such as barley
yellow dwarf (7,000), spot blotch (9,000), net blotch (5,000) and
barley stripe (5,000) have been completed for the noted number of
accessions and these and other evaluations continue. The data are
made available through the GRIN database to barley researchers who
utilize the resistant genes in their breeding programs.
Question: What is your long-term projection for evaluation
and enhancement of barley germplasm?
Answer: Evaluation and enhancement of the barley collection
will proceed in a systematic manner by established laboratories
utilizing the prioritized guidelines developed by the Barley Crop
Advisory Committee (CAC) and the National Barley Improvement
Committee. Evaluation in barley, as with other commodities, is an
ongoing process first addressing top priority descriptors involving
such traits as stress, disease, and insect resistance and quality
for feed or malt. Enhancement activities transfer valuable traits
from specific plants identified in the evaluation efforts to useful
breeding types. Evaluation and enhancement will continue as long
as there is a commercial need for crop improvement.
LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE
Question: Please list and describe the research that is being
done on low-input agriculture through ARS.
Please provide the funding 1evels for fiscal years 1988 and
1989 for this research.
Answer: The information for FY 1988 follows:
166
Description and Budget of Research Being Done on
Low Input Agriculture Throughout ARS
FY 88
Research Description Appropriation
Soil Fertility. Develop lower cost methods to § 13.9M
reduce top soil loss. Determine levels of nutrients
needed to maximize net economic return. Characterize
nitrogen requirements of crops through the growing
season. Determine rates of nitrification from crop
residues, manure, and ammonium and urea fertilizers.
Develop systems in which mycorrhizae can help crops
get nutrients from the soil and thereby allow
reasonable crop production with lower nutrient
concentrations. Develop management systems which
match nitrogen sources to crop needs to minimize
potentials for groundwater pollution, reduce costs of
inputs, and optimize nitrogen uptake by the crop.
Irrigation. Develop efficient lower cost irrigation $ 12.9M
systems. Develop efficient irrigation systems
which use less energy. Determine which crops can
most effectively use saline water and develop
management plans to gain the most benefit there from .
Development of cropping and tillage systems which
facilitate deeper and more intensive rooting of
crops, thereby providing more water to crops,
mitigating droughts, and reducing the need for
irrigation. Developing improved criteria for when to
irrigate and how much water to apply to reduce water
required while minimizing crop water stress. Placement
of fertilizer and furrows to keep nitrates out of water
percolating to the groundwater from crop root systems.
Conservation Tillage. Develop management strategies $ 3.4M
which overcome the negative effects of reduced
tillage systems and enable farmers to adopt this low
input and conservation effective practice. Develop
analytical techniques for optimizing the management
of agricultural chemicals to get them to their
targets and reduce their concentrations in
groundwater. Develop technology and integrated
management systems to control toxic ions in
irrigation return flows and develop agricultural
production and resource conservation strategies that
are economically feasible and compatible with
environmental goals. -
Germplasm. Collect, classify, evaluate, preserve, $ 8.9M
and distribute plant germplasm for use by federal,
state, and private research groups. Collect,
classify, evaluate, preserve and distribute germplasm
of beneficial organisms and strains of micro- and
meso-fauna which have potential in biological pest
management programs. ARS seed banks contain over
450,000 accessions of crops and related varieties
167
Description and Budget of Research Being Done on
Low Input Agriculture Throughout ARS
FY 88
Research Description Appropriation
which are made available free of charge to those who
wish to breed varieties which will increase production
efficiency or reduce inputs.
Germplasm Modification. Select and develop $ 25.6M
germplasm which is tolerant to acid soils and can
be given to crop breeders to develop varieties which
will produce well on acid soils, thereby reducing or
eliminating the need for lime. Identifying crop
varieties which are more resistant to nematode damage
and providing this germplasm and information to crop
breeders who can incorporate this characteristic into
varieties with other desirable characteristics.
Similar research to identify germplasm tolerant or
resistant to other stresses, diseases, and insects is
in process which will reduce the need for water,
insecticides, and disease control chemicals.
Crop Production Efficiency. Increase knowledge of $ 16.9M
plant evelopment processes and associations with
microorganisms which result in symbiotic relations
such as rhizobia (nitrogen fixation), mycorrhizae
(for more efficient uptake of plant nutrients and
water). Development of management systems which will
optimize production and minimize inputs in range,
pasture, field crops, and horticultural crops. Develop
technology to allow bee keepers and farmers to maintain
adequate populations of pollinators to optimize crop
and honey yields at minimum costs.
Plant Protection. Develop knowledge of growth, § 13.9M
development, and population processes of insects,
nematodes, and other pests as bases for development
of improved and lower cost control technology.
Develop knowledge of etiology, epidemiology, and
pathogenicity of plant pathogens as a basis for
improved and lower cost control technology. Provide
economically feasible technology for protecting range
and pasture, forage, field, and horticultural crops
from losses caused by insects, nematodes, and
diseases. Develop knowledge of the biology of weeds
to determine their vulnerability to less costly
methods of control and develop technology to achieve
that control. Develop agricultural chemical
technology for reducing crop losses due to weeds
and pests.
Management Systems. Develop improved production $ 7.1M
systems and prediction and decision making models
for different climatic zones and farm enterprises
which will optimize economic return.
TOTAL $102.7M
168
Funding for FY 1989 will continue at the FY 1988 program level plus
projected increases of $4 million in ground water quality research
and $1 million for improved pesticide application technology.
LOW-INPUT AGRICULTURE
Question: Dr. Kinney, last year in your testimony before this
Committee, you indicated that ARS is spending upward of $22 million
per year that relates directly to low-input agriculture. The House
Report accompanying the fiscal year 1988 Agricultural Appropri-
ations Act indicated that ARS is spending $101 million on low-input
agriculture.
Could you please reconcile these two figures for the
Committee?
Answer: The funding of $22 million indicated in the testimony
last year was for research on organic farming. Organic farming is
part of our definition of low-input agriculture. This was
low-input agriculture at its most narrow definition. The funding
level of $101 million refers to the overall effort to economize on
production inputs and costs where possible in order to improve
production efficiency and farm profitability.
Low-input agriculture involves research on biocontrol;
integrated pest management; soil and water conservation and
development; pesticide application techniques; improvement of
groundwater quality; cropping and tillage systems; plant germplasm
of beneficial organisms and plant germplasm resistant to stresses,
diseases and insects; etc.
POTATOES
Question: The fiscal year 1988 appropriation included an
increase of $1,250,000 for potato research. Are you working with
the National Potato Council on this research?
Answer: Yes, we have been working closely with the National
Potato Council on national priorities and also on allocation of
these increase funds.
Question: Please provide a list of your potato research
locations with the amount of funding for each location for fiscal
years 1988 and 1989. Please specify the specialty of research
conducted at each location.
Answer: The information for FY 1988 follows:
169
FY 1988
Location Estimated
ARS Headquarters - Funds held for extramural $ 866,000
research on ring rot, early dying, and
scab disease problems.
Albany, CA - Development of genetic engineering $ 438,400
techniques and gene expression of economically
important genes of potato. Plant cell transformation
studies for improved potato quality.
Aberdeen, ID - Development of improved pest $ 301,000
resistant varieties and research on disease control.
Kimberly, ID - Irrigation and soil studies to control $ 397,000
or reduce incidence of dark end disorder.
Beltsville, MD - Germplasm evaluation, gene $1,912, 200
enhancement, and breeding improved varieties;
protoplast fusion and other genetic engineering
techniques; processing germplasm introductions;
pathogen-host interactions and genetics of resistance;
and biological control of potato insects. Field trials
for the breeding program are located at Presque Isle,
Maine.
Orono, ME - Potato disease control, integrated pest $ 261,900
management techniques, and effect of soil and water
stress on potato production.
East Grand Forks, MN - Physical properties and other $ 990, 100
factors associated with processed potato quality,
volatiles and prediction of potato quality from bulk
storage, processing quality factors of potatoes
following storage, and evaluation of potential new
varieties for processing attributes.
Ithaca, NY - Evaluation of potato germplasm for $ 372,400
nematode resistance, biology and control of golden
nematode, and biological control mechanisms for
potato diseases.
Wooster, OH - Management and control of potato $ 47,800
insects. -
Wyndmoor, PA - Biochemical and ultrastructural $ 889,700
features of interactions of potato diseases with
host plant, mycotoxin production in plants, and
improved food processing methods for potatoes.
Yakima, WA - Insect behavior, insect ecology, $ 374,000
biological control, and improved methods of pest
control of potato insects.
170
FY 1988
Location Estimated
Prosser, WA - Evaluation of potato germplasm, gene $ 750, 500
enhancement, and development of new improved
varieties.
Madison, WI - Classification, evaluation, $ 556,700
preservation, and distribution of introduced germplasm;
potato genetics and cytogenetics; and protoplast fusion
and other genetic engineering techniques.
TOTAL $8,157,700
The level of funding for FY 1989 remains the same.
Question: How is the $1,250,000 increase for fiscal year 1988
being allocated among these locations?
Answer: The funds are to be allocated as follows: $835,000 to
ARS Headquarters for funding 17 specific extramural agreements with
10 States; $100,000 to Beltsville, MD, for specific research on
early dying and ring rot disease problems; and $315,000 to East
Grand Forks, MN, for marketing research. Out of this $315,000, in
fiscal year 1988, $15,600 will be temporarily reassigned to Albany,
CA, for potato gene manipulation to reduce blackspot sensitivity
and $6,200 to Aberdeen, ID, for breeding to control blackspot.
Question: What is the amount of funds going to East Grand
Forks potato laboratory for fiscal year 1988 and what is expected
for fiscal year 1989?
Answer: We estimate $990, 100 going to East Grand Forks in
fiscal year 1988 and the same amount in fiscal year 1989.
RENAISSANCE '93
Question: What is the current status of the Renaissance '93
Program?
Answer: Renaissance '93 is a program to restore and upgrade
the facilities and equipment of the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center and of the U.S. National Arboretum. The program
was initiated in Fiscal Year 1986 in response to a Congressional
directive. Improvements were made in FY 1986, FY 1987 and FY 1988
as follows:
In FY 1986, $8,262,057 was allocated for modernization of
facilities and equipment as follows: 1) Renovation was initiated
of a 50-year-old building into a fully modern facility to house the
Plant Molecular Genetics Laboratory, 2) a gene transfer facility
for livestock research was constructed, 3) a small animal facility
was constructed for research on parasites of livestock, 4) state-
of-the-art scientific equipment was procured, and 5) the roof on
the Bioscience Building (B-011A) was replaced.
171
In FY 1987, $8,074, 164 was allocated for modernization of
facilities and equipment as follows: 1) the second phase of
constructing a metabolism facility for large animals was initiated,
2) renovation of one greenhouse for florist and nursery crops was
initiated, 3) one growth chamber was procured for plant physiology
research, 4) the engineering design for future repair of the roofs
of six buildings was accomplished, 5) a 400 megahertz NMR and other
scientific equipment totaling $2,275,929 was procured, 6) Circle
Drive was rebuilt, 7) a portion of the steam lines was replaced,
and 8) plans were developed for the complete renovation of a major
50-year-old building (B-007) to house research on natural
IC eSOU11ſ Ce S e
In FY 1988, approximately $11.1 million will be allocated as
follows: 1) renovate B-007 for research on natural resources,
2) develop engineering plans for the renovation of the
administration building (B-003), 3) renovate B-264 to conduct
research on swine reproduction, 4) renovate the engineering
building (B-303), 5) install a heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning system in the chemistry building (B-306),
6) conduct an engineering study for the partial restoration of the
brickyard at the U.S. National Arboretum, 7) rebuild Soil
Conservation Road, 8) develop engineering design for the renovation
of one building (B-307) for human nutrition research, and 9) repair
some steam lines and water lines, etc.
Question: How much funding is included in the Fiscal Year
1988 and Fiscal Year 1989 Budgets for this program?
Answer: In FY 1988, the following sums are available:
Renaissance '93 Designated Funds $ 1,000,000
ARS Repair and Maintenance Line Item 3,000,000
Building and Facilities Appropriation 5,750,000
ARS Annual (non-recurring) 1,350,000
TOTAL $11,100,000
Also, an additional $450,000 from the FY 1987 supplemental
appropriation will be obligated for the Beltsville Soil
Conservation Road repair.
In FY 1989, we anticipate that the following amounts will be
available:
Renaissance '93 Designated Funds $1,000,000
ARS Repair and Maintenance Line Item,
Anticipated FY 1989 Appropriation
Increase 1,347,000
ARS Repair and Maintenance Line Item 3,000,000
Beltsville Program Assessment 2,253,000
TOTAL $7,600,000
Question: The Committee understands that the Renaissance '93
project is being reassessed. Has that reassessment occurred, and
if so, what does it show? If not, when do you expect to complete
the assessment?
172
Answer: ARS released the initial Renaissance 93 document in
late 1985, but designated funding for some of the listed items has
only recently become available. In beginning to implement the
overall objective of modernizing the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center, it became clear that even basic repairs to
existing buildings would be a very expensive undertaking which
would not necessarily result in a facility which would serve the
Agency's needs throughout a facility planning timeframe of 20 to
40 years. In conjunction with the Department, it was determined
that a more comprehensive planning effort should be pursued to
consider future program configurations at BARC and their facility
requirements.
Our enhanced planning process will not impede progress in
upgrading BARC. We have identified a number of projects which will
be necessary under any scenario to provide basic utility, safety,
health and transportation services at the site. We are continuing
with these basic priority projects while we further refine and
develop our research and administrative facility plans. While an
incremental approach to providing the basic utility and road
requirements is an appropriate approach, when applied to actual
laboratory and administrative space it frequently results in a
fragmented, cost-inefficient product that provides less than
optimum facilities for the type of technologically advanced
research which is comprising an increasingly large share of the
work at BARC.
We are currently soliciting proposals for completion of the
BARC Modernization Study and plan to award a contract by late
summer. We expect completion within one year of contract award,
with intermediate progress reviews on a quarterly basis. The study
will work from information available in the ARS 6-year program
plan, Renaissance 93, an Agency repair and maintenance plan and
Other program and facility planning information. Results of the
Study will provide the basis for a phased modernization of BARC
which will address:
o program structure and content for the facility planning horizon
o facility requirements (type and quantity) to meet projected
program needs
o appropriate means of providing facilities (new/renovation)
o long-term operating cost considerations/life cycle cost
efficiencies
o appropriate phasing of facility work to minimize disruption
GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
Question: How much money is being spent on biological control
of grasshoppers?
Please provide the information by location for Fiscal Year
1988 and Fiscal Year 1989, and summarize the work that is being
done .
173
Answer:
be funded at the same level.
ARS has budgeted $279, 500 at Bozeman, MT, and
$212,000 at Ithaca, NY, on grasshopper biocontrol in FY 88. This
includes $62, 100 for cooperative research at North Dakota State
University on the grasshopper fungus disease. FY 89 is expected to
This research effort is in direct
support of the interagency grasshopper integrated pest management
program in North Dakota and Idaho.
Biocontrol agents under
investigation are Nosema and a virus at Bozeman and a fungus at
Ithaca and North Dakota State University.
Question:
WATER QUALITY
I understand that you propose an increase of $4
million for research to improve groundwater quality.
Please provide the Committee with the amount of research that
ARS is doing on water quality by location and amount for Fiscal
Year 1988 and estimated for Fiscal Year 1989.
Answer:
Question:
The amount of research that ARS is doing on water
quality by location and amount for Fiscal Year 1988 and estimated
for Fiscal Year 1989 is shown in the following table:
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Fresno, CA
Riverside, CA
'Akron, CO
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Tifton, GA
Kimberly, ID
Peoria, IL
Urbana, IL
W. Lafayette, IN
Ames, IA
Baton Rouge, LA
New Orleans, LA
Beltsville, MD
Morris, MN
St. Paul, MN
Oxford, MS
Stoneville, MS
Lincoln, NE
Mandan, ND
Columbus, OH
Coshocton, OH
Wooster, OH
Durant, OK
University Pk., PA
Wyndmoor, PA
TOTAL
increased funding?
FY 1988 FY 1989
$ 455.9 $ 655.9
351. 1 351 .. 1
785. 6 985. 6
147. 9 147. 9
1,014. 4 1,314.4
110.5 1 10.5
1,085.2 1,485.2
318. O 518. O
203. 0 203. O
168.8 168.8
70. 6 70. 6
215. O 615. O
145.2 345.2
279. 7 279. 7
1,424.5 1,724.5
O 200.0
278. 9 278.9
O 400.0
244.3 444.3
704. 9 904. 9
143.0 143.0
87.5 287. 5
268. 3 468. 3
66.6 66.6
377. 1 577. 1
742.0 942. O
198. 1 198. 1
$9,886.1 $13,886. 1
What type of research do you expect to do with the
174
Answer: The proposed research will focus on the development
and field testing of soil, water, chemical and crop management
options that can effectively limit the buildup of chemical residues
in the soil, minimize the risk of nitrate and pesticide leaching to
groundwater, and at the same time maintain productivity and farm
profitability.
Question: Do you expect the research to be carried out at ARS
facilities, or through cooperative agreements?
Answer: The research to be supported with the increased
funding will be carried out at 14 ARS facilities throughout the
U.S.
The Committee understands that in order to concentrate efforts
on groundwater quality, changes in research projects and funds at
several locations were made.
Question: Please provide information about the program
changes and the amount of change made at each location.
Answer: The program changes and the amount of change made at
each location in order to strengthen the program on groundwater
quality, are shown in the following table:
GROUNDWATER QUALITY REDIRECTIONS
Phoenix, AZ Increase for reduced pesticide leaching to
groundwater; reduction in remote sensing and
water management research . ($64,200).
Fort Lauderdale, FL Increase for biological control of aquatic
weeds; reduction for chemical control of
aquatic weeds. ($110,500).
Tifton, GA Increase for improved pesticide formulations
and integrated pest management; reduction in
pesticide screening for weed control in
forages. ($145,700).
Kimberly, ID Increase for nitrate management in irrigated
agriculture; reduction for salt transport and
effects of soil erosion on productivity.
($318,000).
Urbana, IL Increase for evaluating effects of tillage on
pesticide movement; reduction for soybean
production systems and corn oil quality.
($168,000).
W. Lafayette, IN Increase for assessing water quality benefits
of controlled release pesticides; reduction
for weed control in conservation tillage
systems. ($70,600).
175
Ames, IA Increase for practices to reduce nitrate
leaching to groundwater; reduction for
residue management and phosphorus and
potassium fertilization. ($215,000).
New Orleans, LA Increase for developing formulations which
reduce pesticide mobility; reduction for
developing chemicals which stimulate weed
seed germination. ($279,700).
Beltsville, MD Increase for nitrate management in riparian
zones and shallow groundwater; reduction for
phosphorus availability and root growth under
minimum tillage. ($489, 400).
Mandan, ND Increase for evaluating nitrate leaching for
different cropping practices; reduction for
assessing effects of erosion on productivity.
($143,000).
Columbus, OH Increase for reduced chemical movement
through water table control; reduction for
assessing crop damage from high water tables.
($87,500).
Coshocton, OH Increase for managing nitrate leaching from
pastures and row crops; reduction for
management of feedlot pollutants. ($268, 300).
Wyndmoor, PA Increase for evaluating clay-nitrogen
interactions on nitrate leaching; reduction
for metal ion bonding in soils ($198, 100).
HUMAN NUTRITION
Question: Please provide for the committee the amount of
nutrition research provided by location and the type of research
done for fiscal year 1987, the amount allocated for fiscal year
1988, and the amount estimated for fiscal year 1989.
Answer: The information on Human Nutrition Research follows:
Funding ($ in thousands)
FY 1988 FY 1989
Location FY 1987 Estimate Estimate
Beltsville, MD
Human Nutrition Research Center $8,344.9 $8,419.2 $8,507.2
Type of research - Composition of foods and bioavailability of food
nutrients required by humans; human requirements and metabolic
roles of proteins and amino acids, carbohydrates, dietary fibers,
lipids, minerals and vitamins, and identification of useful forms
in foods; energy metabolism and energy requirements for weight
maintenance; and dietary reduction of risk factors for
nutrition-related chronic diseases.
176
Funding ($ in thousands)
FY 1988 FY 1989
Location FY 1987 Estimate Estimate
Livestock & Poultry Science Institute $ 128.7 $ 129.6
Type of Research - Metabolic regulation of nutritional composition
of meat.
Grand Forks, ND 6,663. 3 7, 112.7 7, 139.3
Type of research - Nutritional requirements for zinc, cadmium,
nickel, copper, and other minor elements and their relationship to
optimal health, function, and performance; physiological and
biochemical factors influencing minor element requirements in all
age groups; biological availability of minerals and effects of
nutritive and non-nutritive factors in foods on availability.
Boston, MA 12,757.6 13,682.6 13,684.2
Type of research - Nutritional requirements of the elderly for
optimal health, function, and performance; the relationship of
nutrition to the aging process; role of diet in the function of
major chronic degenerative conditions.
Houston, TX 5,430.6 7,646.3 7,648.7
Type of research - Nutrient requirements in infants, children,
pregnant and lactating women; role of diet for optimum growth and
physical and mental development.
San Francisco, CA 4, 233.0 4,489.7 4,523.9
Type of research - Development of reliable, efficient, inexpensive
methods for defining nutritional status; developing nutritional
criteria for design and evaluation of intervention programs;
identification of factors, forces, and trends resulting in
malnutrition; planning and conducting research on human nutritional
requirements.
Albany, CA 712.7 653.8 656.4
Type of research - Improving the nutritional quality of cereal
foods and other foods of plant origin.
Peoria, IL 982.4 1,017. 5 1,021.0
Type of research - Metabolic fate of polyunsaturated fatty acids;
mineral bioavailability and iron binding in dietary fibers.
Wyndmoor, PA 303.1 tº º * *
Type of research - Interactions of dietary fibers and nutrients in
foods.
Ithaca, NY 750. 9 765 ... O 767. 6
177
Funding ($ in thousands)
FY 1988 FY 1989
Location FY 1987 Estimate Estimate
Type of research - Absorption of nutritionally important minerals in
humans; zinc status in mammals; deposition of minerals in food
crops.
Hyattsville, MD 432.7 443. 1 451. 7
Type of research - Estimates of family expenditures on children;
allocation of resources by older consumers; household expenditures
for services; and linking economic trends to family financial
behavior.
Total - Human Nutrition $40,611.2 $44,358.6 $44,529.6
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES
Question: Please provide for the committee, a detail of how the
funds are allocated for repair and maintenance of facilities for
Fiscal Year 1988 and Fiscal Year 1989, by location.
Answer: For FY-88, allocation of R&M was made via the ARS
Annual Resource Management Planning process which includes a
process for requesting high priority facility requirements.
Decisions on these needs by location have been made as follows:
AREA LOCATION - DESCRIPTION TOTAL AREA
APPROVED TOTAL
Beltsville Area
Renaissance 93 $1,000,000
Building 007 2,600,000
SCS Road 200,000
AREA Total $3,800,000
North Atlantic Area
Wyndmoor, PA Switchgear 27,800
Electrical Dist. Repair 7,000
Fume Hoods 56,403
Absorption Chiller 10,800
Fuel Tank Replacement 99,750
Generator Repair 25,000
PCB Transformer 8,305
Replacement
Wyndmoor Subtotal 235,058
Univ. Park, PA Roofs 66,000
Plum Island HVAC-Bldg. 257 10,000
Animal Disease HEPA Filter Replacement 340,000
Laboratory, NY Orient Pt. Bldg. 80,000
(PIADC) Renovation (Design
Review)
PIADC Subtotal 430,000
178
AREA LOCATION
Ithaca, NY
Georgetown, DE
Newark, DE
Beckley, WV
Orono, ME
Midwest Area
Peoria, IL
Morris, MN
Madison, WI
E. Lansing, MI
Columbia, MO
Ames, IA
(NADC)
DESCRIPTION
Fume Hood Retrofit
HVAC
Air Handler Repair
Ithaca Subtotal
Deep Well for Fire
Suspended Ceiling
Georgetown Subtotal
Air Handler Repair
Roof Repairs
Air Handler Repair
AREA Total
Front Entry Stone
Safety Shower
Peoria Subtotal
Repair Bldg - 2
HVAC
Morris Subtotal
Repair Ventilation
HVAC Upgrade (Design
Review.) Lab Repair
Madison Subtotal
Repair Wentilation
PCB Transformers
E. Lansing Subtotal
AC Units
Air Handling
Replacement of PCB
Transformer and PCB
Disposal
Columbia Subtotal
Water Tower
Replacement of PCB
Transformer and PCB
Disposal
Ames Subtotal
AREA Total
TOTAL
APPROVED
11,500
27,000
37, 400
75,900
17,000
30,000
47,000
4,400
30,000
87,000
110,000
61,000
171,000
15,000
24,000
39,000
10,000
448,000
65,000
523,000
25,000
32,000
57,000
40,000
49,500
1,000
90,500
17, 200
1,769
18,969
AREA
TOTAL
975,358
899,469
179
El Reno Subtotal
321,500
AREA LOCATION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AREA
APPROVED TOTAL
Pacific West Area
Tucson, AZ Fume Hoods Retrofit 273,000
Roofs 248,000
Tucson Subtotal 521,000
Pasadena, CA Pipe Replacement 167,000
Fresno, CA Fire Alarm System 235,000
Albany, CA Electrical System 10,000
(PGEC)
Brawley, CA Painting 20,000
AREA Total 953,000
Northern Plains Area
Brookings, SD Asbestos Removal 50,000
Ft. Collins, CO Repairs 53,000
Akron, CO Painting 10,000
Mandan, ND Roof 44,500
HVAC 60,500
Mandan Subtotal 105,000
Grand Forks, ND Stack Repair 100,000
AC 22,000
Grand Forks Subtotal 122,000
Fargo, ND In take Stack 15,000
Cheyenne, WY DOOrs 6,000
Clay Center, NE Swine Finishing Bldg. 135,000
Fume Hood 52,000
Clay Center Subtotal 187,000
Manhattan, KS HVAC 23,000
Sidney, MT Fume Hoods 10,000
AREA Total 581,000
Southern Plains Area
Durant, OK HVAC (design) 268,000
El Reno, OK Water Tower Replacement 283,500
Waterline Replacement 38,000
180
AREA LOCATION
College Sta. ,
TX
Woodward, OK
Las Cruces, NM
Mid South Area
Baton Rouge, LA
Houma, LA
Stoneville, MS
Oxford, MS
New Orleans, LA
(SRRC)
Miss. State, MS
Auburn, AL
South Atlantic Area
Savannah, GA
Raleigh, NC
Oxford, NC
Watkinsville, GA
Athens, GA
AREA
TOTAL
Athens Subtotal
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
APPROVED
Fume Hood Retrofit 25,000
Electrical Wiring 45,000
Replacement
College Station Subtotal 70,000
Insulation and Repairs 55,000
Water system, fence, 50,000.
road repairs
AREA Total
Fume Hoods 16,000
HVAC 16,000
Fume Hoods 45,000
Houma, LA Subtotal 61,000
Bldg - Repairs 15,000
Bldg. Repairs 15,000
Stoneville Subtotal 30,000
Roof Repair 57,000
Roof Repair 14,900
Roof Repair 83,000
Fume Hood 30,000
AC 68,500
Evap. Cooling 55,000
Miss. State Subtotal 236,500
Roof Repair 24,000
Concrete Driveway 70,000
Auburn Subtotal 94,000
AREA Total
Fume Hood 60,000
Fume Hood 48,000
Fire Alarm 45,000
Asbestos Removal 50,000
Chicken Brooder 31,500
Repair Sidewalks 12,000
Renovate Elec. System 29,500
Roof Replacement 36,000
109,000
764,500
509,400
181
AREA LOCATION
Tifton, GA
Byron, GA
Brooksville, FL
Miami, FL
Florence, SC
Canal Point, FL
Agency
AREA LOCATION
Beltsville Area
North Atlantic Area
Ithaca, NY
Wyndmoor, PA
Midwest Area
Columbia, MO
St. Paul, MN
Ames, IA
Peoria, IL
DESCRIPTION
HVAC Replacement
(Bldg - 1)
Paving
Asbestos Removal
Woodwork repair and
painting
Roads
Brooksville Subtotal
Power Lines
Cooling System
Fuel Tank Replacement
AREA Total
Unallocated
Total R&M Funds Approved
Energy Retrofit Program Portion of
TOTAL
APPROVED
29,000
12,000
25,000
20,000
25,000
70,000
50,000
22,500
6, 500
AREA
TOTAL
502,000
115,273
9, 100,000
Repair and Maintenance Budgetary Line Item
DESCRIPTION
Bldg. 007 Windows
AREA Total
GH Glazing
Heat Recovery
Light Fixture
Replacement
Roof Insulation
AREA total
Steamlines
GH Reglazing
Variable Frequency
Drives for Chilled
Window Blocking
Water Loop
TOTAL
APPROVED
200,000
98,000
19, 200
58,300
9,500
T57,000
116,000
135,000
75,000
9, 200
AREA
TOTAL
200,000
185,000
182
AREA LOCATION
Urbana, IL
Madison, WI
Pacific West Area
Albany, CA
Dubois, IA
Northern Plains Area
Manhattan, KS
Brookings, SD
Sidney, MT
Southern Plains Area
Temple, TX
College Sta. , TX
Mid South Area
Oxford, MS
South Atlantic Area
Athens, GA
Agency
For FY-89, the Agency
plans.
DESCRIPTION
GH Shades
Steam Generator
AREA Total
Boilers
Insulation
AREA Total
Boiler
Windows
Window Replacement
AREA Total
Chiller
Chiller
Boiler
Westibules
Coll. Sta. Subtotal
AREA Total
Insulation
AREA Total
Insulation
AREA Total
Unallocated
Total ER Funds Approved
R&M Total
TOTAL AREA
APPROVED TOTAL
25,000
5,000
365, 200
900,000
60,000
960,000
. 6,600
35,000
55,000
96,600
165,000
185,000
25,000
25,000
235,000
400,000
43,000
43,000
70,000
70,000
132, 200
,452,000
$11,552,000
is in the process of formulating nationwide
modernization needs via the development of 6-year facility upgrade
The specific dollar information for locations other than
Beltsville will not be available until May 1988. Accordingly,
decisions on the actual allocations by project and location have
not been finalized at this time.
Decisions on allocating R&M funds
in FY-89 will not take place until October 1988 during the Annual
Resource Management Planning process.
183
SUNFLOWER AND SUGARBEET RESEARCH FACILITY
Question: What is the budget for the sunflower and sugarbeet
research facility for fiscal year 1988 and fiscal year 1989?
Answer: The FY 1988 estimated budget for the sunflower and
sugarbeet research facility at Fargo is $2,228,800. No change in
funding is anticipated for FY 1989.
PEA AND LENTIL RESEARCH
Question: The report accompanying the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1988 requested USDA to review
the proposal presented by the USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council and
the American Dry Pea and Lentil Association for creation of an
Institute of International Cool Season Legume Research. Have you
reviewed this proposal? If so, what does your review show? What
is the projected cost of such a proposal?
Answer: We have reviewed this proposal and find that it deals
largely with the evaluation of research proposals and allocation
and management of Federal funds by industry. Established
mechanisms and procedures already exist for funding agricultural
research and establishing priorities. Though some of the proposed
research seems worthwhile, we cannot be supportive of this proposal
or the proposed method of industry managing ARS research programs.
The projected cost is $25,000,000 over a 5-year period.
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Question: What has been the focus of biological control
research in the Department?
Answer: Biological control research in the Department has
traditionally focused on the discovery and use of naturally
occurring insects and other organisms (parasites, predators, and
pathogens) to control insect, weed, and other pests. Increasingly,
biological control in ARS and elsewhere in the scientific community
has come to also include pheromones, male sterility, plant
breeding, genetic engineering, and other biological means. The
goals of ARS biological control research programs are to develop
lower cost, effective, and environmentally safe pest control
technologies for farmers and ranchers.
Question: How much money has been allocated to this research
and what is contained in the budget for Fiscal Year 1989?
Answer: Under the traditional natural enemies concept, ARS
has allocated $17,601, 100 to biocontrol research in FY 1988. Under
the broader definition of all biological methods of pest control,
the total ARS FY 1988 budget is $81, 164,400. There are no
anticipated increases for FY 1989.
SUNFLOWER RESEARCH
Question: Please describe the research on sunflower and
sunflower pests that is ongoing through ARS.
184
Answer: ARS is conducting research on sunflower to reduce
unit production costs and improve the quality of the seed to make
it more competitive in world markets. Specific research approaches
include:
1. Collection, preservation, and evaluation of sunflower germplasm
to reduce the vulnerability of our sunflower crop to insects and
diseases.
2. Development of higher yielding, pest resistant, stress tolerant
germplasm to be used as parents for sunflower hybrids.
3. Development of improved pest management strategies for
controlling diseases, insects, and weeds. Special emphasis is
being given to the banded sunflower moth, the stem weevil, and
Sclerotinia wilt.
4. Development of conservation tillage technology to reduce wind
and water erosion while maintaining yield.
5. Improvement of oil stability and flavor to expand marketing
potential.
Question: Please list the location of the research and the
amount provided for fiscal year 1988 and requested for fiscal year
1989.
Answer: The information on ARS Sunflower Research follows:
FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Requested
Albany, CA $ 208,700 $ 208,700
Peoria, IL 162,300 162,300
Ames/Ankeny, IA 144, 200 144, 200
Fargo, ND 1, 193,900 1, 193,900
Mandan, ND 143,000 143,000
Bushland, TX 197,300 amº sºme
Totals $2,049, 400 $1,852, 100
ALLOCATION OF ARS FUNDS
Question: Please provide the Committee with the allocation of
ARS funds around the country by lab and location.
Answer: The estimated allocation of these funds for Fiscal
Years 1988 and 1989 by location is provided.
185
ESTIMATED ALL00ATION OF ARS FUNDS

FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Dollars Dollars
ALABAMA, Auburn. . . . . . . . $2,434,300 || $2,469,700
ALASKA, Fairbanks. . . . . . 708,700 714,100
ARIZONA
Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,910,200 5,173,200
Tucson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,484,800 3,542,500
Total . . . . . . . . 8,395,000 8,715,700
ARKANSAS
Booneville. . . . . . . . . . . 943,600 956,700
Stuttgart. . . . . . . . . . . . 360,800 363,900
Total . . . . . . . . 1,304,400 1,320,600
CALIFORNIA
Albany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,258,900 18,911, 200
Brawley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329,100 335,200
Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,354,200 1,370,300
Fresno. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,301,800 3,354,100
Pasadena. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,893,800 1,922, 200
Riverside... . . . . . . . . . 2,748,600 2,973,200
Salinas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,725,400 1,752,300
San Francisco. . . . . . . . 3,946,300 3,977,100
Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,188,800 1,206,500
Total . . . . . . . . 34,746,900 || 35,802,100
COLORAD0
Akron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721,400 733,700
Fort Collins. . . . . . . . . . 8,294,400 8,664,500
Total . . . . . . . . 9,015,800 9,398,200
DELAWARE
Georgetown. . . . . . . . . . . 728,900 737,400
Newark. . . . . . . . . . . . © tº G 574,100 584,800
Total . . . . . . . . 1,303,000 1,322, 200
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,789,100 3,840,600
Headquarters
Federal
Administration. . . . . 28,520,900 28,856,900
Centrally Fi-
nanced Services.... 8,199,100 8,199,100
Subtotal . . . . . . 36,720,000 || 37,056,000
Total . . . . . . . . 40,509,100 || 40,896,600
186
EST IMATED ALL00ATION OF ARS FUNDS

FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Dollars Dollars
FLORIDA
Belle Glade... . . . . . 182,400 185,500
Brooksville. . . . . . . . 427,800 435,500
Canal Point. . . . . . . . 721,000 736,400
Fort Lauderdale . . . . 641,400 650,600
Gainesville. . . . . . . . 8,136,700 8,255,900
Miami. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,566,000 1,592,100
Orlando. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,850,400 3,900, 400
Winter Haven. . . . . . . 1,233,500 1,245,100
Total . . . . . . 16,759,200 || 17,001,500
GEORGIA
Athens. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,544,100 12,580,800
Byron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,817,400 1,849,700
Dawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,378,900 1,399,600
Experiment. . . . . . . . . 1,407,700 1,413, 100
Savannah. . . . . . . . . . . 2,636,000 2,676,700
Tifton. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,007,500 6,626,000
Watkinsville. . . . . . . 1,764,500 1,785,200
Total . . . . . . 26,556,100 || 28,331,100
HAWAII, Honolulu. . . . . 4,443,900 4,487,000
IDAHO
Aberdeen. . . . . . . . . . . 1,130,400 1,138,800
Boise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,029,100 1,042,200
Dubois. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,533,500 1,541,900
Kimberly. . . . . . . . . . . 2,071,000 2,282,600
Total . . . . . . 5,764,000 6,005,500
ILLIN0IS
Peoria. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,849,600 20,445,200
Urbana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,134,200 3,171,900
Total . . . . . . 22,983,800 || 23,617,100
INDIANA, Lafayette... 2,822, 200 2,856,800
IOWA, Ames/Ankeny.... 17,040,300 || 17,921,800
KANSAS, Manhattan . . . . 3,743,800 3,793,800
KENTUCKY, Lexington.... 882,500 894,800
LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge . . . . . . . . 1,552,700 1,758,800
Houma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,305,100 1,332,800
New Orleans. . . . . . . . 15,921,700 | 16,108,600
Total . . . . . . 18,779,500 || 19,200,200
187
EST IMATED ALLOCATION OF ARS FUNDS

FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Dollars Dollars
MAINE, Orono. . . . . . . . . . . 436,000 441,300
MARYLAND
Beltsville. . . . . . . . . . . 72,320,800 || 74,243,000
Frederick. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,046,400 2,078,700
Hyattsville. . . . . . . . . . 391,000 398,700
Total . . . . . . . . 74,758,200 || 76,720,400
MASSACHUSETTS, Boston... 12,990,900 | 12,992,400
MICHIGAN, East Lansing. 2,970,200 3,015,500
MINNESOTA
East Grand Forks. . . . . 889,700 895,900
Minneapolis. . . . . . . . . . *EC cº- tº sº
Morris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,694,300 1,899,600
St. Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,294,300 3,325, 100
Total . . . . . . . . 5,878,300 6,120,600
MISSISSIPPI -
Mississippi State.... 5,851, 100 5,938,700
Oxford. . . . . . . tº º tº ſº tº e º 'º 3,306,900 3,720,000
Poplarville. . . . . . . . . . 599,100 608,300
Stoneville. . . . . . . . . . . 9,439,300 || 10,116,700
Total . . . . . . . . 19,196,400 | 20,383,700
MISS00RI, Columbia. . . . . 4,006,200 4,070,000
MONTANA
Bozeman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,334, 200 1,354,200
Miles City. . . . . . . . . . . 1,704,800 1,714,800
Sidney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425,800 434,300
Total . . . . . . . . 3,464,800 3,503,300
NEBRASKA
Clay Center. . . . . . . . . . 8,250,100 8,654,700
Lincoln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,715,800 2,928,100
Total . . . . . . . . 10,965,900 || 11,582,800
NEWADA, Reno. . . . . . . . . . . 600,600 606,800
NEW MEXICO
Las Cruces. . . . . . . . . . . 1,217,000 1,237,800
NEW YORK
Geneva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128,000 1,134,900
Ithaca. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,875,600 2,904,800
Plum Island. . . . . . . . . . 8,705,900 8,867, 400
Total . . . . . . . . IZ, TOG500TT2.907.IOO
188
ESTIMATED ALL00ATION OF ARS FUNDS

FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Dollars Dollars
NORTH CAROLINA
Oxford. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,295,100 2,322,000
Raleigh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,053,400 4,513,800
Total . . . . . . . . 6,348,500 6,835,800
NORTH DAKOTA
Fargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,551,400 7,646,000
Grand Forks. . . . . . . . . . 6,320,400 6,344,300
Mandan. . . . . . . . . . . . . © º 2,272,900 2,310,500
Total . . . . . . . . 16,144,700 | 16,300,800
OHIO
Columbus. . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,500 374,600
Coshocton. . . . . . . . . . . . 801,800 995,700
Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . 562,900 571,300
Wooster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,512,100 1,719,800
Total . . . . . . . . 3,068,300 3,661,400
OKLAHOMA
Durant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,855,000 2,065,800
El Reno. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,598,500 1,621,600
Lane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,299,800 1,308,300
Poteau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410,400 419,600
Still Water. . . . . . . . . . . 1,645,700 1,670,300
Woodward. . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,400 724,500
Total . . . . . . . . 7,520,800 7,810,100
OREGON
Burns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331,600 333,900
Corvallis. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,770,500 3,802,800
Pendleton . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,062,400 1,079,300
Total . . . . . . . . 5,164,500 5,216,000
PENNSYLVANIA
University Park...... 2,625,300 2,843,700
Wyndmoor. . . . . . . . . . . ... | 16,421,500 || 17,315,400
Total . . . . . . . . 19,046,800 20, 159,100
SOUTH CAROLINA
Charleston. . . . . . . . . . . 2,189,400 2,221,700
Clemson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,688,200 1,710,500
Florence. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,648,300 1,676,800
Total . . . . . . . . 5,525,900 5,609,000
SOUTH DAKOTA
Brookings-Madison . . . . 1,449,100 1,476,800
189
EST IMATED ALL00ATION OF ARS FUNDS

FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Dollars Dollars
TENNESSEE
Greeneville. . . . . . . . . . 49,900 50,600
Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,300 129,600
Lewisburg. . . . . . . . . . . . 145,200 147,500
Total . . . . . . . . 322,400 327,700
TEXAS
Beaumont. . . . . . . . . . . . . 752,500 764,000
Brownwood. . . . . . . . . . . . 500, 100 508,600
Bushland. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,138,800 2,175,700
College Station . . . . . . 8, 183,800 9,016,000
Houston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,986, 100 6,988,400
Kerrville. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,261,200 2,301, 200
Lubbock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,388,600 2,426,300
Temple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,745,900 2,792,000
Weslaco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,715,700 5,798,000
Total . . . . . . . . 31,672,700 || 32,770,200
UTAH, Logan . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,017,900 3,059,400
VIRGINIA
Suffolk . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477,300 486,500
WASHINGTON
Prosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 187,800 2,222,400
Pullman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,424,000 5,490,900
Wenatchee . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,073,400 1,091,100
Yakima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,372,900 2,412,900
Total . . . . . . . . 11,058,100 || 11,217,300
WEST WIRGINIA
Beckley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,384,200 2,413,500
Kearneysville. . . . . . . . 3,221,900. 3,258,000
Total . . . . . . . . 5,606,100 5,671,500
WISCONSIN, Madison. . . . . 4,737,700 4,779,200
WYOMING
Cheyenne . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657,300 671, 100
Laramie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,897,800 1,918,600
Total . . . . . . . . 2,555,100 2,589,700
PUERTO RICO
Mayaguez. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,844, 200 1,882,700
VIRGIN ISLANDS
St. Croix. . . . . . . . . . . . 211,800 215,700
83–470 O - 88 – 7
190
EST IMATED ALLOCATION OF ARS FUNDS
FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Dollars Dollars
OTHER COUNTRIES
Argentina,
Buenos Aires. . . . . . . 151,100 151,100
France, Behoust . . . . . . 816,600 818,900
Italy, Rome. . . . . . . . . . 547,800 548,600
Korea, Seoul. . . . . . . . . 151,500 152,300
Mexico, Tuxtla
Gutierrez. . . . . . . . . . 890, 100 896,300
Netherlands,
Rotterdam. . . . . . . . . . 307,700 309,200
Total . . . . . . . . 2,864,800 2,876,400
Extramural and
Program locations
to be determined . . . . . 17,336,400 | 18,356,800
Contingency Research
Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,000 951,000
Repair & Maintenance
of Facilities. . . . . . . . 10,551,400 14,551,400
Federal employees'
Retirement System. ... 15,453,000 || 15,453,000
Subtotal, Available
or Estimate . . . . . . . . . . 540,315,000 |560,588,000
Allotment to
Forest Service. . . . . . . 369,000 369,000
TOTAL, Appropriation... |540,684,000 |560,957,000

191
FY 89 PROGRAM INCREASES
Question: Please provide the Committee with more specific
information about the planned implementation of prograin changes
recommended for Fiscal Year 1989. For each of the programs, please
indicate the amount and distribution of funds, the problem being
addressed, the objectives of the work for each location, and the
expected results to be achieved.
Answer: More than 300,000 tons of pesticides and 10,000,000
tons of nitrogen fertilizer are applied yearly on U.S. croplands.
Some of these chemicals have been detected in the Nation's
groundwater. The problem being addressed is how to safeguard the
quality of our groundwater while maintaining the productivity and
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. The expected results to be
achieved include more efficient use of agricultural chemicals,
improved technologies for reducing the leaching of pesticides and
nitrate, and better guidelines for selecting practices that
maintain or enhance groundwater quality.
In the area of Food Safety and Animal Health, the ARS budget
proposes increased research efforts to control and reduce the level
of colonization of Salmonella and other food-borne pathogens in
poultry and livestock. Also, research will be directed toward the
detection of animal carriers and to provide a better understanding
of the epidemiology and spread of this disease at the herd level.
The $1 million increase for ARS to improve pesticide
application methods will provide increased research at four
locations. The problem being addressed is how to provide more
efficient pest control while minimizing environmental
contamination. The expected results include improved technologies
for applying growth regulators, beneficial microbes, and pesticides
to reduce pest damage to horticultural and field crops while
reducing the dosage and frequency of application.
Ozone concentration of the stratosphere is decreasing which
allows more ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the crops. This
increase in UV radiation has been deleterious to crop yield and
quality in nearly half of the species examined to date. While some
cultivars of agricultural crops are tolerant, the mechanisms of
damage and tolerance are not well defined. Expected results to be
achieved include assessment of reductions in yields and quality of
selected crop species due to enhanced UV radiation levels,
understanding of repair processes which enable crops to tolerate UV
exposure and information on the biological, physical, and
morphogenetic bases for differences in UV sensitivity which will
allow plant breeders and genetic engineers to develop varieties of
essential crops that can tolerate UV enhancement.
The microbiological contamination and chemical residues
presently being identified in meat and poultry are causes for
concern for the safety of these animal derived food products. The
research problems to be addressed are (1) to develop affordable
products and practices to prevent biological and chemical
contamination and (2) to give the regulatory agencies the tools to
assure the public that food is safe. This new analytical
192
*
methodology and the improved control procedures will help both the
FSIS and food processors meet strict chemical and microbiological
standards and thus more accurately and completely assure the safety
of meat and poultry products.
The following table shows the location, objectives, and
proposed funding level for each of the FY 89 Program Increases.
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Riverside, CA
Fort Collins, CO
Tifton, GA
Kimberly, ID
Ames, IA
Baton Rouge, LA
Beltsville, MD
Morris, MN
Oxford, MS
Stoneville, MS
Lincoln, NE
Columbus, OH
Coshocton, OH
Durant, OK
University Pk., PA
Research Objectives
GROUND WATER QUALITY
Develop practices for reducing
pesticide leaching from irrigated
lands.
Compare the impact of different
irrigation practices on pesticide
losses.
Develop methods for assessing
the chemical vulnerability of
groundwater.
Evaluate how changes in pesticide
formulation affect groundwater
quality.
Develop irrigation practices that
reduce nitrate losses to groundwater.
Evaluate effect of soil
macroporosity on nitrate movement to
Reduce pesticide levels in shallow
groundwater using water table control.
Develop more efficient strategies
for sampling and analyzing pesticides.
Determine nitrogen sufficiency
levels for major crops of the
Cornbelt.
Assess water quality impacts of
conservation tillage and double
cropping .
Adapt water quality control models
for use in the Mississippi Delta.
Develop nitrogen management practices
that reduce nitrate in groundwater.
Reduce chemical residues in
groundwater through water table
management.
Determine how the placement of
chemicals affects their movement in
soils.
Develop fertilizer practices that
reduce nitrate movement to groundwater.
Determine the fate and movement of
nitrate in mixed land use watersheds.
Funds
$ 200
200
300
400
200
400
200
300
200
400
200
200
200
200
200
200
193
Location
Athens, GA
Ames, IA
Clay Center, NE
Tifton, GA
Stoneville, MS
Wooster, OH
College Station, TX
Beltsville, MD
Raleigh, NC
Research Objectives
FOOD SAFETY AND ANIMAL HEALTH
Competitive exclusion of Salmonella
by normal microbes in chicken gut.
Identification of Salmonella
carriers, genetically engineered
vaccine for swine .
Monitor presence of pathogens at
herd level, its spread, and
epidemiology.
PESTICIDE APPLICATION
Develop methods for applying pest
control agents through irrigation
systems.
Improve application technology for
chemical and biological control
agents .
Improve retention, absorption,
translocation of foliar applied pest
control agents.
Overcome insecticidal resistance
by reducing dosage and frequency of
application.
OZONE
Determine mechanisms by which plants
withstand UV radiation.
Determine species and varietal
response to increased UV radiation and
associated decreases in tropospheric
O ZOIle s
MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION AND RESIDUES
Albany, CA
Athens, GA
Peoria, IL
Beltsville, MD
Develop simple, fast screening
methods to detect pesticides and
other contaminant residues in
animals.
Determine factors affecting
colonization of Salmonella and other
pathogens in poultry.
Develop improved slaughtering and
processing procedures for poultry.
Develop quicker, more efficient
methods for the determination of
pesticides and drug residues in
animal products.
Develop effective control programs
for toxoplasmosis in pork.
Funds
300
300
400
200
400
200
200
250
450
500
700
400
500
194
Location Research Objectives Funds
Philadelphia, PA Detect and quantify pathogenic 800
bacteria such as Salmonella.
Develop microbiological control
procedures to help assure safety of
meat and poultry products.
Detect and quantify nitrosamines and
other chemicals in meat products.
College Station, TX Develop screening and confirmatory 600
methods for the detection of
pesticides in meat.
TOTAL $10,200
FOOD SAFETY
Question: Please provide for the record information about
research projects underway in support of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS). The information should reflect objectives
being pursued at each location, expected results, and the level of
scientific and financial commitment to the work. Additionally,
indicate the potential impact the research will have on FSIS
programs.
Answer: The ARS has a substantial commitment in ongoing
research programs to meet the needs of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service. We expect that the research results from these programs at
10 locations, representing the work of 50 scientists, will
significantly help assure the microbiological safety of our animal
food products, as well as provide more efficient means to assay for
drug and pesticide residues in meat and meat products. The findings
will help provide the means for pathogen free production of poultry
and meat animals; and the Food Safety and Inspection Service will be
able to provide greater assurance of the safety of meat and poultry
products available to the American consumer, and most importantly at
a lower cost than is possible with their present tools for
inspection.
Locations, funding and objectives of food safety research in ARS
are in the following table.
Location Research Objectives Funds
ARS Headquarters Research on dioxin contamination § 19
Albany, CA Determine the end products which 822
may result from use of chlorine
disinfectants and develop
microfiltration methods to clean
processing waters and control
microbial growth.
Athens, GA Develop products and practices to 1,509
prevent the colonization of young
poultry and their further
contamination in the slaughterhouse
by hazardous bacteria.
Ames, IA Determine the factors that affect 341
colonization and transmission of -
Salmonella in swine.
195
Location Research Objectives Funds
Peoria, IL Develop improved extraction 456
procedures and analytical methods
for pesticides and mycotoxins in
Ileat .
Beltsville, MD Determine the incidence and 1, 197
infectivity of Toxoplasmosa in pork.
Develop analytical methodology to
detect chemical residues in animal
products.
Columbia, MO Develop equipment and practices to 108
assure the microbiological safety of
Clay Center, NE beef cattle and swine during
slaughtering and processing . 403
Fargo, ND Describe the absorption, metabolism 290
and excretion of an antibiotic drug
in food producing animals.
Philadelphia, PA Develop improved methodology for 4, 132
detecting and quantifying hazardous
bacteria in food. Determine how
Determine how new technologies of
the food industry will impact the
safety of foods.
Develop more accurate and sensitive
analytical methodology for detecting
chemical residues. -
Determine how the effects of food
irradiation can be detected in food
products, and how to prevent vitamin
losses.
Develop improved procedures for
quantitation of fish, dairy, and plant
proteins in food systems.
College Station, TX Develop cost effective production 349
practices to deliver Salmonella
free poultry and beef cattle to the
slaughterhouse.
TOTAL 9,626
PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER
Question: The Committee understands that the Agricultural
Research Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
are contemplating significant program changes and consolidation of
facilities at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York.
Please provide the Committee with detailed information about the
proposals and planned funding commitments.
Answer: The Agricultural Research Service and the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service are developing a plan for
consolidation and renovation of facilities at the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center in New York. A total of $800,000 of FY 88
agency funds has been allocated for design. We expect a design
contract to be awarded by August 1988 and a definite commitment of
base fund contributions by each agency by December 1988.
196
GERMPLASM
Question: How much money are you planning to spend on
germplasm evaluation, collection, and maintenance, giving a
specific amount for each activity?
Answer: For plant germplasm research in FY 88, ARS is
planning to spend $3,184,600 for collection activities, $9,496, 700
for maintenance, $8,141,700 for evaluation, and $5,633,000 for
enhancement to transfer beneficial genetic traits into a usable
form for the breeder.
Question: Could you please list the major commodities that
benefit from this germplasm activity and the amounts that are
allocated to each of these commodities?
Please break down the small grains category into each of the
grains.
Please provide this information for both fiscal years 1988 and
1989.
Answer: The major crop commodities and their present
germplasm funding are provided. We expect FY 89 funding levels
will be the same as in FY 88.
FY 1988
Commodity Estimated
Barley $585, 100
Citrus 1,071,400
Corn 930, 300
Cotton - 1,376,700
Deciduous & Small
Fruit & Nuts 2,627,700
Forage 1,721,700
Grain Sorghum 827,300
Miscellaneous & New Crops 515, 200
Multiple Commodities 4,023, 100
Oats 677,400
Oilseed & Oil Crops 711,300
Ornamental & Turf 916,800
Peanuts 484, 200
Potatoes 532,900
Range & Pasture 426, 200
Rice 498,000
Rye, Triticale, Other Small
Grains 372,200
Seeds 412,800
Soybean 1,564,100
Sugar Crops 536,800
Tobacco 45,900
Trees & Forest Products 257, 200
Vegetables 3,070,000
Wheat 2,271,700
Total 26,456,000
197
BELTSVILLE FACILITIES : REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT
Question: Congress provided a total of $13,950,000 for
Beltsville facilities improvement for fiscal year 1988; however,
since a portion of this funding was an additional assessment on
research at Beltsville, $2.8 million may not be used for facilities
improvement. Assuming that this additional assessment is not made,
the Committee expects at least $11.1 million for facilities and
improvement at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in
fiscal year 1988.
Please provide the Committee with detailed information
specifying the projects planned for the use of these funds.
Answer: $11.1 Million will be made available in FY-88. The
additional assessment is being returned to the research program as
directed. Detailed information on FY-88 project implementation is
as follows:
($000)
PROJECT STUDY DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
Bldg. 007 4- ºr gº º- $5, 120
Bldg. 003 gº tº $400 * *
Bldg. 307 $92 sº tº r * *
Bldg. 307 Lab Renovation sº tº sº º 22
Bldg. 476 Bee Mite Facility sº sº. *º º 13
Bldg. 264 tº º *º sº. 60
Mail Room Move to Bldg. 012 sº tº 15 95
Renovation. Due to Moves ºs ºs * * 250
for Bldg. 007 Construction
BARC Facility Study 430 4- tº--> *se sº
Bldg. 204 - Abattoir gº tº 30 370
Renovate Bldg. 303 tº º ... = = 534
Bldg. 306 Modify HVAC tº º * sº 320
U.S. National Arboretum 100 {-º º *E-, -º
Brickyard Entrance, etc.
Annual Exterior Painting tº º sº º 100
Annual Roof Repairs - 4- tº- sº sº 60
Animal Building Security tº sº * =º 80
Alarm Systems
198
($000)
PROJECT STUDY DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
Roof Repairs at Arboretum 10 me ºn £º-º º
Repair U.S. National Arboretum 5 25 sº tº
Elec. System
Upgrade Bldg. 308 tº º 30 sº tº
Swine Reproduction Bldg. tº º 30 *E* sº
Repair Bridges at BARC sº º * * 247
Misc. Structural Defects 65 * == * *
Phase IV Steam Lines 100
Bldg. 014 Oil to Gas Conversion -- 25 mº gº
BARC West Water Line Repairº/ 50 * = 1, 100
Steam Line, Headhouse 13, Rg. 1 sº º &-º tº 30
Soil Conservation Rd.3/ gº º * = 800
Plant Growth Chambers * =s * = 120
Renovate Greenhouse/Headhouse #8 –– * = 175
Electrical Feeder Installation tº sº * = 80
Contingency for Changes — — 117
SUBTOTAL $752 655 $ 9,693
TOTAL $11,100
Question: How much is contained in the fiscal year 1989
budget for Beltsville facilities improvement?
Answer: We anticipate that in FY-89, $7.6 Million will be
obligated for the Beltsville Renovation Program.
Question: What do you intend to do with this fiscal year 1989
request? Please specify.
Answer: In FY-89, we intend to undertake the following
projects:
1/ - Construction from FY-88 non-recurring appropriation cannot be
obligated until FY-89.
2/ - Also, a FY-87 Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of
$450,000 will be obligated for the road.
199
($000)
PROJECT STUDY DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
Renovate B-003 (Administration) -- - «- $5,100
Renovate B-307 (Human Nutrition) -- 488 - º
U.S. National Arboretum tº sº 20 200
Roof Repairs
Repair U.S. National Arboretum tº sº - - 250
GH Elec. System
Annual Exterior Painting ºn tº - *- 100
Annual Roof Repairs **E* - * 60
Phase IV Steam Lines *s me --- 1,250
B-308 (Human Nutrition) 80 - - - *-->
Contingency for Changes -- 52 *= <=
TOTAL 80 560 $ 6,960
SUBTOTAL $ 7,600
Question: If additional funds were provided in fiscal year
1989 over the budget request, for what purposes would the funds be
used? Please provide the information for assumed increases of
$3,000,000, $6,000,000, or $9,000,000.
Answer: Assuming the $3 million would be non-recurring and
the amount sufficient, our highest priority projects would be the
design and construction of an ultra clean small animal facility for
human nutrition research and a design to renovate Building 002 for
postharvest research.
With a $6 Million increment, and assuming that the
appropriation would be non-recurring, we would undertake the above
projects and as many of the following additional projects as costs
would permit :
Compactors for Plant Herbaria (design and construction);
B-014 Oil to Gas Conversion (construction);
Phase V Replace Steam Lines (study and design);
Steam Lines, B-161, 179, 202, & 204 (study and design);
Renovate B-004 (Horticulture) (design);
Renovate B-200 (Animal Science) (study);
Renovate B-001 (design);
Renovate Swing Space to Accommodate Moves (construction);
200
construct Swine Reproduction Lab (construction);
Labs and Conference Room, USNA, (design and construction);
Complete Free Stall Barn, (design);
Compactors for Fungus Collection, (design and construction);
Renovate 2 Greenhouses, (design);
Insectory for Neurobiology, (design and construction).
With a $9 million increment, and assuming that the
appropriation would be non-recurring, we would undertake the above
projects and as many of the following projects as costs would
permit:
Renovate Greenhouses (construction);
B-163B Roof Repairs (construction);
B-166 Roof Repairs (construction);
B-167 Roof Repairs (construction);
B-171 Roof Repairs (construction);
B-179 Roof Repairs (construction);
Farrowing Facilities (design and construction);
Renovate Glenn Dale Facility (design and construction);
Poultry Holding Facilities (design and construction);
Cold Rooms, B-002 (construction);
Contingency for Changes (construction).
BELTSVILLE FACILITIES : REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT
Question: Please provide information about the objectives to
be achieved by the recently announced organizational realignment
and management changes at BARC.
Answer: The realignment of the management structure of the
Beltsville Area has three major objectives, as follows:
(1) strengthen the capacity of the Area's management team to direct
research programs to the Nation's highest priority agricultural
problems in order to assure a strongly competitive agricultural
industry; (2) assure that our research programs have modern
equipment, facilities, and facility support; and (3) provide
increased administrative services support to Research Leaders and
bench scientists.
Question: Are there increases from this realignment and,
if so, what are they and where do they occur?
201
Answer: A moderate increase in administrative services will
result in strengthening Safety and Health, Property, ADP and
Contracting staffs to address numerous environmental compliance and
safety issues, to provide essential staff support to the BARC
facility modernization initiatives, and to establish service
centers to provide day-to-day administrative support to Research
Leaders and bench scientists, thus improving delivery of services
and allowing the scientists to devote full-time effort to the
actual conduct of research.
Question: What are the impacts on research programs at the
Center caused by the realignment?
Answer: The realignment will result in more effective
focusing of research projects on the highest national priorities,
more effective planning of land use and facility modernization, and
better utilization of time by Research Leaders and bench
scientists. The cost of additional support will reduce the amount
of funds that BARC can devote to facility and equipment upgrading.
This realignment will permit the Agency to return six scientists
and their clerical support back to full-time research.
AQUACULTURE
Question: Funding for aquaculture is provided in various
accounts through both CSRS and ARS. Please provide for the
Committee the total amount of aquaculture funding by location,
including the type of research being conducted.
Answer: ARS aquaculture research is conducted at the
following locations:
New Orleans, LA. Identify cause and preventions for
warmed-over flavor in fish. ($643,800)
Auburn, AL. Discover ways to improve immunity of catfish to
diseases and parasites. ($61,200)
Stoneville, MS. Catfish breeding and genetics. Construction
of research facilities is complete, and research staffing has
begun. One scientist and two support personnel have been hired.
Research at this location will be in cooperation with Mississippi
State University, Auburn University, and other agricultural
experiment stations. ($485,800)
Waimanalo, HI. Development of methods and systems for
alternative sources of feed ingredients for aquatic species.
($904,500)
Lane/Tishomingo, OK. Develop efficient production systems for
catfish in the Southwest. ($263,800)
Shepardstown, WV. A 4-year project funded at $110,000/year
will be started during 1988 to link fish culture with plant culture
for small family farm operations. -
202
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHILES
WHITEFLY
Question: The sweet potato whitefly is quickly becoming an
economic pest to Florida's nursery and foliage industries and is a
threat to the State's billion dollar vegetable industry. I know
that the State of California has also had a number of problems with
the whitefly and that ARS is conducting research in California on
chemical control measures. Since chemical control will only provide
short-term relief for the problem, can you tell me what plans ARS
has for conducting research on biological control measures which
would provide longer control?
Answer: Because of the seriousness of the sweet potato
whitefly problem in Florida and other States, ARS will develop
alternative research strategies to chemicals to manage this pest.
Initially, we plan to establish an ARS scientist position at our
U.S. Horticultural Laboratory, Orlando, Florida, to address
biological methods of control. This scientist will work
cooperatively with ongoing biocontrol work with the University of
Florida at Apopka.
Question: ARS currently has a research center located in
Gainesville, Florida, which, as I understand it, focuses primarily
on biological control research. What resources at the Gainesville
Laboratory can be made available to deal with the sweet potato
whitefly problem?
Answer: This new research project will primarily be conducted
at Orlando and Apopka in cooperation with current research programs
at the ARS Insect Attractants Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida.
This Laboratory has specialized facilities and expertise which could
be directed to this problem, especially in the area of pheromones
and other attractants and molecular biology.
Question: Will the National Program Staff implement a
biological control research program on the sweet potato whitefly
problem?
Answer: Yes, the ARS National Program Staff will direct the
establishment of the new research activity in Florida and will guide
the scientists in formulating control and research strategies for
the sweet potato whitefly.
CITRUS CANKER
Question: What is the status of the ARS and University of
Florida cooperative research project on citrus canker?
Answer: The citrus canker cooperative project with the
University of Florida is continuing in 1988 and is funded at
$637,849. Cooperative research continues on the genetics of the
causal bacterium, determining how this pathogen spreads, developing
improved methods to detect it, improved fruit treatment procedures,
and development of resistant varieties. As a result of completed
research, there is no longer wholesale destruction of citrus trees.
203
CROSSING HOUSE, CANAL POINT, FLORIDA
Question: In the Senate Report that accompanied last year's
Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the Committee directed the ARS to
utilize up to $300,000 to construct a new crossing house at the
Sugarcane Breeding Station in Canal Point, Florida. What progress
has ARS made so far? When do you expect construction on the
crossing house to be completed?
Answer: The engineering design for the sugarcane crossing
house at Canal Point will be complete by June 30, 1988. We will
advertise for construction bids shortly thereafter and $300,000 has
been set aside for this needed facility. Construction should begin
in the fall of 1988 with completion estimated during the spring of
1989.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
POULTRY ISOLATION UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
Question: Dr. Kinney, in FY 88, $375,000 was appropriated to
the Agricultural Research Service for use in the Buildings and
Facilities account for construction needs at the poultry isolation
unit at the University of Arkansas. The school has learned that
construction funds are woefully short, and I am interested in
knowing what flexibility the ARS is providing in its administrative
fees to help the University? What will the ARS provide the
University in exchange for the fees it will charge?
Answer: Consistent with language appropriating these funds,
ARS will transfer funds for this and other university facility
projects to the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS). ARS
does not assess any administrative charges against these funds.
Construction of the facility will be supported by a CSRS Building
and Facilities award of $363,750 to the University. CSRS retains
3% of funds for administration and they will be used for CSRS' cost
of reviewing the proposal and processing and awarding the grant.
*m-s-s-s-s
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN
NON-FOOD PRODUCTS
I have a considerable interest in biotechnology and believe
that well structured research in this area can have major benefits
for Agriculture.
It can be of special importance in the development of new
non-food uses for our crops. And I include both the modification
of crops after harvest.
In a May 15 hearing last year that I chaired, you submitted a -
FY 87 table on ARS Research on Utilization and another on the
support of new crops.
204
*
Question: The first item on that list was $12.67 million on
"New Products/process--Non-food." What would the figure be in this
FY 89 budget proposal?
Answer: The FY 89 figure is $13.0 million.
Question: Can you give us specifics on what is included in
that category?
Answer: Soybean oil is being converted to useful products
such as printer's ink, lauric acid (to replace imports of coconut
and palm kernel oil), lubricants, diesel fuel, hydroxy acids (as
substitutes for imported castor oil), and other higher value
products. Corns tarch is being utilized for the controlled delivery
of agrichemicals and for the manufacture of biodegradable plastics
useful in agricultural mulch films and trash can liners. Lactose
from the dairy industry is being upgraded to health care products.
Question: There is another line for Enzyme/Microbial
conversion——non-food funded at $3 million in FY 87. What is the
level for FY 89 and what are the specific research projects
included in that area?
Answer: The level for FY 89 is $3.4 million. Specific
projects include corns tarch modification to mimic imported gums,
conversion of fats and oils to substitutes for imported items such
as cocoa butter, and using microbial processes to manufacture
biopesticides as adjuncts to or substitutes for agricultural
chemicals.
Question: Lastly, you listed Biotechnological Manipulation to
increase end use value at $8 million. What is the FY 89 figure and
what are the specific projects being funded under this category?
Answer: The FY 89 figure is $9.6 million. Biotechnological
manipulation is being used to improve cotton and other plants, to
increase the quality of cattle hide for leather goods manufacture,
and to optimize the conversion of vegetable oils, animal fats, and
corns tarch to higher value non-food products.
LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE
Question: I believe that low input agriculture is a crucial
area of research . In Iowa, the state legislature has established a
research center in that area. Farmers are very concerned about the
contamination of ground water and so are their friends in Iowa's
cities.
What was the appropriated level in this area in FY 88 and what
does your budget call for in FY 89?
Answer: In FY 88, ARS has $102.7 million in research that has
potential to reduce costs in agricultural systems. In FY 89, ARS
proposes to use $107.7 million in research that has potential to
reduce costs to agricultural production systems including $1
million for improved pesticide application research and $4 million
for groundwater quality research.
205
Question: Please provide some detail concerning the specific
types of projects that are being funded in this area.
Answer: ARS considers low input agricultural research to
include all activities associated with reducing farmer costs,
maintaining quality of natural resources and improving farmer
profitability. Examples of relevant research includes groundwater
quality, pesticide application, biological control, biological
nitrogen fixation, and plant genetics and biotechnology to develop
crops naturally resistant to stress, insect, and other pests.
HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH
Question: To what extent does the existing array of Human
Nutrition Research Centers represent a comprehensive capacity to
address the many important questions related to human nutrition and
human health?
Answer: During fiscal year 1988, the ARS research centers and
laboratories conducted human nutrition research on (1) nutritional
requirements/health maintenance ($31.0 million), (2) nutrient
composition/bioavailability of foods ($9.4 million), and (3)
nutritional status/food intake ($3.9 million). Research at these
centers is directed to solving nutritional problems of all age
groups from infants to the elderly. ARS feels this is a
comprehensive and balanced research program. ARS' research will
remain focused on developing nutritional knowledge needed to
maintain health and reduce risk factors for nutrition related
chronic diseases--not toward dietary treatment of diseases.
Question: Which of the Human Nutrition Research Centers
currently operated by the Agricultural Research Service presently
has a major focus in the area of food selection and health
maintenance? In particular, which of the centers presently focuses
its efforts on developing the knowledge base necessary to assist
the general population in selecting the best foods, not necessarily
the best nutrients, from which one can maintain a healthy life?
Answer: The Human Nutrition Research Center at Beltsville,
Maryland, has a major focus in the area of food selection and
health maintenance with research directed toward (1) measuring food
composition and bioavailability of nutrients in foods and diet
mixtures, (2) devising diets for health maintenance or reducing
dietary risk factors for coronary heart disease, cancer, diabete ; ,
and hypertension, (3) determining amounts of food nutrients
required for health maintenance, and (4) identifying the basis for
differences in food energy utilization and body weight maintenance
among individuals. However, all of the Human Nutrition Research
Centers relate to nutritional requirements, nutritional status
assessment and bioavailability of nutrients likely to be limiting
in the diets consumed by one or more population subgroups.
The Human Nutrition Information Service (HNIS) with its
National Food Consumption Survey has primary responsibility for
research on food consumption and factors which affect food
selection. ARS works closely with HNIS in its research on food
in take and nutritive composition of foods.
206
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRD
AQUACULTURE LINKED TO PLANT CULTURE
Question: The Senate report accompanying the FY 1988
Continuing Resolution (HJ Res. 395) contained a directive requiring
the Agricultural Research Service to initiate a novel project with
the Spring and Groundwater Institute within funds appropriated for
groundwater research. What are the qualifications of the principal
behind this proposal, and does the Agricultural Research Service
believe this research to be valuable and of a high priority nature?
Answer: The principals involved are highly qualified with
over 75 years of cumulative experience in fish husbandry and
aquaculture. All three key personnel hold a Ph.D. degree and are
recognized nationally and internationally. They have experience
within the university, private business, and government sectors.
They jointly represent the type of expertise necessary to bring
research and development activities to an applied level for the
benefit of agriculture, aquaculture, and the American people.
The Agricultural Research Service believes this research is
valuable to movement of aquaculture from its present state to more
efficient, intensive culture systems. Within our traditional
agriculture research programs it is not our highest priority, but
within our emerging aquaculture program, it is certainly a
priority.
Question: What is the status of funding for this project and
of the initial planning effort by the Institute?
Answer: As to status of funding, we have agreed to multi-year
funding levels based on our review of the project's projected
annual achievements.
The initial planning effort by the Institute for forming the
planning and development team and producing a multi-year program
management document with specific work plans was funded from within
existing funds in FY 1988.
Question: How much will be allocated to this effort in
FY 19882
Answer: $110,000.
Question: What is the logical next step in the research
prograin proposed by the Institute and how much would this cost in
FY 1989 2
Answer: The program management document prepared by the
Institute proposes the following work for the second year.
-- The technical review and analysis for determining both the
potentials and limitations for coupling intensive plant
and aquatic animal cultures;
-- The prototype engineering and design for the fish culture
part of the systems; and,
207
-- Site preparation and prototype construction and
installation of the fish culture part of the system.
Based on the Institute's budget projections to do the above,
it will require $654,000 in FY 1989. We feel after our review of
the proposal, its budget, and the annual achievements, that this is
the necessary needed level of funding.
Question: Could this funding level be accommodated within the
$4 million increase which the President is seeking for groundwater
research in FY 1989 2
Answer: The intent of the President's proposal is to provide
increased support for research to safeguard the quality of the
Nation's groundwater. The aim is to minimize groundwater
contamination through more efficient use of agricultural
chemicals. We consider this program to be high priority and
support the proposal as provided in the President's Budget. The
Spring and Groundwater Institute project better fits the ARS
aquaculture program. The aim of this project is to develop an
integrated aquaculture/agriculture system that maximizes the
efficiency of producing certain fish and plants.
Question: What is the remaining work to be completed after
1989 and what would be the annual funding profile for the remainder
of this project?
Answer: The remaining work as proposed by the Institute to be
completed after 1989 is:
-- The full implementation of the fish system and initiation
of the hydroponic and drip irrigation system--this would
be Year III.
-- Continued data gathering and evaluation of the fish
component system and full implementation of the hydroponic
and drip irrigation systems--this would be Year IV.
-- The trial runs, final systems "debugging" demonstrations,
business analysis and manualization of the total system
for application on a small cottage industry scale or a
1arge commercial scale--this would be Year V--and the last
year of the project.
The annual funding profile as proposed by the Institute for
this remaining work is as follows:
--Year III – $1,087,000
—-Year IV – $1,065,000
——Year V - $ 879,000
208
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES
Question: Dr. Kinney, you say in your statement that your
"scientists are enthusiastic about our recent initiatives to
upgrade and modernize our research laboratories around the
country," including the Beltsville Center. ARS justifications show
an earmark of $15.6 million for such purpose, but other than the
$4.0 million for Beltsville, there is no indication how the
remaining $11.6 million will be used."
Can you please be more specific? Is this amount sufficient to
complete the work necessary to correct building, environmental,
fire and safety code deficiencies of USDA labs?
Answer: No. Our experience with Modernization of ARS
Facilities since FY-85 indicates the following typical costs:
Plant Gene Expression Center
Albany, California $5 Million
Plant Molecular Program
Beltsville Building 006 $2.6 Million
Various Programs
Beltsville Building 007 $5 Million
National Animal Disease Center
Ames, Iowa $3 Million
In view of our experience to date, we feel a conservative
estimate of nationwide facilities repair requirements (excluding
Beltsville) is in the range of $100 to $150 million. The Agency is
in the process of formulating nationwide modernization needs with
the development of 6-year facility upgrade plans. The specific
dollar information for locations other than Beltsville will not be
available until May 1988. Accordingly, decisions on the actual
FY-89 allocation of the $11.6 million by project and location have
not been finalized at this time.
LABORATORY SPACE
Question. Some years ago, you testified that we had a glut of
federal laboratory space. Is that still the case? If so, has any
effort been made to dispose of this excess property?
Answer . During the last 5 years, the ARS developed a
strategic plan to identify the goals, objectives, and broad
research approaches to be pursued in future years. During this
strategic planning process, programs were assessed to minimize
duplication of effort and to assure that emphasis was being placed
on high priority national agricultural problems. As part of this
process, our laboratory facilities were assessed to determine which
were not being effectively utilized. As a result of this effort,
we excessed various properties located across the Nation, e.g.,
Indio, California; Lake Charles, Louisiana; Meridian, Mississippi;
209
Brookhaven, New York; Trivoli, Illinois; etc. In support of
Executive Order 12512 on Real Property Utilization, we continue to
review ARS real property holdings to assure maximum and efficient
utilization of land and space. However, it is felt that we are no
longer in a "glut" situation.
FIRE ANTS
Question: Dr. Kinney, I was reading in your Quarterly Report
of Selected Research Projects that scientists have discovered some
new information about fire ant behavior and that this may lead to
new poisoned baits that only fire ants will eat. This sounds like
good news to those of us from my part of the country who are
familiar with the seriousness of the imported fire ant. Are we
getting any closer to developing an effective control agent?
Answer: As a result of ARS research in cooperation with
industry, four bait toxicants have been commercialized for lawn use
and a fifth is on the verge of registration. In addition, research
is in progress to acquire whatever residue data are necessary to
register one product for use on soybeans and potatoes. A major
effort will be made this year to incorporate the trail-following
pheromone and the queen recognition pheromone into toxicant baits.
This could enhance the attractiveness of these baits specifically
for imported fire ants, bringing us another step closer to an
effective control agent that can be used in both agricultural and
urban environments.
-*-
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
BARLEY
Dr. Kinney, I continue to be very interested in the ARS barley
research program both nationwide and in Idaho. Barley is important
to my state. Idaho ranked second in the nation in average barley
production in the past five years and utilizes significant amounts
of barley as livestock feed and as a raw material for its malting
industry.
Question: In response to my inquiry last year, you indicated
that the FY 88 ARS budget included a proposed increase of $234,500
for barley germplasm research. Will there be a real increase in
FY 88 funding for barley germplasm research at the Aberdeen
Research and Extension Center in Idaho, or does new funding at that
location represent reallocated funds from terminated barley
research programs at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center?
Answer: The FY 88 funding increase for germplasm research at
Aberdeen, Idaho, represents a real increase for barley and other
small grains being researched at the Center. The National Small
Grain Collection funds, when redirected at Beltsville, will support
GRIN and other high priority germplasm services from which barley
benefits as do all commodities.
Question: At what other locations and for what projects is
increased funding for barley germplasm research earmarked in
FY 88?
210
Answer: Increased funding ($52,200) for barley research in
FY88 will be added at Madison, Wisconsin, for development of
refined evaluative methods of quality characteristics and at
Urbana, Illinois ($76,050) for molecular applications to study
virus-vector relationships, virus characterization, and vector
physiology involved in barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDW).
Redirected funds will be used at the Plant Gene Expression Center
at Albany, California ($122, 190) to employ new molecular techniques
to effect gene transfer for BYDW resistance to enhance breeding
lines.
Question: Does the ARS have plans to increase funding for
barley germplasm research in FY 89? If so, how much will be made
available and at what locations and for what projects?
Answer: No new funding for ARS germplasm research is planned
for FY 89.
Question: Is there a need for an ARS barley cytogeneticist
position to meet national germplasm evaluation and enhancement
goals?
Answer: ARS has one full-time barley cytogeneticist at
Tucson, Arizona, and another scientist at Bozeman, Montana, with
some cytogenetics effort. We are also recruiting a scientist for
an Aberdeen, Idaho, position who has a strong cytogenetics
background.
Question: Last year I indicated that I was pleased with the
ARS strengthening of its small grains research effort at the
Aberdeen Research and Extension Center brought about through the
addition of two full-time research positions: one devoted to wheat
and one devoted primarily to oats. At that time, we discussed ARS
plans to supplement this staffing with a third, full-time position
devoted to barley research. You indicated that upon completion of
the transfer of funding responsibility for the ARS wheat breeder to
the University of Idaho, the ARS planned to fill this position with
a full-time barley researcher. What is the timetable for filling
this position?
Answer: We plan to fill the new barley position at Aberdeen,
Idaho, in FY 89.
Question: I was happy to hear that the ARS has consulted with
the National Barley Improvement Committee regarding the specific
area of scientific expertise for this new barley position. Can you
confirm ARS plans to devote this new position to maintaining the
barley breeding, genetics, and germplasm enhancement program
currently assigned to this location?
Answer: Yes, ARS intends for the new position to continue
Aberdeen's thrust in addressing the national needs associated with
barley breeding, genetics, and germplasm enhancement being
conducted there .
211
BARLEY YELLOW DWARF VIRUS
Question: We have previously discussed the need for the ARS
to take a more active research role in eliminating the barley
yellow dwarf virus (BYDW) threat to stable barley, wheat, and oat
production in the U. S. The ARS is to be commended for developing a
comprehensive plan of research on BYDW, devoting five scientist
years and $1,118,300 in funds to this program in FY 88. The plan
indicates that ARS will breed new varieties for tolerance to the
virus at Pullman, Washington, and University Park, Pennsylvania.
The ARS does not have barley breeding programs at either of these
locations. Where will the barley breeding component of the BYDV
plan be carried out?
Answer: ARS is not involved directly in barley breeding
research for BYDW in terms of development and release of
commercial-type varieties. However, much of our virology, gene
transfer, and germplasm evaluation research supports the breeding
programs conducted by University cooperator's and by private
industry. At Pullman, WA, ARS research is focused on wheat
germplasm enhancement for BYDW tolerance. Similar research at
University Park, PA is on oat germplasm enhancement.
POTATO RESEARCH
Question: Dr. Kinney, I would like to compliment you on your
efforts to work with the National Potato Council in directing FY 88
funds to the universities and facilities that have ongoing potato
research programs. The Congress did not pass an appropriations
bill until late in December and I appreciate your working to see
that funds will be available in a timely manner so that work on
these important research projects can continue. It is my
understanding that ARS has reviewed ongoing potato research
projects for ring rot disease, early dying, and varietal
development. In reviewing these research programs, what progress
has been made toward eliminating these diseases and improving
potato varieties?
Answer: Our research on ring rot has shown that use of
chemical disinfectants is the best method of control for this
bacterial disease. But because of apparent omnipresence of the
disease organism in U. S. production areas, eradication has not been
possible. A similar situation exists with potato early dying
diseases, a complex of soil-borne diseases always present in the
soil but expressed only under certain environmental conditions.
Our research has shown that placement of two naturally occurring
soil organisms on potato pieces at the time of planting provides a
measure of biological control. In addition, in 3 of 4 years,
experimental plots have shown an 18-22 percent increase in yields.
With both diseases, we have a long-term breeding program to develop
disease resistance. New potential varieties are screened
specifically for these diseases.
Our scientists have made good progress in developing improved
potato varieties. All of our programs are cooperative with State
agricultural experiment stations. Of the 40 most common or
emerging new potato varieties in commercial trade, 24 are from ARS
and ARS/State programs. These account for 21 percent of U.S.
212
potato acreage. Research objectives are to incorporate resistance
to ring rot, early dying, and other diseases with yield, fresh
market and processing characteristics, long storage potential, and
consumer acceptance •
Question: Does ARS see the need for continued funding for
these projects in FY 89?
Answer: Yes, we see the need to continue these research
projects in fiscal year 1989.
Question: The National Potato Council plans to request funds
for research related to aphids, potato beetle, weeds, soils,
agricultural engineering, and marketing. Does ARS believe these
projects merit consideration and/or additional funding?
Answer: Yes, these are important problems facing the U.S.
potato industry. Current ARS research programs are addressing a
number of these issues.
U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, Dubois, Idaho
The Dubois Sheep Experiment Station in Idaho is the only ARS
research program that has the scientists and resources to conduct
range sheep research. Last year, you indicated that ARS expects to
continue strong support for the Dubois Sheep Experiment Station and
that additional funds would be provided to upgrade existing
buildings, feeding equipment and feed grain storage facilities at
the Sheep Experiment Station. I am pleased to see that for the
coming fiscal year, you have once again emphasized the importance
of repairing and maintaining federal research facilities and have
included additional funds for this purpose in the FY 89 budget.
Question: What specific improvements have been made at the
Dubois Sheep Experiment Station, and how much will be allocated out
of proposed FY 89 funds to continue the renovations that have
already begun?
Answer: The FY 1987 Appropriation included an increase of
$135,000 net to location funds for facilities at the U.S. Sheep
Experiment Station, Dubois, Idaho. These funds and other Agency
appropriations were combined to meet repair and maintenance needs
in FY 1987 and will continue to be utilized in support of the
Station in FY 1988 and 1989 for the following projects:
Project FY 1987
Purchase of grain bin cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19,702
Remodel Laboratory - Building 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,003
Concrete feedbunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,000
Sheetmetal feedbunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,446
Water well rennovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,487
Fire alarm system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,000
Housing rennovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,300
Miscellaneous repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,311
Total, FY 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,249
213
Project FY 1988
Conversion of Building 66 to Nutrition Barn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $56,800
Housing rennovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000
Finish concrete feedbunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,000
Erection of grain bin cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,500
Stream stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,600
Energy Retrofit - insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000
Rennovation of Building 93 for nutrition work. . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 200
Replace housing unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,000
Miscellaneous repairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000
—tt-2-
Total, FY 1988. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304, 100
Project FY 1989
Complete conversion of Building 66 for nutrition . . . . . . . . . $33,000
Building 58 rennovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,000
Equipment storage building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000
Additional office space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000
Rennovation of Building 67 for nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Continued housing improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000
Total, FY 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286,000
DRY PEAS AND LENTILS
Question: ARS has supported research on genetic mapping on
dry peas and lentils at Washington State University. Dry peas and
lentils are important to the State of Idaho as a cash crop and the
world as a protein source. The pea and lentil industry
organizations have provided funding in support of this research as
have the universities. I want to insure that ARS continues its
financial support for this project.
Answer: We plan to continue this research program.
Question: Is funding for genetic mapping on dry peas and
lentils included in the FY 89 budget? At what level compared to
FY 882
Answer: The fiscal year 88 funding level for ARS variety
development of dry peas and lentils is $233,900 of which
approximately $20,000 is specifically on genetic mapping. The same
level of funding is estimated for fiscal year 89.
Question: Is it adequate to support an additional full-time
geneticist position?
Answer: The present level of funding is inadequate to support
an additional full-time geneticist.
Question: If not, how much additional funds would be
required.
Answer: An additional $200,000 would be required for this
research.
214
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KASTEN
WACANCY AT MADISON, WISCONSIN
Question: Dr. Kinney, I noted with interest the packet of
high-caro tene carrot seeds included in the package of products
developed with the help of ARS. I was interested to see that this
variety of carrot was developed in large part by a researcher at
the University of Wisconsin. My understanding is that this
researcher passed away some time ago. The position he filled is
now vacant. In view of the long history of vegetable production in
Wisconsin, its importance to the State's agricultural economy, and
the importance of vegetables as potential alternative crops for
thousands of hard-pressed farmers in the Middle West, I hope that
ARS will fill this position at the University of Wisconsin.
Transferring this research capacity to other areas of the country
already well endowed with research resources would not be in the
interests of Midwestern farmers. Can you assure me that ARS will
fill the vegetable research position at the University of
Wisconsin?
Answer: We are now recruiting for a new ARS scientist for the
vegetable research position at Madison, Wisconsin. There are no
plans to move this position to another part of the country. The
research, however, will be broadly applicable to much of the U.S.,
as well as to Wisconsin and other areas of the mid-west.
BARLEY
Question: Dr. Kinney, ARS was very helpful beginning in the
appropriations process for Fiscal Year 1986 in helping the
University of Wisconsin acquire a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
spectrometer unit. One of the projected users of this unit was the
Cereal Crops Research Unit at UW.
The CCRU does not now have an NMR specialist assigned to it,
with the result that a potentially valuable research tool is being
underutilized. Is it possible for ARS to help bring an NMR
specialist to the CCRU2
Answer: Since the NMR is owned by the University of
Wisconsin, ARS does not plan to hire an NMR specialist for the ARS
Cereal Crops Research Unit at Madison, Wisconsin. Other research
areas, specifically, molecular biology, are identified as higher
priority. ARS scientists have access to NMR analysis of Cereal
Crops through Cooperating scientists at the University of
Wisconsin.
215
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD
RESEARCH IN OREGON
Question: Last year the ARS office in Portland, Oregon, was
closed and fifteen employees were displaced. I was assured at the
time that agriculture research in the State would not suffer as a
result of the office closure. Please detail for the committee the
commitment ARS continues to have in Oregon. Compare your FY 1989
proposal with actual research commitments for FY 1988.
Answer: The estimated funding for the State of Oregon in
FY 1988 and FY 1989 follows :
FY 1988 FY 1989
Location Estimated Estimated
Burns, Oregon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $331,600 $333,900
Corvallis, Oregon. & Cº º ºs º e º 'º º tº º is © e º ºs º gº tº Q º º º 3,770, 500 3,802,800
Pendleton, Oregon. tº e º E gº º ſº tº e º ſe º O ſº tº dº e º e º 'º C tº 1,062,400 1,079,300
TOTAL, Oregon. e e º e e e º e º 'º e º e º e º cº e º e º e 5, 164,500 5, 216,000
The increase in Fiscal Year 1989 over 1988 is for estimated
pay costs .
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH BUILDING, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Question: The fiscal year 1988 appropriations measure
allotted $10 million for a new agriculture research building at
Oregon State University. Your budget proposal indicates that $7.5
million remains to be obligated for that project. Must the balance
of these funds be obligated in FY 1989 or will they remain
available on an "as needed" basis?
Answer: The fiscal year 1988 Appropriations Act provides that
only $2.5 million of the $10 million allotted to the Oregon State
University agriculture research building is available in fiscal
year 1988. The remaining $7.5 million will become available in
fiscal year 1989. The Act also provides that the funds are to
remain available until expended. At this time, Oregon State
University officials have indicated to CSRS that they plan to
request the remaining $7.5 million in fiscal year 1989.
216
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
WATER QUALITY
Question: The Experiment Stations and the State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges are proposing a $25 million
initiative on water quality research and management. They cite
this research as the number one priority for the nation. What
is your assessment of the water quality situation in this
country?
Answer: There is a water quality problem in numerous areas
of the country. This is well documented by scores of statements
in the last three years by State and Federal agencies in reports
and conferences, which have highlighted non point pollution
sources of water contamination. The seriousness of the problem
varies with the types of contaminant found, their concentration
and potential for toxic effects in humans, animals, plants and
birds. In many cases there is insufficient scientific data to
make well informed decisions possible.
Improved standards are needed for collecting
representative and accurate soil and groundwater samples of
agricultural fields and watersheds. Also, more information is
needed on which to base sound agricultural production management
decisions and regulatory actions that may be available for
improvement of water quality.
Question: Do you feel that it should receive top priority
for research funding?
Answer: If more rapid progress toward understanding
agriculturally related pollution problems is desired,
groundwater research must be considered a top priority.
Question: What is your view of the $25 million proposed by
the experiment stations and universities?
Answer: The proposal appears to be based upon well
documented evaluations of the difficulty, magnitude, and costs
associated with conducting the water quality research the
experiment stations and universities believe is necessary.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Question: The Committee understands that the feasibility
studies, as well as the report on biotechnology centers are
being conducted by CSRS. The committee expects these reports to
be submitted prior to its mark up of the fiscal year 1989
appropriations bill. When may we expect to receive these
feasibility studies?
Answer: The Cooperative State Research Service hopes to
submit these feasibility studies to Congress in July.
217
Question: The biotechnology report was to be submitted
prior to these hearings. Obviously, this has not occurred.
When do you expect this report to be available?
Answer: At this time the biotechnology report is being
finalized and cleared and should be submitted this Spring.
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE RESEARCH
Question : You propose a new competitive research grant program
for stratospheric ozone research in the amount of $7,400,000. What
type of research do you expect to be conducted under this grant; when
do you expect results; and what is the average size of grants that
you expect to make?
Answer: The relatively large request for work on the
consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion on crops reflects
the urgent need to develop an understanding of possible deletorious
effects on major crops and forest system. The main problem is that
we do not know precisely how our major crop plants would be affected
by the increases in ultraviolet radiation, UV-B, that may result even
from very small changes in the amount of ozone in the earth's
stratosphere.
We know a great deal about the effects of UV radiation on animal
cells, particularly as a result of concern about skin cancer in
humans. Similar information is lacking about the effects of UV on
plant cells and on productivity of our major crops in general. From
laboratory experiments, we know that UV radiation is detrimental for
a wide variety of plant species. We know that some important crops,
e.g. tomato, sugar beets, onions, lettuce, etc., are among the most
sensitive of plant species. We know that the plant's natural
defenses against UV radiation, such as leaf waxes, pigments, and
other organic molecules that absorb UV, and DNA repair mechanisms,
are less effective at the shorter wavelengths and at increased doses
of the UV-B range. There is a strong possibility that our major
crops may be endangered because of increased UV radiation, but no one
can predict the exact consequences of the changes in ozone levels in
the stratosphere. It is in the national interest to implement a
program of basic research which, perhaps 10 years down the road, can
provide the means to ameliorate what may be an inevitable consequence
of the emission into the upper atmosphere of contaminants from
such things as supersonic aircraft engines, the use of certain
propellants for pressurized can products, and industrial pollution.
Differences in sensitivity of plants to UV radiation have been
attributed to differences in the optical properties of the epidermal
layers. This needs to be confirmed by physiologists, biochemists,
and plant geneticists. The results would be of benefit to plant
improvement programs which are dependent on traditional breeding or
modern gene transfer techniques. On a very different area of
research, it is known that insects see in the near ultraviolet ; thus,
alteration in the quality of UW may affect their perception of flower
colors, essential for pollination, sex recognition, etc. Work in
this area would require close cooperation among biophysicists,
entomologists, ecologists, chemists, and others. A $7.4 million
appropriation for the Competitive Research Grants program component
218
would fund approximately 60 scientists at a level of $125,000 a
year.
PLANT SCIENCE CENTERS
Question: Your budget request proposes $3.4 million for Plant
Science Centers. I understand that this is a joint project between
USDA/Department of Energy/and the National Science Foundation. We
did not include special money for this in fiscal year 1988; however,
it would appear that you are spending money this year for these
Centers. How much money is being spent in fiscal year 1988 and what
is the source of that funding?
Answer: Congress did not appropriate funds specifically
designated for Plant Science Centers in the Competitive Research
Grants budget for the USDA. After discussions with representatives
of agriculture appropriations subcommittees, it was decided to proceed
with the Centers because of the strong interest generated by the
research community and the expressed commitment from the other par—
ticipating agencies. The current plan calls for USDA to fund $2
million of the proposals submitted in 1988. These proposals have
been received but the review for scientific merit will not be complete
until late summer. Since the awards could not be made until late in
the fiscal year, it is not yet certain whether we will fund all of
the 1988 USDA Centers from the 1988 Competitive Grants Program or
some may be funded under the requested program designed for Centers
in our 1989 budget. We will keep the Committee informed as our plans
are finalized.
Question: How many centers are you establishing in 1988 and how
many do you expect to establish in fiscal year 1989?
Answer: Fifty-six proposals for the Centers were received and
presently are being reviewed. The number of centers to be funded
will depend on the quality and nature of the proposals, the
recommendations from the review panels, and the funding necessary to
allow adequate operation of those Centers that may be approved.
At this time we are estimating three to six centers in 1988 and
maybe five to ten centers in 1989, supported under the joint USDA,
DOE, NSF program.
Question: Where are these Centers located, and how are they
composed ?
Answer: No Centers have been established as yet. It is
expected that decisions as to number and location of the Centers wil 1
be made on or about September 1, 1988.
AQUACULTURE
Question : Funding for aquaculture is provided in various
accounts through CSRS and ARS. Please provide for the committee the
total amount of aquaculture funding by location, including the type
of research being conducted?
Answer: CSRS research conducted under these accounts has
addressed a number of problems facing the aquaculture industry
including disease diagnosis and prevention, broodstock improvement,
nutrition of aquatic organisms, improvements in water quality,
219
off-flavor in channel catfish, and alternative aquacultural
production systems. Several different commercially important species
as well as potentially important species have been addressed.
The most recent data available from the Current Research
Information System on CSRS funding for aquaculture research by
location is for fiscal year 1986 and we will provide this
information.
Cooperative State Research Service
Fiscal Year 1986
Funding
State/Location Levels
Alabama : Auburn University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $148,523
Arkansas : University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff. . . . . . 288,714
California : University of California, Berkeley. . . . 65,297
University of California, Davis . . . . . . . 80,873
Connecticut: University of Connecticut, Storrs . . . . 2, 416
Delaware : Delaware State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 464
Florida : University of Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,479
Georgia : University of Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,987
Guam : University of Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,085
Hawaii: University of Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204,434
The Oceanic Institute, Warmanalo, Hawaii . . 699, 865
Indiana : Purdue University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 643
Iowa : Iowa State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,363
Kentucky: Kentucky State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262,272
Louisiana: Louisiana State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . 122, 229
Maine : University of Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 121
Maryland : University of Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,551
University of Maryland, Eastern Shore . . . 5,926
Massachusetts : University of Massachusetts. . . . . . . . 45, 246
Tufts University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,300
Michigan: Michigan State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 132
Minnesota : University of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,869
Mississippi : Mississippi State University. . . . . . . . . 538,537
Alcorn State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81,100
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. . . . . . . 484,068
Missouri : University of Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,555
Montana : Montana State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,094
Nebraska : University of Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 258
Nevada : University of Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 489
New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire . . . . . . . . 66,485
New Jersey: Rutgers University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 282
New York: Cornell University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,425
North Carolina : North Carolina State University. . . 33,451
Ohio; Ohio State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,084
Oklahoma: Langston University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 460
Oregon: Oregon State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 804
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University. . . . . . . 1,698
Puerto Rico : University of Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,942
Rhode Island : University of Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . 176,071
South Carolina : Clemson University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,727
South Carolina State College . . . . . . 37,073
South Dakota : South Dakota State University. . . . . . . 41, 191
Tennessee : University of Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 854
220
Texas : Texas A&M University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 346
Southwest Texas State University. . . . . . . . . . . 34, 795
Virgin Islands: College of the Virgin Islands • . . . . 164,643
Virginia: Virginia State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218, 4.36
Washington: Washington State University - - - - - - - - - - - 79,770
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * 4,993, 427
AQUACULTURE CENTERS
Question: Regarding the aquaculture centers, what is the status
at each location? What type of research will be done at each
location, including the amounts and the plans for the future?
Answer: The Centers in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and
Washington are all functional . The Centers at Washington and
Mississippi have initiated regional research and extension projects.
The Western Regional Aquaculture Center's projects concern disease
control, alternative protein sources for Salmonids, improving fish
and shellfish broodstocks through genetics, understanding the effect
of nutrition on the reproductive performance of broodstock, Extension
projects in aquaculture, and a shellfish sanitation workshop. The
Southern Center's projects concern understanding regional and
national markets for aquaculture projects, the preparation of
technical production manuals, and improving and maintaining water
quality. The Centers at Hawaii and Massachusetts have identified
their priorities and are finalizing their programs. These projects
are funded at a total of $718,000, the same amount available for
other Centers except the North Central Center which is funded at
$500,000. The new Center for the North Central Region funded in FY
1988, to be administered jointly by Michigan State University and
Iowa State University, is in the process of planning its program.
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS
Question: For each of the Competitive Research Grant
categories, please provide the following information for fiscal year
1987 and the estimates for fiscal year 1988: Number of Grants
awarded, location of each grantee and the amount awarded, the type of
research being conducted.
Answer: At this time, four fiscal year 1988 grants have been
awarded and a list of these grants follows. A total of 363
Competitive Research Grants were awarded in fiscal year 1987 and a
1ist of these grants follows.
§
:
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS
GRANTS AWARDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988
PROGRAM AREA : BIOLOGICAL STRESS-PLANT PATHOLOGY
Agreement
Grant Number º Period
Principal Proposal From
Organization Investigator Number Amount TO Title
Univ. of California E. G. Platger 85-CRCR-1-1629 $50,000 09-01-85 Molecular Diagnostics of
Riverside, CA 92521 8800081 08-31-88 Plant Parasitic Nematodes
PROGRAM AREA : PLANT SCIENCE - BIOTECHNOLOGY
Univ. of California R. B. Goldberg 88-37234-3277 $5,000 03-15–88 Molecular Basis of Plant
Los Angeles, CA 90024 8800002 09-30–88 Development/A UCLA
Symposium
Univ of California C. F. Fox 88-37234–3288 $5,000 03-15–88 Molecular Biology of
Los Angeles, CA 90024 09-30-88 Plant-Pathogen
Interactions/A UCLA
Colloquium
Skidmore College D. S. Domozych 88-37234-3292 $5,000 04-01-88 Membrane Traffic and
Saratoga Springs, NY 09-30-88 Recycling in Eukaryotes
(A Workshop)
§
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM
The following tabulation lists the funds awarded
in the various areas in fiscal year 1987 under the
Competitive Research Grants Program.
Plant Science
Biological Nitrogen
Fixation
Biological Stress on
Plants
Genetic Mechanisms for
Crop Improvement
Photosynthesis
Soybean Research
Human Requirements
for Nutrients
Biotechnology
Plant Molecular
Biology
Plant Growth and
Development
Response to Physical
Stress (Plants)
Response to Biological
Stress (Entomology)
Response to Biological
Stress (Plant Path)
Animal Molecular
Biology
Animal Growth and
Development
$11,008, 176
$1,713,412
4,949,400
1,818,000
2,060,000
467,364
$ 2,253,396
$18,027,168
3,399,878
3,643,290
1,793,000
971,000
1,620,000
3,525,000
3,075,000
This program is administered under the
authority of Section 2 (b) of P. L. 89-106, 7
U. S. C. 450i (b), as amended by Section 1414 (b)
of P. L. 95-113 and Section 1415 (a) of P. L. 97-
98, and in accordance with Sections 6301-6308
of P. L. 97- 258. Section 1419 of P. L. 95-113,
as amended, authorized grants for the Alcohol
Fuels Research Program.
U.S. colleges and universities, other
research institutions, Federal agencies,
private organizations or corporations, and
individual s may submit proposal S.
PLANT SC I ENCE
Grants are awarded in four broad a reas of
research in plant biology: nitrogen fixation
and metabolism, biological stress on plants,
genetic mechanisms for crop improvement, and
photosynthesis. A brief description of each
area of research, with a listing of research
grants made during fiscal year 1987, follows.
§
Animal Science
Insect Pest Science
Alcohol Fuel S Research
$4,056,492
$2,704,644
$ 487,272
TOTAL $38,537. IAS
Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Grants in this area support research to
find ways to naturally increase the nitrogen
available to plants. Lack of nitrogen for
plant growth is the most common limiting
factor in crop agriculture. This research
will contribute to understanding nitrogen-
fixing mechanisms in both symbiotic and free-
living organisms, as well as the fate of
fixed nitrogen.
The objective of this research is to
build a foundation of basic information
concerning nitrogen fixation, related
nitrogen metabolism and nitrogen cycling.
This information should help in the
enhancement of the process in currently known
systems and provide a base for devel oping new
nitrogen-fixing associations, by genetic
transfer or other means, for crop species not
now possessing such capability.
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A NTS PROGRAM
PROGRAM A REA: NITRO GEN FIX ATION
G R ANTS AWARDED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT NUM BER A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PROPOSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of California John B. Neilands 85-C R C R-1-1633 $50,000 09-01-85 Iron Assimilation in Symbiotic
Berkeley, CA 94720 8702802 08-31-88 Nitrogen-fixing Microorganisms
Univ. of California Donald A. Phillips 87-C R C R-1-2552 $100,000 09-01-87 The Effect of Flavonoids on
Davis, CA 95616 8700987 08-31-89 Nodulation and Growth in Alfalfa
Univ. of California Barbara K. Burgess 85-C R C R-1-1635 $70,000 08-01-85 Substrate Reactions of
Irvine, CA 92717 8702764 07-31-88 Nitrogenase
Univ. of Connecticut David R. Benson 85-C R C R-1-1657 $90,000 07-01-85 Developmental Biology of Frankia
Storrs, C T 06268 870.1457 06-30-89
Univ. of Florida Robert R. Schmidt 87-C R C R-1-2476 $90,000 09-01-87 Sequences of 2 A m monia-induced
Gainesville, FL 32611 870.1385 08-31-89 Glutamate Dehydrogenases, their
Genes and mRNAs
§
Univ. of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637
Northwestern Univ.
Evanston, IL 60201
Northwestern Univ.
Evanston, IL 60201
Purdue Res. F dn.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Amherst College
A m herst, M A 01002
Harvard Univ.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Univ. of Maine
Orono, ME 04469
Univ. of Maine
Orono, ME 04469
Robert Haselkorn
Brian M. Hoffman
Brian Hoffman
Jeffrey T. Bolin
R. Krishnamoorthi
David M. Dooley
John G. Torrey
John D. Tjepkema
Christa Schwintzer
87-C R C R-1-2452
8701374
87-C R C R-1-2430
8701573
87-C R C R-1-2553
870.1456
87-C R C R-1-2429
870.1602
87-C R C R-1-2396
870.1262
87-C R C R-1-2477
8701618
87-C R C R-1-2461
870.1450 -
87-C R C R-1-2431
870.1337
C R-1-2440
87-C R
701341
$55,000
$55,000
$4,000
$55,000
$88,000
$90,000
$55,000
$55,000
$90,000
07-01-87
06-30-88
08-01-87
07-31-88
09-01-87
03-31-88
08-01-87
07-31-88
07-15–87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
Rearrangement of Fixation Genes
in Cyanobacterial Heterocyst
Differentiation
Single-Crystal and Solution
END OR Studies of Nitrogenase
Gordon Research Conference on
Metals in Biology
Three-Dimensional Structure of
Nitrogenase
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Investigation of Nitrite Reductase
Active Site Structure and .
Function of Copper Enzymes in
Denitrification
Causes of Ineffective Root
Nodulation in Actinorhizal Plants
Nitrogen Fixation in Actinorhizal
Plants: Hemoglobins and Gas
Exchange
The Ecology and *ś of
§ºgen xation in Actifiorhizal
an
§
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
Univ. of Missouri”
Columbia, M 0 65211
Dartmouth College
Hanover, N H 03755
Ohio State Univ. Res. Foln.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Ohio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Michael Thomashaw
David W. Emerich
Dale G. Blevins
Dean E. Wilcox
John G. Streeter
Wolfgang D. Bauer
Harold J. Evans
85-C R C R-1-1739
8702768
85-C R C R-1-1734
870.1620
87-C R C R-1-2466*
870.1617
87-C R C R-1-2485
870.1614
87-C R C R-1-251.1
870.1179
86-C R C R-1-21.18
8702828
87-C R C R-1–2472
870.1313
$65,000
$110,000
$5,000*
$90,000
$55,000
$50,000
$98,790
*Split-funded with Soybean research area for the amount of $120,664.
08-15-85
08-31-88
09-01-85
08–31-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
09-15-86
09-30-88
09-01-
08-31-
§
§
Developmental and Physiological
Gene Regulation in the
Rhizobium/Legume Symbiosis
Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation: The
Role of Malate
Ureide Metabolism in Nodulated
Soybeans
The Catalytic Mechanism of
Urease
Role of a,a-trehalose in
Rhizobium and the Rhizobium-
ſegume Symbiosis
Mechanisms Regulating Nodule
Formation in Soybean
Regulation of Expression of
Hydrogen Recycling Genes in
Bradyrhizobium japonicum
§
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Peter J. Bottomley
Univ. of TenneSSee
Knoxville, T N 37996
Gary Stacey
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Eric W. Triplett
Univ. of Wisconsin.”
Madison, WI 53706
Gary P. Roberts
87-C R C R-1–2471
8701603
87-C R C R-1-2512
8701454
87-C R C R-1–2571
870.1543
87-C R C R-1-2561?
870.1402
TOTAL $1,713,412
$110,000
$55,000
$90,000
$37,622*
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-15–87
09-30-88
09-15–87
09-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
Nodulation and Autecology of
Soil-Borne Rhizobium trifolii
Genetics of Auxin Synthesis in
Bradyrhizobium japonicum
Trifolitoxin: Structure. Mode of
Action, and Genetics of
Production
Analysis of a Regulatory System
for Nitrogenase in Rhodospirillum
rubrum
*Split-funded with Biotechnology-Plant Molecular Biology/Nitrogen Fixation research area for the amount of $72,378.
§
Biological Stress on Plants_-
|Entomology/Nematology
Research grants in this area support
studies on stresses on plants arising from
their interactions with in sects, nema to des,
or other in vertebrates such as mites. The
ultimate goal of the program is to support
research which will lead to ways of reducing
losses in plant productivity from damage
caused by these organisms.
Research into the basic biology of these
in vertebrates is encouraged as is research on
plant/invertebrate interactions. Specific
emphasis is placed on but not limited to the
following areas: in vertebrate growth,
development, and reproduction (physiology,
biochemistry and molecular biology);
mechanisms (biochemical and genetic) of plant
defenses against in vertebrate attack;
physiological and ecological interactions of
in vertebrate control agents (in vertebrates,
virus, bacteria, fungi and other
microorganisms) with their hosts;
in vertebrate behavioral physiology;
population dynamics on the genetic,
ecological and evolutionary level ; and
fundamental basis of pesticide toxicity and
resistance.

§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEARCH G R A NTS P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: BIO L 0 GICAL STRESS - E N T 0 M 0 L 0 G Y
G R ANTS AWARDED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT N U M BER A M 0 UNT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R 0P 0SAL N U M BER PERIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of Arkansas Rose C. Gergerich 87-CRC R-1-2355 $120,000 07-01-87 The Role of Regurgitant and Virus
Fayetteville, AR 72701 8700493 06-30-89 Translocation in Virus
Transmission by Beetles
Northern Arizona Univ. Thomas G. Whitham 87–C R C R-1–2361 $100,000 08-01-87 Interaction of Herbivory, Stress,
Flagstaff, AZ 86011 8700709 07-31-89 #. Host Resistance in Pinyon
ine
Univ. of Arizona Haruhiko Itagaki 87-C R C R-1–2362 $120,000 09-01-87 Central Processing of
Tucson, AZ. 85721 8700458 08-31-90 Chemosensory Information in
Larval Pest Lepidoptera
Univ. of Arizona T. A. Christensen 87–C R C R-1-2434 $90,000 08-01-87 Central Processing of
Tucson, AZ 85721 8700470 07-31-89 Behaviorally Relevant 0 dors in
Pest Insects
Univ. of California Sean S. Duffey 87-C R C R-1-2371 $100,000 07-01-87 Biochemical Factors Affecting
Davis, CA 95616 8700693 06-30-89 Use of Plant Nitrogen by
Herbivorous Insects
§
Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Purdue Res. F dn.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Purdue Res. F dn.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
C. J. Lovatt
Pauline 0. Lawrence
R. A. Larson
Robert L. Metcalf
Larry L. Murdock
W. R. Ferris
Marion 0. Harris
87-C R C R-1-2288
8700240
87-C R C R-1-2383
8700433
87-C R C R-1-2374
870.1040
87-C R C R-1-2373
8700115
87–C R C R-1–2297
8700420
87-C R C R-1-2289
8700654
87-C R C R-1-2412
8700527
$90,000
$90,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
07-01-87
06-30-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-90
07-01-87
06-30-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-90
Nematode Root Infection Causes
A m monia Toxicity, Reduces
Hormone Levels áñd Bloom
Host-Initiated Molting of a Fruit
Fly Parasitoid: An Investigation
in vitro
Phototoxic Plant Defensive
Compounds and their Modes of
Action
Chemical Ecology of
Diabroticites: Basic and Applied
Aspects
Proteinase Inhibitors for Host
Plant Resistance
2-D Protein Patterns in Cyst
Nematodes
Quantifying Behavioral Responses
of Adult Hessian Flies to Host and
Non-hosts
:
Univ. of Kentucky Res.
F dn.
Lexington, KY 40546
Univ. of Kentucky Res.
F dm.
Lexington, KY 40506
Louisiana State Univ. &
A& M College
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Univ. of Massachusetts
A m herst, M A 01003
Univ. of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695
Kenneth F. Haynes
Paul A. Weston
Thomas C. Sparks
Ronald J. Prokopy
Pedro Barbosa
J. M. Scriber
R. J. Lindermann
87-C R C R-1-2410
8700668
87-C R C R-1–2348
8700675
87-C R C R-1-2384
8700428
87-C R C R-1–2385
8700564
87-C R C R-1-2363
8700275
87-C R C R-1-2581
8700616
87-C R C R-1-2417
8700634
$120,000
$100,000
$90,000
$50,000
$90,000
$150,000
$100,000
07-01-87
06-30-89
06-01-87
05-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-15–87
09-30-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
Redundancy in Chemical
Communication as a Buffer
Against Environmental Noise
Tomato Trichome-mediated
Resistance to Spider Mites and Its
Stability
Regulation of JH Metabolism in
Pest Lepidoptera
Food Foraging Behavior of Apple
ºggºt and Mediterranean Fruit
TeS
The Role of Tri-trophic Level
Interactions in Localized
Specialization of Parasitoids
Chemical Ecology of
Papilionidae: Physiology and
Biochemistry of Host Plant Use
Design, Synthesis and Assay of
Inhibitors of Juvenile Horm one
Esterase
§
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695
Univ. of Nevada
Reno, NW 89557
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
0hio State Univ. Res. Fan.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Oklahoma State Univ.
Still water, 0 K 74078
George G. Kennedy
M. de Renobales
Maurice J. Tauber
Sara Via
Anthony M. Shelton
Paul L. Phelan
J. W. Dill with
85-C R C R-1-1615
8702371
87-C R C R-1–2293
8700346
87-C R C R-1-2376
8700301
87-C R C R-1-2375
8700578
87-C R C R-1-2422
8700276
87-C R C R-1-2294
8700621
87-C R C R-1-2377
87006.79
$50,000
$100,000
$90,000
$45,000
$100,000
$100,000
$45,000
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30–89
08-01-87
07-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
08-01-87
07-31-88
Mechanisms of Multiple Insect
Resistance in a Wild Tomato
Species
Biosynthesis of Insect Cuticular
Lipids-Potential for Insect
Control
Phenological Responses of
Colorado Potato Beetle to
Resistant Potato Varieties
Experimental Estimates of the
Potential for Evolution in a Crop
Pest
Habitat
lection by an Aphid
5.ºf y p
Chemical Ecology of Nitidulid
Beetles, Pathogenic Fungi, and
their Plant Hosts
Role of Plant Epicuticular Lipids
in Aphid Interactions with Alfalfa
§
Oklahoma State Univ.
Still water, 0 K 74078
Univ. of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, WA 99164
R. C. Johnson
Mary A. Rankin
Kemet D. Spence
87-C R C R-1-2378
8700367
87-C R C R-1-2413
8700577
87-C R C R-1-2386
8700408
TOTAL $2,590,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
08-01-87
07-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
08-01-87
07-31-88
Molecular Adaptations for
Greenbug Resistance Under
Drought
The Cost of Migration in
Melanoplus sanguinipes
Regulation and Mode of Action of
a Coagulation-initiating Insect
Protein
;
Biological Stress on Pl ants – Plant Pathology.
and Weeds
Research grants in this program support
studies on stress on plants arising from
their interactions with other plants and
other microbial agents including fungi,
bacteria, viruses, and mycoplasma-like
organisms. The ultimate goal is to reduce
losses in plant productivity from damage
caused by biologically generated stresses.
Emphasis in this area is on studies that
will enhance understanding of how stressful
interactions are established between plants
and other biological agents; how such
interactions are influenced by environment
and other factors inherent to the interacting
organisms; how the interactions reduce plant
productivity and useful ness to man; how
plants react to stress generated by such
interactions; and how the damage of such
interactions may be reduced or eliminated.
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEAR C H G R A N T S P R 0 G R A M
P R O GRAM A REA: BIOLOGICAL STRESS - PLANT PATH 0L 0 G Y
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRIN CIPAL G R A NT NUM BER A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PRO POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of California Steven E. Lindow 87-C R C R-1-2542 $75,000 09-01-87 Interactions of Stresses Due to
Berkeley, CA 94720 8700740 08-31-88 Pathogens and Competition on
Plant Growth
Univ. of California John M. Duniway 85-C R C R-1-1580 $50,000 07-01-85 Influence of Environmental
Davis, CA 95616 8702397 06-30-88 Stresses on the Development and
Impact of Phytophthora Root Rot
Univ. of California Jodie S. Holt 87-C R C R-1-2326 $80,000 07-01-87 Physiological Basis for
Riverside, CA 92521 8700185 06-30-89 Competitive Relationships of
Cotton and Perennial Weeds
Univ. of Georgia Res. F dn. Timothy P. Denny 87-C R C R-1-2314 $85,900 07-01-87 The Genetic Basis of Host Range
Athens, GA 30602 8700516 06-30-89 Specificity in Pseudomonas
Solanacearum T
Iowa State Univ. of Science Peter A. Peterson 87-C R C R-1-2448 $100,000 07–15–87 Transposon Tagging of
& Technology 8700293 07-31-90 Agriculturally Important Disease-
A mes, IA 50011
Resistant Genes in Maize
§
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Univ. of Kentucky Res.
F dn.
Lexington, KY 40506
Univ. of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546
Beltsville Area
ARS, USDA
Beltsville, MD 20705
Beltsville Area
ARS, USD A
Beltsville, MD 20705
Charlotte Bronson
Stephen K. Farrand
Constantin Rebeiz
John G. Shaw
Robert J. Shepherd
Kevin J. Hackett
C. Jacyn Baker
87-C R C R-1-2343
8700682
87-C R C R-1-2353
8700625
87-C R C R-1-2342
8700130
85-C R C R-1–1536
8702535
86-C R C R-1-2261
8702779
87-C R C R-1-2372
8700707
87-C R C R-1-2304
8700613
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$45,000
$50,000
$80,000
$128,000
§§§
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-01-87
06-30–89
07-01-85
06-30-88
09-15-86
09-30-88
06-15-87
06-30–90
08-01-87
07-31-89
Genome Orqanization of the
jº #. §§§
Cochliobolus heterostrophus
Crown Gall Control: Plasmid
Engineering to Maximize Control
and Minimize Failures
Identification of Natural and . .
Synthetic Photodynamic Herbicide
odulators
Viral Gene Expression in Potyvirus
Infections
Defining and Mapping the Genes
of Cauliflower Mosaic Wirus
Cultivation and Detection of
Mycoplasm alike Organisms
Molecular Mechanisms for
Plant/Pathogen Recognition
§
Univ. of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Northern States Area
ARS, USD A
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
Univ. of Nebraska
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Lincoln, NE 68583–0704
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Alan Collmer
M. F. Thomashow
Alan P. Roelfs
A. K. Chatterjee
Herman W. Knoche
James R. Aist
William E. Fry
87-C R C R-1-2352
8700624
87–C R C R-1-2366
8700620
85-C R C R-1–1534
8702382
87-C R C R-1-2504
8700705
85-C R C R-1-1542
870.2487
87-C R C R-1-2306
8700518
87-C R C R-1-2336
8700456
$74,500
$100,000
$44,000
$150,000
$50,000
$120,000
$100,000
07-01-87
06-30–88
09-01-87
08-31-89
07/01/85
06/30/88
09-15–87
09–30–89
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-89
Genetics of Pectate Lyase
Isozymes and Pathogenicity in
Erwinia chrysanthemi
Virulence Genes of Agrobacterium
tumefaciens
Genetic Diversity in Sexual and .
Asexual Populations of Rust Fungi
in Agroecosystems
Molecular Genetics of
Extracellular Pectate Lyases of
Erwinia carotovora
Identification of Host Components
Determining Resistance of
Susceptibility to Toxins
Calcium Regulation in Secretion
and Disease Resistance
Epidemiological Impact of Sexual
Recombination in Phytophthora
infestans
:
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Ohio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Utah State Univ.
Logan, UT 84322
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, WA 99164
Univ. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Milton Zaitlin
Laurence W. Madden
Steven Radosevich
Neal K. Wan Alfen
Timothy D. Murray
Walter Halperin
Jennifer L. Parke
87-C R C R-1-2549
8700398
87-C R C R-1-2307
8700332
87-C R C R-1–2453
8700695
87–C R C R-1-2360
8700706
87-C R C R-1-2439
8700636
87-C R C R-1-2369
8700463
87-C R C R-1-2327
8700318
$120,000
$117,000
$80,000
$80,000
$100,000
$30,000
$100,000
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
07-15-87
07-31-89
09–15–87
09-30-88
09-15–87
09-30-89
The Association of Plant Viruses
with Chloroplasts
Rain Splash Dispersal of Fungal
Pathogens of Strawberry
Interactions of Germination,
Growth, Reproduction and
Environment of Weed
Communities
Identification of a Wiral Gene that
Regulates Fungal Virulence
Effect of Soil pH on Incidence and
Severity of Cephalosporium Stripe
of Wheat
Molecular and Genetic Studies Of
Aqrobacterium tumefaciens
chment
Population Dynamics of a
Biological Control Agent in the
Rhizosphere
§
Univ. of Wisconsin Gustaaf A. deZoeten 87-C R C R-1–2345 $100,000 09-01-87 A Recombinant DNA *g. to
Madison, WI 53706 8700427 08-31-89 §§§§. Pea Enation
Mosaic Wirus Genome
T0T AL $2,359,400
Genetic Mechanisms for Crop Improvement
This program covers the broad area of
plant genetics. The goal of the program area
is to encourage quality research projects
that will contribute to the increased basic
understanding of biological phenomena
relevant to the development of superior
varieties of agricultural crops. New and
innovative experimental approaches are
emphasized at all levels including the
molecular, biochemical , cellular and whole
plant levels. The research areas that are
given high priority are: (a) acquisition of
basic information on the structure, function
and expression of plant nuclear organel lar
genes, (b) development of methods for gene
transfer and genetic engineering, (c)
development of new methods for producing and
selecting agronomically important
quantitative and qualitative traits, (d)
identification of plant characteristics or
genes which are important targets for genetic
manipulation, and (e) genetic studies on the
alteration and utilization of unadapted and
wild germplasm using new and novel
approaches.
§
C O M PETITIVE RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
}}}}} A REA: GENETIC §§§§§§
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A GREE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Univ. of California Peter H. Quail 87-C R C R-1-2585 $130,000 09-01-87 The Phytochrome Gene:
Berkeley, CA 94720 8702806 08-31-88 Structure, Organization and
Expression
Uni V. of California Jan Dvorak 87-C R C R-1-2278 $135,000 06-01-87 Chromosome Instability Induced in
Davis, CA 95616 8700503 05-31-89 Wheat by Alien Chromosomes
Univ. of California Eugene Nothnagel 85-C R C R-1–1607 $50,440 07-01-85 Membrane Dynamics in
Riverside, CA 92521 8700213 06-30-88 Regeneration and Temperature
Sensitivity of Maize Genotypes
Florida State Univ. George W. Bates 87-C R C R-1–2296 $150,000 08-01-87 Limited Gene Transfer by
Tallahassee, FL 32306 8700366 07-31-90 Protoplast Fusion
South Atlantic Area Charles W. Stuber 86-C R C R-1–2030 $98,000 09-15-86 Dissection of Heterosis of
ARS, USDA 8702804 09-30-88 uantitative Traits Using
Athens, GA 30613
olecular Markers
§
º Plains Area
Ames, IA 50010
Purdue Res. Foln.”
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Univ. of Kentucky
Research Foundation*
Lexington, KY 40506
Beltsville Area
A RS, USDA
Beltsville, MD 20705
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588
Kendall R. Lamkey
Stanton B. Gelvin
Robert J. Shepherd
Benjamin Matthews
M. G. Neuffer
William Thompson
William A. Compton
87-C R C R-1-2370
870.0738
87-C R C R-1-2443*
8700080
87-C R C R-1-2528?
8700704
87-C R C R-1-2284
8700602
87-C R C R-1–2287
8700647
85-C R C R-1–1910
8702801
87-C R C R-1-2359
8700558
$100,000
$13,000*
$70,000+
$121,000
$186,370
$90,000
$72,500
09-15–87
09-30-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-91
09-15-86
09–30–88
08-01-87
07-31-90
Effects of Transposable Elements
on Genetic Wariation
Use of Anti-Sense RNA to Inhibit
Gene Activity in Plants
Complementation among
Caulimoviruses
Cloning and Expression of Genes
Involved in A mino Acid
Biosynthesis
Selection, Characterization of
Genes Regulated by Light
Isolation and Characterization of
Genes Regulated by Light
Analysis of Genetic
Recombination in Maize
Populations Using Molecular
Markers
*Both split-funded with Plant Molecular Biology research area in the amount of $168,900 and $80,000.
§
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, N E 68583
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Paul E. Staswick
Maureen R. Hanson
Elizabeth D. Earle
J. B. Nasrallah
Paul H. Williams
87-C R C R-1–2300
8700137
87-C R C R-1-2.277
8700572
85-C R C R-1-1608
8700594
85-C R C R-1-1600
8700590
87-C R C R-1-2335
8700646
$50,000
$80,690
$206,000
$190,000
$75,000
TOTAL $1,818,000
07-01-87
06-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
09-01-85
08-31-89
09-15–85
09-30–89
07-01-87
06-30-89
Structure and Expression of
Soybean Leaf Storage Protein
Genes
Analysis of Proteins Associated
with Cytoplasmic Male Sterility
Analysis and Utilization of
Protoplast-derived Brassica Lines
Molecular Analysis of S-locus
Expression in Anthers of Brassica
The Identification and
Characterization of Pathogens of
Arabidopsis thaliana
§
Photosynthesis
Grants in this area focus on a better
understanding of photosynthesis and
associated carbon metabolism. Photosynthesis
is the process that crop plants use to
convert solar energy into carbohydrates that
plants and animals use for growth and
development.
The program's aim is to cover such areas
as the mechanisms of energy capture and
conversion, structure, synthesis, and
turn over of the photosynthetic apparatus, C02
fixation, photo respiration, and dark
respiration. Other areas included in this
program are projects on the relation of plant
development to photosynthesis, including
development of photosynthetic competence,
translocation and partitioning of
photosynthetic products; and design of whole
1 eaf and whole plant structures best suited
for photosynthetic productivity. Another
area set forth for proposals is the design of
new methods of genetic and cellular
manipulation to improve photosynthetic
efficiency in plants -- including studies of
the chloroplast genome, of nuclear genes
regulating photosynthesis, and analysis of
regulatory steps control ling both nuclear and
cytoplasmic genome expression and their
inter actions. -
#
C 0 MPETITIVE RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: P HOT 0SYNTHESIS
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 U N T A G REE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PR 0P 0SAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of Arkansas Danny J. Davis 87-C R C R-1-2310 $75,000 09-01-87 Protein-Protein Interactions in
Fayetteville, AR 72701 8700658 08-31-89 Photosynthesis
Univ. of Arizona Richard G. Jensen 87-C R C R-1-2275 $2,000 03-01-87 Workshop Entitled: Ribulose 1,5-
Tucson, AZ 85721 8700001 08-31-87 Bisphosphate
Carboxylase/0xygenase-Genes,
Proteins and Regulation of
Activity, April 19 - April 24, 1987
Univ. of California Robert W. Pearcy 85-C R C R-1–1620 $90,000 07-01-85 Dynamic Responses of *
Davis, CA 95616 870.0514 06-30-89 Photosynthesis to Variable Light
Univ. of California Mark A. Matthew 85-C R C R-1–1538 $40,000 09-01-85 Physiological Mechanisms of
Davis, CA 95616 8700642 08-31-88 Photosynthetic Acclimation to
Water Deficits
U.S. Dept. of Energy Kenneth Sauer 85-C R C R-1-1847 $100,000 09-01-85 Electron Spin Echo Spectroscopy
San Francisco 8700698 08-31-89 in Photosynthesis
Operations Office
0akland, CA 94612
§
Iowa State Univ. of
Science & Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Purdue Res. Foln.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Harvard College
Cambridge, MA 02138
Univ. of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Univ. of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Martin H. Spalding
Thomas L. Housley
James A. Guikema
Lawrence Bogorad
Vincent L. Pecoraro
Robert R. Sharp
Gerald T. Babcock
85-C R C R-1-1591
8700569
87-C R C R-1-2438
8700397
87-C R C R-1–2576
8700501
85-C R C R-1–1584
8702808
87-C R C R-1-2.520
8700483
87-C R C R-1-2313
8700414
$75,000
$81,000
$55,000
$60,000
$50,000
$85,000
$60,000
08-15-85
08-31-89
07-15–87
07-31-89
09-15–87
09–30–88
09-01-85
08-31-88
08-15-87
08-31-88
§§§
06-01-87
05-31-88
Chlamydomonas Mutants
.# in the C02–
Concentrating Pathway
Fructan Metabolism in Wheat
Development of Lipid-Protein
Complexes in Anacystis
Membranes
Genes for Photosynthesis in Corn
Models for the Manganese Center
in the Oxygen Evolving Complex
of Photosystem II
§§§§n
Charge Separation and
Stabilizaton in Chloroplast
Photosystem II
#
Rutgers Univ.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Univ. of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627
Rensselaer Polytech. Inst.
Troy, NY 12180
Rensselaer Polytech. Inst.
Troy, NY 12180
Brookhaven National Lab.
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Upton, NY 11973
Barbara A. Zilinskas
Richard E. McCarty
Roger M. Spanswick
Robert S. Knox
Harry Roy
John C. Salerno
Geoffrey Hind
87-C R C R-1-2318
8700733
87-C R C R-1-2442
8700562
87-C R C R-1-2397
8700570
87-C R C R-1-2424
8700392
87-C R C R-1-2334
8700055
85-C R C R-1-1586
8700513
87-C R C R-1-2325
8700415
$160,000
$100,000
$81,000
$80,000
$85,000
$80,000
$90,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-15-87
07-31-89
07-01-87
06-30-89
06-01-87
05-31-89
07-01-85
06-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
Structure and Function of .
Cyanobacterial Photosynthetic
Systems
The Glycolate Transporter of the
Chloroplast Envelope
Transport Mechanisms and the
Control of Partitioning
Time-resolved Fluorescence
Studies of Excitation Energy Flow
in Chloroplasts
Assembly of Ribulose
Bisphosphate Carboxylase
Electron Transfer in the
Cytochrome B6F Complex
The Reversible Phosphorylation of
Thylakoid Membrane Proteins
§
Brookhaven National Lab.
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Upton, NY 11973
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Oklahoma State Univ.
Still water, 0 K 74078
Portland State Univ.
Portland, OR 97207
Gordon Research
Conferences
Gordon Research Center
c/o Univ. of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Texas Tech Univ.
Lubbock, TX 79409
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
John Bennett
Chang-An Yu
John H. Golbeck
A. M. Cruickshank
David B. Knaff
Marion H. O'Leary
87-C R C R-1-2441
8700544
87-C R C R-1-2433
8700498
87-C R C R-1-2382
8700725
87-C R C R-1-2305
8700362
87-C R C R-1-2333
8700050
87-C R C R-1-2319
8700088
$120,000
$80,000
$165,000
$6,000
$60,000
$110,000
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-15–87
07-31-89
06-15–87
06-30–90
05-01-87
12-31-87
09-01-87
08-31-88
06-01-87
05-31-89
Substrate Specificity of
Chloroplast Protein Kinases
Ubiquinone Binding Sites in
Bacterial Photosynthetic
Apparatus
Structure, Function and
Organization of the Photosystem I
Reaction Center Complex
Travel Support for Photosynthesis
Conference
Protein: Protein Complexes in
Photosynthetic Electrón Transfer
Reactions
Mechanisms of Action of
Phosphoenolpyruvate Carboxylase
§
Univ. of Wisconsin Stanley H. Duke 87-C R C R-1-2324 $70,000 09-15–87 Chl
Madison, WI 53706 8700497 - 2 09–30–89 oroplast Starch Degradation
TOTAL $2,060,000
SOY BEAN RESEARCH
The overall goal of this program area is
to support long-term, basic biological
research on soybeans that can generate new
ideas, new knowledge, and innovative
technologies which ultimately will contribute
to increased productivity and quality of the
soybean crop. This program encourages
innovative studies on : (1) physiology,
genetics, and biochemistry of soybeans, (2)
the mechanisms of interactions between
soybean and in sect as well as microbial
pests, and (3) the Rhizobium-soybean
symbiosis.
Proposals on soybean research were submitted
to appropriate plant science programs for
review according to the scientific content of
the proposal . The grants listed below were
selected from those proposals deemed highly
meritorious by appropriate review panels.
Additional research grants using soybean as
an experimental system can be found in other
plant science and biotechnology programs.
§
C O M PETITIVE RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: SO Y BEAN RESE A R C H
G R A N T S A. W. A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G REE ME NT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PRO POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Louisiana State Univ. Peter W. Jordan 87-C R C R-1–2346 $100,000 07-01-87 Light Partitioning in a
Agric. Ctr. 8700435 06-30-90 Soybean/Weed Community:
Baton Rouge, LA 70894 Quantifying Resource Preemption
Univ. of Minnesota Mark L. Brenner 87-C R C R-1-2467 $80,000 08-01-87 Role of Abscisic Acid on Sucrose
St. Paul, MN 55104 8700580 07-31-89 Accumulation by Soybean Seeds
Univ. of Missouri: Dale G. Blevins 87-C R C R-1–2466* $120,664* 08-01-87 Ureide Metabolism in Nodulated
Columbia, M 0 65211 870.1617 07-31-89 Soybeans
Univ. of Dayton Donald R. Geiger 87-C R C R-1-2486 $68,000 09-15–87 Carbon Partitioning of Two
Dayton, 0 H 45469 8701078 09-30-89 Soybean Cultivars under Non-
*Split-funded with Nitrogen Fixation for the amount of $5,000.
Stress and Water Stress
§
Univ. of Wisconsin
Douglas D. Buhler
Madison, WI 53706
87-C R C R-1-2367
8700579
$98,700 07-01-87
Investigation of a Mechanism of
06-30-89
Xenobiotic Detoxication by Plants
TOTAL $467,364
BIOTECHNOLOGY
It is widely acknowledged that
biotechnological research offers direct access
to new, potentially valuable high technology
opportunities for agriculture and food
production. Recent discoveries in molecular
genetics and their successful applications
show that "high technology in biology" is
applicable to agriculture and food and they
contribute significantly to "the molecular
revolution" that is basic to many of our
industries. The new biotechnological research
capabilities -- particularly those that build
on advances in molecular biology -- have
particular advantages for agriculture. They
provide a new basis for changing plant and
animal productivity and performance on the
basis of the directed modification of
Specified genes and gene systems.
This new capability offers exceptional
promise, but it can not be effective unless it
is closely integrated with basic science
aimed at establishing a thorough understanding
of fundamental biological processes in
animals, plants, and associated microorganisms
that may provide the basic scientific
knowledge needed for the development and
application of the new biotechnological
research capability to agriculture and food.
Three research areas are emphasized: (1)
molecular biology, (2) molecular and cellular
mechanisms of growth and development, and (3)
genetic and molecular mechanisms control ling
responses to environmental and biological
Stre S.S.
§
disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry,
physiology, taxonomy, ecology, and key
agriculture disciplines such as plant and
animal breeding, a gro nomy, horticulture, plant
pathology, and entomology. In recognizing
these needs, the overall goal of the
Biotechnology Program is to support research
Biotechnology - Plant Molecular Biology
The primary objective of the sub-area, plant
molecular biology, is to increase our understanding of
the structure, function, regulation, and expression of
genes of plant, the associated microbial systems, and
the plant associated insects. This program area
emphasizes the following categories of research: (1)
identification, isolation, and characterization of
genes and gene products, (2) relationships between gene
structure and function, (3) regulatory mechanisms of
gene expression, (4) interactions between nuclear and
organellar genes, and between extrachromosomal and
chromosomal genes, (5) mechanisms of gene recombination
and transposition, (6) molecular basis of chromosomal
replication, and (7) mechanisms of interaction with
beneficial or deleterious microorganisms, and (8)
mechanisms of interaction with benefical or del eterious
insects.
The proposals under the Biotechnology/Plant
Molecular Biology area were submitted to one of the
five plant science review panels according to the
biological problem being addressed. The grants awarded
in this program area are listed by review panels. .
§
C O M PETITIVE RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R 0 G R A M A REA: BIOTECHNOLOGY - PLANT M 0 LE C U L A R BIO L 0 G Y/GENETIC ME C H A NISMS
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G RF E MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of Californid Clarence I. Kado 87-C R C R-1-2282 $200,000 07-01-87 Analysis of the Ros Gene
Davis, CA 95616 8700314 06-30-90
Univ. of California Robert B. Goldberg 86–0. RC R-1–2022 $105,000 07-01-86 Regulation of Soybean Seed
Los Angeles, CA 90024 8702763 06-30-88 Protein Gene Expression
Univ. of Idaho David J. Oliver 87-C R C R-1–2286 $200,000 07-01-87 Light-Dependent Expression of
Moscow, ID 83843 8700320 06-30-90 Glycine Decarboxylase in Pea
Leaf Mitochondria
Purdue Research” Stanton B. Gelvin 87-C R C R-1-2443* $168,900* 09-01-87 Use of Anti-Sense R N A to Inhibit
Foundation 8700080 08-31-89 Gene Activity in Plants
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Univ. of Kentucky” Robert J. Shepherd 87-C R C R-1–2528* $80,000* 09-01-87 Complementation among
Research Foundation 8700704 08-31-90 Caulim Oviruses
Lexington, KY 40506
*Split-funded with Genetic Mechanisms research area.
§
Univ. of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Fedn. of American
Societies for Expt. Biol.
Rockville, MD 20014
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55104
Washington Univ.
St. Louis, MO 63130
Univ. of New Hampshire
Durham, N H 03824
Arthur G. Hunt
Robert W. Krauss
Kenneth C. Sink
Carolyn D. Silflow
John C. Rogers
Anita S. Klein
85-C R C R-1-1810
8700691
87-C R C R-1-2280
8700004
87-C R C R-1-2290
8700333
85-C R C R-1-1754
8700660
87-C R C R-1–2299
8700423
1-2425
$70,000
$4,000
$200,000
$200,000
$150,000
$185,000
09-01-85
08-31-89
06-01-87
11–30–87
09–15–87
09-30-90
09–15–85
09-30-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
§:};}}
Gene Expression in Plants: A
Study of Polyadenylation in Plants
FASEB Summer Research
Conference on Plant Gene
Expression
T-DNA: A Novel Marker System
for Asymmetric Gene Transfer by
Cell Fusion
Tubulin Genes of Plants
Mechanisms Directing Hormonal
and Developmental Regulation of
Gene Expression in Barley
Tissue- tº º gº l
Jºãº;pecific Gene Regulation
;
New Mexico State Univ.
Las Cruces, N M 88003
Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
11724
Ohio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, WA 99164–6420
Mary A. O'Connell
John E. Boynton
David M. Bisaro
Andris Kleinhofs
87-C R C R-1-2291
8700329
87-C R C R-1-2285
8700084
87-C R C R-1-2541
8702812
86-C R C R-1-2004
8702475
$187,000
$12,000
$78,100
$5,000
TOTAL $1,845,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
07-01-87
06-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
07-01-86
06-30-89
Construction and ſº
Characterization of Somatic
Hybrids and Cybrids of Tomato
Molecular Biology of Mitochondria
and Chloroplasts Conference,
August 25–30, 1987
Molecular Mechanisms of
Geminivirus Replication
Molecular and Genetic Studies of
Nitrate Reductase in Barley
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PROGRAM A REA: BIOTECHNOLOGY - PLANT MOLE CULAR BIOLOGY/P HOT 0SYNTHESIS
G R ANTS AWARD E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT NUM BER A M O U NT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PRO POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
T0
Colorado State Univ. Craig C. Schenck 87-C R C R-1-2358 $90,000 08-15–87 Bacterial Reaction Centers
Fort Collins, C 0 80523 870 0685 08-31-89
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan. Gregory W. Schmidt 87-C R C R-1-2329 $100,000 06-01-87 Pigment-Protein Interactions in
Athens, GA 30602 8700521 05-31-89 Light-Harvesting Complexes
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan. Joseph H. Bouton 87-C R C R-1-2408 $90,000 07-15-87 Transfer and Expression of C4
Athens, GA 30602 8700394 07-31-89 Photosynthetic Characteristićs in
Flaveria
Univ. of Chicago Robert Haselkorn 85-C R C R-1-1565 $48,900 07-01-85 Molecular Genetic Analysis of the
Chicago, IL 60637 8701133 12–31-87 Photosynthetic Apparatus in
Cyanobacteria
Univ. of Health Sciences Frank Marcus 87-C R C R-1-2395 $50,000 09-01-87 Light-regulated Enzymes of
The Chicago Medical 8700345 08-31-88 Photosynthetic Carbon
School
North Chicago, IL 60064
Assimilation
;
Midwest Area, ARS, USDA
Peoria, IL 61604
Massachusetts Inst. of
Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Rutgers Univ.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Univ. of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Donald R. Ort
Douglas C. Youwan
Carl A. Price
F. Robert Tabita
87-C R C R-1-2381
8700375
87-C R C R-1-2328
8700295
87-C R C R-1-2393
8700605
87-C R C R-1-2330
8700090
$150,000
$100,000
$91,100
$130,000
TOTAL $850,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
06-01-87
05-31-89
07-01-87
06-30–89
09-01-87
08-31-89
The Physiological and Biochemical
Basis for Environmental
Limitations on Photosynthesis
Mutational Analysis of
Photosynthetic Apparatus
Biogenesis
Translational Regulation in
Chloroplasts
Bacterial Genes Coding for Plant
Ribulose Bisphosphate
Carboxylase
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: BIOTECHNOLOGY - PLANT MOLE CULAR BIO L 0 G Y/NIT R O GEN FIX ATION
G R A N T S A WA R DED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PRO POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of California John C. Meeks 87-C R C R-1-2446 $105,000 08–01-87 Physiology and Genetics of .
Davis, CA 95616 8701623 07-31-89 Nitrogen Fixation by Symbiotic
Cyanobacteria
Midwest Area Carroll P. Wance 87-C R C R-1-2.588 $96,000 09-01-87 Regulation of Plant-Bacterial
ARS, USD A 870.1336 08-31-89 Interactions During Legume Root
Peoria, IL 61604 Nodule Formation
Kansas State Univ. L. Clark Davis 87-C R C R-1-2447 $72,500 07-15–87 Mutations Affecting the Fe .
Manhattan, KS 66506 870.1292 07-31-89 Protein of Klebsiella pneumoniae
Nitrogenase -
New Mexico State Univ. C. S.-Gopalan 87-C R C R-1–2484 $94,000 09-01-87 Regulation of Host Gene
Las Cruces, N M 88003 8700404 08-31-89 Expression during Root Nodule
Development in Soybean
Univ. of Texas Fred R. Tabita 87-C R C R-1-2427 $105,000 08-01-87 º of Nitrogenase from
Austin, TX 78712 8701340 07-31-89 0xygen Inactivation
;
§§ Polytechnic Inst.
& State Univ.
Blacksburg, W A 24061
Univ. of Wisconsin.”
Madison, WI 53706
Marquette Univ.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
*Split-funded with Nitrogen Fixation research area for the amount of $37,622.
Dennis R. Dean
Gary P. Roberts
Kenneth D. Noel
87-C R C R-1-
§§ #5 2459 $55,000
87-C R C R-1-2561* $72,378*
870.1402
87-C R C R-1-2409 $105,000
8701606
TOTAL $704,878
§§§
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
Analysis of A
fl'É bacter vinelandii
Their Products
Analysis of a Regulatory System
for Nitrogenase in Rhodospirillum
rubrum
Rhizobium lipopolysaccharide:
Genetics and Role in Nodule
Development
§
C0 MPETITIVE RESEARC H G R ANTS PROGRAM
P R O G R A M A REA: BIOTECHNOLOGY - RESPONSE TO BIOLOGICAL STRESS (ENT O M 0L 0 G Y)
G R A NTS AWA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Univ. of California Loy E. Volkman 87-C R C R-1–2416 $50,000 08-15-87 Role of Microfilaments in
Berkeley, CA 94.720 8700674 08-31-88 Autographa californica NPV
Assembly
Univ. of Florida Harlan G. Hall 86-C R C R-1-2101 $100,000 07-15-86 Genetic Characterization of
Gainesville, FL 32611 8700926 07-31-89 Honeybees through DNA Analysis
Iowa State Univ. of Science R. W. Thornburg 87-C R C R-1-2518 $111,000 09–15–87 Identification of Regulatory
& Technology 8701 110 09-30-89 Segments in a Wound-inducible
A mes, IA 50011 Inhibitor II Gene
North Carolina State Univ. A. C. Triantaphyllou 87-CRCR-1-2379 $120,000 08-01-87 Genetics of Parasitism of the
Raleigh, NC 27695 8700338 07-31-89 Soybean Cyst Nematode
Rutgers Univ. Randy Gaugler 87-C R C R-1–2298 $90,000 07-01-87 Genetic Improvement and
New Brunswick, NJ 08903 8700306 06-30-89 Analysis of the Entomoparasitic
Nematode, Steinernema Feltiae
§
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Univ. of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97.403
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Texas A & M Res. F dn.
College Station, TX 77843
Univ. of Werm ont & State
Agric. College
Burlington, WT 05405
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
George F. Rohrmann
John Postlethwait
Ralph 0. Mumma
Max D. Summers
George M. Happ
Nancy E. Beckage
87-C R C R-1-2380
8700401
87-C R C R-1–2570
8700689
87-C R C R-1–2423
8700357
87-C R C R-1-2392
8700453
87-C R C R-1-2406
8700171
87-C R C R-1-2407
8700241
$50,000
$50,000
$90,000
$160,000
$50,000
$100,000
TOTAL $971,000
09-01-87
08-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
09–15–87
09–30–90
08-01-87
07-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
Identification and
Characterization of Baculovirus
Gene Translation Products
Molecular Genetics of Immunity
in Fruit Flies
Molecular, Morphological and
Genetic Basis of Plant Insect
Resistance
Integration of Campoletis
sonorensis Wirus D #. ſ
Tārāsītāſū Wasp Cellular DNA
Control of Reproduction in Male
Insects
Molecular Host-Parasite
Interactions in the Tobacco
Hornworm
§
C 0 MP
E CH
PR 0 G R A M A REA: BIOT
ETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
NOLOGY - RESPONSE TO BIOLOGICAL STRESS (PLANT-PATH)
G R A NTS AWA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PR 0 POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of California Thomas J. Morris 87-C R C R-1-2551 $200,000 09-01-87 Molecular Structure and Function
Berkeley, CA 94720 8700551 08-31-89 of Wirus Genom eS
Univ. of California Andrew 0. Jackson 87-C R C R-1-2556 $150,000 09-01-87 Interaction of a Satellite Virus
Berkeley, CA 94720 8700566 08-31-89 With its Helper Virus
Univ. of California George Bruening 87-C R C R-1-2339 $100,000 09-15–87 Antiviral Action of Satellite RNA
Davis, CA 95616 8700588 09-30-89
Univ. of California Tsune Kosuge 85-C R C R-1-1697 $67,000 07-01-85 Control of Virulence in .
Davis, CA 95616 8702581 06-30-88 Pseudomonas SavaStanol
Univ. of California R. W. Michel more 87-C R C R-1–2458 $150,000 07-15–87 Transformation of Bremia
Davis, CA 95616 8700726 07-31-89 lactucae and Cloniſg of T
A Viruſence Genes
§
Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Univ. of California
Davis, CA 95616
Salk Inst. for Biological
Studies
San Diego, CA 92138
Univ. of Kentucky Res.
F dm.
Lexington, KY 40506
Washington Univ.
St. Louis, M 0 63130
State Univ. of New York
Albany, NY 12201
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
William O. Dawson
John J. Harada
Christopher J. Lamb
C. L. Schardl
Roger N. Beachy
Jeremy A. Bruenn
0. C. Yoder
87-C R C R-1-2450
8700257
86-C R C R-1–2172
8702769
87-C R C R-1-2350
8700690
87-C R C R-1-2391
87007.11
86-C R C R-1-2262
8702819
87-C R C R-1-2368
8700041
87;&#1-2557
$200,000
$50,000
$100,000
$100,000
$50,000
$100,000
$50,000
07-15-87
07-31-89
09–15-86
09–30–88
07-01-87
06-30–89
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-15-86
09-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
Sequence-Function Relationship
of the T M W-Host Interaction
Molecular Aspects of Disease in
Higher Plants
Gene Activation Mechanisms in
the Initiation of Plant Defense
Responses
Molecular Studies of Phytoalexin
Detoxification and Wirulence in
Fusarium
Site-Specific Modifications of
T MW-Coat Protein and Its CroSS-
Protection
Cloning and Expression of the
Ustilago maydis Virus Toxin Gene
ºf the Tox i
heterostrophus. T
3.
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Rockefeller Univ.
New York, NY 10021
Clemson Univ.
Clemson, SC 29634
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Hans D. Wanetten
Hugh D. Robertson
H. D. Skipper
Albert H. Ellingboe
87-C R C R-1-2510
8700517
87-C R C R-1–2340
8700697
87-C R C R-1–2341
8700606
87-C R C R-1–2451
8700291
$53,000
$100,000
$50,000
$100,000
TOTAL $1,620,000
08-01-87
07-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-15-87
07-31-89
Do Pathogens of the Same Host
Require Common Pathogenicity
Traits?
Wiroid Multiplication and Disease
Induction
Loss of Herbicidal Efficacy by
Microbial-mediated Processes
Molecular Tagging of the Rp if
Gene in Maize
§
Biotechnology - Response to Physical Stress on Plants
This program supports research on the various
physico-chemical factors (such as heat, cold, drought,
etc.) which prevent the expression of the full genetic
potential of a plant. The major goals are to
understand the molecular basis for the response to the
various stresses and to identify which genetic systems
causing these responses can be manipulated by
biotechnology techniques.
The program emphasizes: the identification,
transfer, and expression of genes involved in the
stress response or are likely to affect performance
under stress; fundamental mechanisms of the stress
response including injury, tolerance and avoidance of
stress at the molecular, cellular, and organismal
level; mechanisms of the coordination of organismal
response to stress; and laboratory and fiel
investigations leading to an understanding of the
causes, consequences, and avoidance of stress.
3.
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O GRAM A REA: BIOTECHNOLOGY - RESP 0 NSE TO PHYSICAL STRESS (PLAN TS)
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F 0 R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRIN CIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R PR 0 POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
TO
Univ. of Arizona Hans J. Bohnert 87-C R C R-1–2475 $222,000 08-01-87 Regulation of Gene Expression
Tucson, AZ 85721 8701 148 07-31-90 During CAM-Induction
Univ. of California Andre E. Lauchli 87-C R C R-1-2462 $110,000 08-01-87 Disturbed Ion Compartmentation
Davis, CA 95616 8700985 07-31-89 in Leaf Meristems: Site Inhibition
by Salt
Univ. of Georgia Res. Foln. Judith N. Strom mer 87-C R C R-1–2500 $96,000 08-01-87 Mutagenic Analysis of Anaerobic
Athens, GA 30602 870.1000 07-31-89 Induction in Plants
Univ. of Illinois John M. Cheese m an 87-C R C R-1-2501 $125,000 09-01-87 Potassium Circulation and Salinity
Champaign, IL 61820 8701 120 08-31-89 Responses in Sunflower
Purdue Res. F dn. L. N. Csonka 87-C R C R-1-2495 $101,000 09-01-87 Analysis of Proline Biosynthesis
West Layfayette, IN 47907 8701 195 08-31-89 and Its Role in Osmoregulation
§
Univ. of Maine
Orono, ME 04469
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55104
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, N E 68588
Univ. of Nevada
Reno, NW 895.57
Ohio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43210–1194
Michael E. Wayda
C. R. Somerville
Andrew D. Hanson
John W. Carter
Robert E. Sharp
Philip M. Kelley
Jeffrey R. Seemann
Robert A. Kennedy
87-C R C R-1-2580
8700.996
87-C R C R-1–2507
8700994
87-C R C R-1-2460
8700720
85-C R C R-1-1666
8700.995
87-C R C R-1–24.92
8701098
87-C R C R-1-2509
8701 124
87-C R C R-1-2470
8701020
87-C R C R-1-2508
870.1087
$90,000
$86,000
$67,000
$126,000
$118,000
$108,000
$205,000
$169,000
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-15–87
07-31-88
09-15–85
09-30-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
08-01-87
07-31-89
Molecular Response of Potato
Tubers to Anaerobic StreSS
The Molecular Basis for Chilling
Sensitivity in a Mutant of
Arabidopsis
Molecular Basis and Function of
Stress-Induced Betaine Synthesis
in Plants
Role of Microtubules in Freezing
Injury and Cold Acclimation in
Plants
Mechanisms Determining Root
and Shoot Growth in Water
Stressed Plants
The Regulation of the Anaerobic
Genes of Maize
Environmental Stress Effects on
Photosynthetic Carbon
Metabolism
Anaerobic Metabolism in
Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyard
Grass) Seeds
§
Univ. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Barbara Smit—Spinks
Jiwan P. Palta
87-C R C R-1-2493
870.1018
85-C R C R-1–1673
870.1044
$86,000 09-01-87 Cellular Basis for Limitations of
08-31-89 Leaf Growth by Root Stress
$84,000 09-01-85 Mechanism of Freezing Stress
08-31-89 Resistance and Cold Acclimation
in Plants
TO TAL $1,793,000
Biotechnology - Plant Growth and Development
The lack of information about the basic cellular
and molecular processes involved in plant growth and
development is considered a serious limiting step for
realizing the full potential of biotechnology in
agriculture. The goal of this program is to support
fundamental research designed to fill in this gap in
our knowledge. The program encourages the use of
emerging experimental techniques and emphasizes: (1)
cellular and molecular mechanisms controlling plant
growth and development and (2) metabolic processes
related to growth and development.
3.
C 0 MPETITIVE RESE A R C H A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: BIOTECH N 0 L 0 G Y - PLA N T G R 0 W & DEVELOPMENT
G R A N T S A WAR DED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT N U M BER A M 0 U NT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PRO POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Univ. of California Robert L. Fischer 87-C R C R-1-2526 $102,590 08–15–87 Polygalacturonase: Enzyme
Berkeley, CA 94720 870.1297 08-31-89 Function and Gene Regulation
During Fruit Ripening
Univ. of California Bob B. Buchanan 85-C R C R-1–1664 $110,000 08-01-85 Developmental Studies on
Berkeley, CA 94.720 870.1295 07-31-89 Thioredoxin Systems in Plants
Univ. of California Alan B. Bennett 87-C R C R-1-2525 $97,410 08-15-87 Polygalacturonase: Enzyme
Davis, CA 95616 8702805 08-31-89 Function and Gene Regulation
During Fruit Ripening
Univ. of California Roy M. Sachs 87-C R C R-1-2420 $170,000 09-01-87 Molecular Analysis of the
Davis, CA 95616 870.1080 08-31-90 Photoperiodic Control of Flower
Induction
Univ. of California Shang Fa Yang 87-C R C R-1-2419 $110,000 08-01-87 In-Vivo Affinity Labeling and
Davis, CA 95616 8701 101 07-31-89 Characterization of the Ethylene
Receptor
§
San Jose State Univ.
Foundation
San Jose, CA 95192-0139
Yale Univ.
New Haven, C T 06520
Yale Univ.
New Haven, CT 06520
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of South Florida
Tampa, FL 33620
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Univ. of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637
Daniel B. Walker
Timothy M. Nelson
Ian M. Sussex
G. A. Moore
Mary J. Saunders
R. C. Coolbaugh
Laurens J. Mets
87-C R C R-1–2455
870.1054
87-C R C R-1-2411
8700973
87-C R C R-1-2435
870.1008
85-C R C R-1-1623
870.1127
87-C R C R-1-2399
8701001
87-C R C R-1-2400
8701069
87-C R C R-1-2351
870.1301
$120,000
$126,000
$230,000
$120,000
$124,000
$70,000
$90,000
08-01-87
07-31-89
07-15-87
07-31-89
09-15–87
09–30–90
08-01-85
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
06-15-87
06-30-88
Mechanism of Plant Epidermal
Development
Analysis of Genes Determining
Sex of Maize Inflorescences
Molecular and Cellular Analysis of
Branch Initiation in Pea
Genetic Transformation of Citrus
to Facilitate Hybrid Production
Spatial and Temporal Control of
Plant Cell Division
Abscisic Acid Biosynthesis in
Cell-Free Extracts from
Cercospora rosicola
Genetic Control of Cellular
Differentiation in Leaves of a C4
Plant
§
Univ. of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637
Purdue Res. F dn.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Beltsville Agric. Res. Ctr.
A RS, USDA
Beltsville, MD 20705
A merican Society for Cell
Biology
Bethesda, MD 20814
Univ. of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Carleton College
Northfield, MN 55057
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55104
Gayle Lamppa
Brian A. Larkins
Jerry D. Cohen
R. D. Rodewald
Eugene E. Dekker
Susan R. Singer
Susan M. Wick
87-C R C R-1–2469
870.1037
87-C R C R-1-2356
870.1176
85-C R C R-1-1718
8701057
87-C R C R-1–2347
8702745
87-C R C R-1-2.563
8701 109
87-C R C R-1-2554
870.1294
87-C R C R-1-2530
870.1052
$150,000
$86,000
$112,000
$3,000
$117,000
$145,000
$125,000
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
08-01-85
09-30-89
06-01-87
12–31-87
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
The Role of Precursor Processing
Enzymes in Chloroplast Biogenesis
Analysis of Seed Globulin Gene
Expression in Oats and 0ther
Cereals
Auxin-Containing Peptides from
Phaseolus Seeds
Acidic Intracellular
Compartments in Plant and
Animal Cells
Enzymes of 4-Methylene Glutamic
Acid Metabolism in Germinating
Legumes
Acquisition of Competence for
Floral Determination
Location, Behavior and
Composition of Microtubule
Initiation Sites in Plants
§
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, M N 55104
St. Mary's College
Winona, MN 55987
Univ. of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Rutgers Univ.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
City Univ. of New York
Res. F dn.
Baruch College
New York, NY 10010
B. G. Gengenbach
Richard W. Kowles
Alan M. Jones
Bruce P. W asserman
D. J. Paolillo, Jr.
Martha A. Mutschler
Edward B. Tucker
87-C R C R-1-2364
8701093
87-C R C R-1-2365
870.1067
87-C R C R-1–2402
870.1028
87-C R C R-1-2414
870.0961
87-C R C R-1–2401
870.1077
87-C R C R-1-2436
8701 115
87-C R C R-1-2444
870.1122
$116,000
$90,000
$210,000
$149,000
$80,000
$100,000
$100,000
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-01-87
05-31-90
07-01-87
06-30–90
09–15–87
09–30–89
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-15–87
07-31-89
A myloplast Differentiation in
Developing Maize Endosperm
Temporal and Positional Gene
Expression in the Development of
Maize Endosperm
Phytochrome-Regulated Growth
in Maize
Molecular Aspects of B-Glucan
Biosynthesis in Higher Plants
An Evaluation of G A Action on
Cell Elongation Using Norin 10
Dwarfing Genes
Molecular Analysis of the Effects
of the alc Mutant in Tomato
Ripening
Regulation of Plant Cell-to-Cell
Communication
§
Case Western Reserve
Univ.
Cleveland, 0 H 44106
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Gordon Research
Conferences
Gordon Research Center
C/o Univ. of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Brown Univ.
Providence, RI 02912
Univ. of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Christopher D. Town
Carol J. Rivin
Jack C. Shannon
Keith A. Walker
Annette W. Coleman
Donald K. Dougall
87-C R C R-1-2559
870.1103
85-C R C R-1-1644
870.1117
87-C R C R-1-2279
8701 100
87-C R C R-1-2349
870.1033
87-C R C R-1-2534
870.1086
87-C R C R-1-2535
8700972
$106,000
$125,000
$3,000
$6,000
$64,000
$60,290
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-15-85
09-30-89
05-01-87
10–31-87
06-01-87
09-30–87
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
Auxin Metabolism in
Arabidopsis: A Genetic Approach
Molecular Analysis of Embryo
Developmentin Wildtype and Wp
Mutants in Maize
Financial Support for Second
Pennsylvania State University
Symposium in Plant Physiology
Plant Cell and Tissue Culture
(Conference)
Detection and Analysis of
º: DNA Changes During
Pollen Development
Metabolic Basis of Reversible
Changes in Chemical Production
by Cells
§
Univ. of Texas
Austin, TX 78713
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
John W. La Claire
Michael R. Sussman
87-C R C R-1-2545
8701023
87-C R C R-1-2357
8701024
TOTAL
$96,000 09-01-87 Organization, Function and
08-31-89 Dynamics of the Plant
Cytoskeleton
$130,000 07-01-87 Calcium-Activated Plasma
06-30-90 Membrane Protein Kinase
$3,643,290
Biotechnology - Animal Molecular Biology
The objective of the animal molecular biology
program is to increase our knowledge and understanding
of the structure, function, regulation and expression
of genomes of animal, microbial and viral origin. This
includes but is not limited to: the molecular biology
of genes of cellular, organellar or animal origin; gene
transfer and germline integration of exogenous genes;
the molecular biology of replication and gene
expression of bacteria, parasites, viruses and other
infectious or non-infectious agents; structural
immunology and immunogenetics; molecular genetics; and
molecular endocrinology. Priorities are given to those
studies that will yield fundamental information which
may ultimately aid in improving the biological
efficiency and disease resistance in domestic animals.
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PROGRAM A REA: BIOTECH NO L0 G Y - A NIM AL MOLE CULAR BIOLOGY
G R A NTS AWA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G ANIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 U NT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R 0 POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
TO
La Jolla Biological Thomas R. Gingeras 87-C R C R-1-2560 $135,000 09-01-87 Establishment of DNA Virus-
Laboratories 8701403 08-31-89 resistant Bovine Cell Lines
San Diego, CA 92138-9216
Univ. of California Charles P. Ordahl 87-C R C R-1-2404 $260,000 09-15–87 Retroviral Transduction of
San Francisco, CA 94143 8701862 09-30–90 Muscle-Specific Promoter
Cassettes in Chick Embryos
Stanford Univ. Gary K. Schoolnik 87-C R C R-1-2403 $140,000 09-01-87 Moraxella bovis Pili. Molecular
Stanford, CA 94305 870.1644 08-31-88 and Genetic Studies
Midwest Area Robert F. Silva 85-C R C R-1-1709 $85,000 09-01-85 Genetic Engineering of Avian
USDA, ARS 8701532 08-31-89 Herpesviruses: Potential Use as
Peoria, IL 61604 Live Recombinant DNA Vaccines
Univ. of Illinois Harris A. Lewin 87-C R C R-1-2546 $110,000 09-01-87 Molecular Analysis of the Bovine
Urbana, IL 61801 8701469 08-31-89 Major Histocompatibility Complex
§
Indiana Univ. Foundation
Bloomington, IN 47402
Amherst College
Amherst, M A 01002
Biometics Research, Inc.
Kensington, MD 20895
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Northern States Area,
A RS, USDA
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Molecular Genetics, Inc.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
Chao-Hung Lee
Richard A. Goldsby
Stephen H. Hughes
Donald W. Salter
Eugene J. Smith
Marc S. Collett
Kim S. Wise
87-C R C R-1–2456
870.1861
87-C R C R-1-2432
8701346
87-C R C R-1-2584
870.1863
87-C R C R-1-2445
8701536
87-C R C R-1-2389
870.1483
87-C R C R-1-2555
8700979
87-C R C R-1-2564
870.1663
$182,000
$180,000
$95,000
$253,000
$135,000
$75,000
$200,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
08-01-87
07-31-90
09-15–87
09-30–90
09-15-87
09-30-90
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-15–87
09–30–88
09-15–87
09-30–90
Escherichia coli Enterotoxin STII
Immunomodulation by Monoclonal
Anti-Ids to Pathogen-reactive
Mono- and Polyclonal Ids
Design and Testing of Retroviral
Wectors for the Creation of
Transgenic Poultry
Gene Insertion into the Avian
Germ Line Using Retroviral
Wectors
Analysis of the Sex-linked
Endogenous Wirus-slow Feathering
Complex of Chickens
Immunogenicity of Isolated Bovine
Wiral Diarrhea Wirus Proteins
Immunologic and Molecular
Genetic Determinants in
Mycoplasm al Pneumonia of Swine
§
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695–7003
Agric. Expt. Station
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583–0704
Univ. of Nevada
Reno, NW 895.57
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Univ. of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221
T. R. Klaenham mer
Daniel L. Rock
Stuart T. Nichol
Carl A. Batt
Gary M. Dunny
Jeffrey Robbins
87-C R C R-1-2547
8701584
87-C R C R-1-2415
8701328
87-C R C R-1-2428
870.1487
87-C R C R-1–2405
870.1467
87-C R C R-1-2421
870.1486
85-C R C R-1–1729
8701209
$190,000
$120,000
$205,000
$124,000
$170,000
$200,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-85
08-31-89
Molecular Characterization of
pſ R2030-directed Phage
Resistance in Lactic Streptococci
Molecular Characterization of
Pseudorabies Wirus (PRW)
Latency-Related Genes
A Molecular Approach to
Wesicular Stomatitis
Epizootiology, Disease Diagnosis
& Control
Inhibition of Streptococcus lactis
Bacteriophage by Antisense
m RNA
Biochemistry and Genetics of
Bacteriophage Resistance in Dairy
Streptococci
Structure and Function of the
Major Muscle Protein, Myosin, in
Poultry
§
Gordon Research
Conferences
Gordon Research Center
c/o Univ. of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0801
Texas A & M Res. F dn.
College Station, TX 77843
Univ. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Barry G. Hall
James E. Womack
Stephen L. Moseley
G. J. Letchworth, III
Richard F. Marsh
87-C R C R-1-2390
8700070
87-C R C R-1-2437
8701679
87-C R C R-1-2426
870.1561
87-C R C R-1-2548
870.1476
87-C R C R-1–2457
870.1643
TOTAL $3,525,000
$4,000
$142,000
$220,000
$100,000
$200,000
08-01-87
07-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
09-30–90
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
Population Biology of
Microorganisms and Their
Accessory Elements
Molecular and Somatic Cell
Genetics: Mapping the Cattle
Genome
Genetic Organization and
Function in the Production of F41
Bacterial Adhesin
Antibody Inhibition of Wiral
Protein Interaction with Mucosal
Epithelial Cells
Characterization of Scrapie Agent
Nucleic Acid
§
Biotechnology - Animal Growth and Development
Research in animal growth and development
contributes to a basic understanding of potential
problems related to suboptimal growth and development
in animals of domestic agricultural significance. The
program emphasizes molecular and cellular biological
approaches in a number of research areas including but
not limited to: growth hormones, growth factors and
other macromolecules which regulate muscle and skeletal
growth; the transfer of exogenous genes to the germline
of domestic animals and their subsequent expression,
mammary gland biogenesis and development; the
regulation of gene expression as it relates to
developmental processes; the role of hormones and
immune factors in mediating immunologic and physiologic
stress; and the developmental consequences of embryo
transfer. Special attention is given to innovative
projects of "high risk."
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: BIOTECHNOLOGY - A NIM AL G R 0 W T H & DEVELOPMENT
G R ANTS AWARDED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R GANIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G REE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PRO POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
TO
Univ. of Alabama Johanna A. Griffin 87-U R C R-1-2317 $300,000 08-01-87 Molecular Genetic Regulation of
Birmingham, AL 35294 8700064 07-31-90 the Immune Response in Chickens
Univ. of Arizona Darrel E. Goll 87-C R C R-1-2.283 $100,000 09-01-87 Proteases Responsible for Muscle
Tucson, AZ 85721 8700403 08-31-88 Protein Degradation and Their
Role in Growth
Univ. of California Ursula K. Abbott 87-C R C R-1-2301 $217,500 06-01-87 Developmental Analysis of the
Davis, CA 95616 8700237 05-31-90 Avian Germ Line
Northern Plains Area Joan H. Eisemann 87-C R C R-1–2587 $139,000 09-15–87 Mechanisms of Interorgan
ARS, USDA 8700282 09-30–90 Metabolism. During Growth
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Wesleyan Univ. Lewis N. Lukens 87-C R C R-1-2483 $150,000 08-01-87 Regulation of Collagen Genes
Middletown, CT 06457 8700202 07-31-90 During Changes in Chondrocyte
Differentiation
§
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Univ. of Illinois
Champaign, IL 61820
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55104
Dov Borovsky
Carol M. Warner
Bryan A. White
Harris A. Lewin
Frank Blecha
H. Allen Tucker
William R. Dayton
87-C R C R-1-2394
8700083
87-C R C R-1-2388
8700146
87-C R C R-1-2281
8700018
87-C R C R-1–2292
8700165
87-C R C R-1-2309
8700217
87-C R C R-1-2302
870019.1
87-C R C R-1-2531
8700036
$91,000
$5,000
$250,000
$125,000
$239,500
$280,000
$120,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-90
06-01-87
05-31-90
07-01-87
06-30-90
08-01-87
07-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-90
Role of Peptide Hormones in
Invertebrate Reproduction
Research Symposium: Molecular
Biology of the MHC of Domestic
Animal Species
Enzymatic and Genetic Analysis
of Ruminococcus Cellulases
Detection of Major Genes for
Growth Using Genetic Markers
Immunomodulation and Stress
Hormone Interactions in Bovine
Lymphocytes
Photoperiodic Regulation of
Hypothalamic and Pituitary Cells
Purification of a Porcine-Serum-
Borne Inhibitor of Muscle Cell
Proliferation
§:
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695
Ohio State Univ. Res. Fan.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Ohio State Univ. Res. Foln.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Univ. of Texas Medical
Branch
Galveston, TX 77550
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Ruth M. Shum an
Timothy G. Ramsay
F. A. Sim men
C. R. Baumrucker
David A. Konkel
Neal L. First
C. J. Czuprynski
87-C R C R-1-2.276
8700193
87-C R C R-1-2533
87001.47
87-C R C R-1-2532
8700058
85-C R C R-1-1881
8700262
87-C R C R-1-2354
8700215
87-C R C R-1-2303
8700174
87-C R C R-1-2308
8700040
TOTAL $3,075,000
$300,000
$120,000
$135,000
$130,000
$110,500
$142,500
$120,000
07-01-87
06-30-90
09-15-87
09-30-90
08-01-87
07-31-90
09-15-85
09-30–89
07-01-87
06-30–89
09–15–87
09–30–90
07-01-87
06-30-90
Gene Transfer and Tissue-Specific
Expression in Avian Species
Regulation of Porcine
Preadipocyte Growth and Use for
Clone Production
Porcine IgG Receptors in
Developing and Lactating
Mammary Gland
IGF1 Stimulation of Boyine
Maſſimary Tissue Growth
A New ras. Oncogene-related Gene
Family-Structure, Function and
Regulation
Ontogeny and Control of
Development of Bovine
Preimplantation Embryos
Molecular Events in Interferon
and Interleukin-1 Stimulated
Bovine Neutrophils
§
ANIMAL SCIENCE
The emphasis in this research program is
to improve reproductive efficiency in domestic
farm animals. Research is supported in all
possible problem areas: puberty, ovulation,
corpus luteum formation and function, sperm
physiology, in semination, fertilization,
prematal death, and poor survival of
offspring.
Brucel losis
The Brucel losis program supports research
at the moſeculſar TCellular, and genetic levels
that: define the mechanisms by which Brucell a
abortus induces disease in cattle and persists
as Tan Tiſnfectious agent; defines the basis of
the bo wine immune response with B. abortus
that results in protective immunity; through
molecular techniques identifies and produces
immunogens to stimulate long-lived protective
immunity in cattle; identifies and produces
antigens to differentiate among non-infected,
vacci nated and B. abortus - infected cattle.
Reproductive Physiology
This sub-program area supports innovative
research in the following categories: (a)
Mechanisms affecting embryo survival,
endocrinological control of embryo
development, mechanisms of embryo-maternal
interactions, and embryo implantation; (b)
gamete physiology, primarily game to genesis
including maturation processes, foll icle
growth, ovulation, corpus luteum formation and
function and supero vulation; fundamental
processes of fertilization mechanisms
regulating gamete survival in vivo and in
vitro, and basic questions regarding game te
transport and (c) fundamental questions
addressing parturition, postpartum interval to
conception and neonatal survival.
:
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A NTS P R O G R A M
PRO G R A M A REA: A NIM AL SCIENCE - B R UC ELLOSIS
G R A N T S A. W. A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT N U M BER A M 0 UNT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PROPOSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
T0
Scripps Clinic & Res. Fan. Fred Heffron 87-C R C R-1-2468 $310,300 08-01-87 Transposon Mutagenesis in
10666 N. Torrey Pines Rd. 870.1475 07-31-90 Brucella abortus to Identify New
La Jolla, CA 92037
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Alexander J. Winter 85-C R C R-1-1859 $140,000 09–15–85
870.1473 09-30-89
TOTAL $450,300
Wirulence Genes
Immunity in Brucellosis:
Comparative Response to Wirulent
and Attenuated Strains
:
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A NTS
P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: A NIM AL SCIENCE - REP R O DUCTIVE EFFICIEN C Y
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 U NT A G REE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of California Dennis Kiyoshi Fujii 87-C R C R-1-2544 $150,000 09-01-87 Bovine Uterine Epithelium;
San Francisco, CA 94143 870.1145 08-31-90 Growth and Hormonal Responses
Colorado State Univ. G. D. Niswender 87-C R C R-1-2523 $100,000 09-01-87 Role of Conceptal Proteins and
Fort Collins, CO 80523 8701.261 08-31-89 Prostaglandins During Early
Pregnancy in Ewes
Univ. of Connecticut Robert A. Milvae 87-C R C R-1-2539 $125,000 09-01-87 Follicular Granulosa Cell
Storrs, C T 06268 870.1231 08-31-90 Contributions to Bovine Corpus
Luteum Function
Univ. of Idaho R. Garth Sasser 87-C R C R-1-2521 $100,000 09-15-87 The Role of Pregnancy-specific
Moscow, ID 83843 870.1259 09–30–89 Protein B in Pregnancy
Recognition
Univ. of Illinois James E. Hixon 87-C R C R-1-2537 $150,000 09-01-87 The Role of 0xytocin and its
Champaign, IL 61820 870.1230 08-31-90 Uterine Receptor in Luteolysis
3.
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Purdue Res. F dm.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Purdue Res. F dh.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Univ. of Kentucky Res.
F dn.
Lexington, KY 40546
Univ. of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, M N 55104
Ohio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
0. David Sherwood
Patricia Y. Hester
P. W. Mal ven
Keith K. Schillo
Douglas L. Foster
J. E. Wheaton
Wayne L. Bacon
87-C R C R-1–2578
8700.970
87-C R C R-1-2515
8700962
87-C R C R-1-2538
870.1280
87-C R C R-1-2567
8701.191
87-C R C R-1-2550
870.1281
87-C R C R-1-2540
8701136
87-C R C R-1-2568
870.1153
$150,000
$64,396
$140,000
$90,000
$150,000
$100,000
$80,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-15–87
09-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08–31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
09–15–87
09-30–89
Determination of the Effect of
Relaxin on the Cervix in Pregnant
Pigs
The Role of Prostaglandins in the
Premature 0 viposition of Chicken
Eggs
Progesterone-induced Mechanisms
Inhibitory to LH Secretion
Effects of Lipid Metabolism on
Luteinizing Hormone Release in
Prepubertal Lambs
Modulation of Gonadotropins and
the Timing of Puberty by
Nutrition and Growth
0 wine Inhibin Fragments as
Immunogens to Increase Fertility
Yolk Precursor Metabolism in
Turkey Hens Differing in Growth
Rate and Reproductive Efficiency
§
Oregon State Univ. Alfred R. Menino 87-C R C R-1-2536 $150,000 09-01-87 Is Plasminogen Involved in the
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 870.1255 08-31-90 Hatching of Livestock Embryos?
Wanderbilt Univ. David L. Garbers 87-C R C R-1-2569 $102,000 09-15–87 Signal/Transduction Mechanisms
Nashville, T N 37240 870.1254 09-30-89 in Bovine Spermatozoa
Southern Plains Area Michael T. Zavy 87-C R C R-1–2502 $150,000 09-01-87 Endometrial Cell Biology as
USDA, ARS 8701.271 08-31-89 Influenced by the Conceptus or
College Station, TX 77840 Progesterone Treatment
Texas A & M Res. F dm. G. L. Williams 87-C R C R-1-2496 $152,000 09-01-87 Mammary Somatosensory
College Station, TX 77843 8701.188 08-31-90 Signalling and Postpartum
Anestrus in Suckled Cows
Texas A & M Res. F dn. W. R. Klem m 87-C R C R-1-2579 $150,000 09-01-87 Estrous-specific Compounds and
College Station, TX 77843 870.1288 08-31-89 Pheromone in Cervico-vaginal
Mucus
Washington State Univ. H. H. Westberg 87-C R C R-1–25.22 $150,000 09-15–87 Determination of Rºgºductive
Pullman, W A 99164 870.1270 09-30-89 Phero mones in the Cbw
TOTAL $2,253,396
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A NTS P R O G R A M
P R0 G R A M A REA: A NIM AL SCIENCE - REP R O DUCTIVE PHYSIO L 0 G Y
G R A NTS AWARD E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 U NT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R PR 0 POSAL NUM BER PE RIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of California Wallis H. Clark 87-C R C R-1-2514 $120,000 09–15–87 Attainment of Competency in the
Davis, CA 95616 8701.200 09-30-89 Sperm of the Marine Shrimp,
Sicyonia Ingentis
South Atlantic Area James S. Kesner 87-C R C R-1-2519 $47,796 09-15–87 Studies on the Neuroendocrine
ARS, USDA 870.1273 09-30-88 Control of Gonadotropin Secretion
Athens, GA 30613 in the Gilt
Univ. of Missouri R. Michael Roberts 87-C R C R-1-2543 $200,000 09–15–87 Structure, Function and Hormonal
Columbia, M 0 65211 870.1316 09–30–90 Control of Synthesis of Porcine
Uterine Proteins
Agric. Expt. Stn. Dale A. Redmer 87-C R C R-1–2573 $180,000 09-01-87 Role of Angiogenic Factors in
North Dakota State Univ. 870.1207 08-31-90 0 varian Function
Fargo, N D 58105
Rutgers Univ. Juan-Pablo Advis 87-C R C R-1-2558 $180,000 09–15–87 Neuroendocrine Control of
New Brunswick, NJ 08903 8701 175 09–30–90 0 vulation in the Domestic Hen
:
The Population
Council, Inc.
New York, NY 10017
Univ. of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
David M. Phillips
William J. Larsen
B. C. Wentworth
Roy L. Ax
87-C R C R-1-2.583
8701 171
87-C R C R-1–2574
870.1180
87-C R C R-1-2529
87012.19
85-C R C R-1-1864
870.1329
TOTAL $1,352,796
$200,000
$200,000
$100,000
$125,000
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-89
09–15–85
09-30-89
Cell Biology of the Cumulus
0ophorus
Factors Enhancing Cumulus
Expansion: Effect on In Vitro
Fertilization -
The Recessive White Quail
Embryo as the Surrogate Host for
Wild-type Quail Primordial Germ
Cells
Characteristics of
Glycosaminoglycan Binding Sites
in 0 varian Follicles of Cows
§
ALCOHOL FUEL S RESEARCH
This program supports research
activities related to the physiological,
microbiological, biochemical, and genetic
processes controlling the biological
conversion of agricultural ly important
biomass material to alcohol fuel S and
industrial hydrocarbons. Studies on factors
which limit efficiency of biological f
production of alcohol fuels and means of
overcoming these limitations are also
encouraged.
§
C 0 M PETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: ALCO HOL F U ELS
G R A N T S A. W. A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R PR 0 POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Purdue Res. Fan. Michael R. Ladisch 87-C R C R-1–2454 $76,000 09-01-87 Fermentable Sugars from
West Lafayette, IN 47907 870.1284 08-31-89 Cellulose Treated with Water and
Intercalating Agents
Purdue Res. F dn. Nancy W.Y. Ho 85-C R C R-1–1713 $96,228 09-01-85 Improvement of Yeast Alcohol
West Lafayette, IN 47907 870.1286 08-31-89 Fermentation Wia Genetic
Engineering
Univ. of Massachusetts E. Canale-Parola 87-C R C R-1-2398 $97,491 09-01-87 Cellulases and Hemicellulases of
A m herst, M A 01003 8701214 08-31-89 Ethanol-producing Mesophilic
Bacteria
North Carolina State Univ. Leo W. Parks 85-C R C R-1-1634 $100,553 08-01-85 Cell Membrane Technology in the
Raleigh, NC 27695–7003 870.1147 07-31-89 Fermentative Production of
Alcohol
Lehigh Univ. B. S. Montenecourt 87-C R C R-1-2387 $117,000 09-01-87 Isolation and Cloning of the (R)-
Bethlehem, PA 18015 8701161 08-31-89 Lactyl-CoA Dehydratase Gene
TOTAL $487,272
from Megasphaera elsdenii
§
INSECT PEST SC I ENCE
Before successful strategies for
managing insect pests can be developed, a
strong basic insect biology research effort
is needed. The Insect Pest Science Program
provided $901, 548 each for basic studies on
boll weevil/boll worm, pine bark beetle, and
gypsy moth. This program area supports
research on behavioral physiology; chemical
ecology; in sect-host interaction;
endocrinology; population dynamics;
behavioral ecology; and in sect pathogens,
parasites, and predators.
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PRO GRAM A REA: INSECT PEST SCIENCE - B 0LL WEEWIL/B 0LL W 0 RM
G R A NTS AWARDED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PR 0 POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Univ. of Arizona William S. Bowers 87-C R C R-1-2489 $150,000 09-15–87 Storage Protein Mediated
Tucson, AZ 85721 8702272 09-30–90 Deposition and Release of
Inhibitors in Bollworm Fatbody
Univ. of California Thomas C. Baker 87-C R C R-1–2577 $150,000 09-01-87 Flight Control in Heliothis
Riverside, CA 92521 8702280 08-31-90 wirescens and Heliöthis Zéâ.
South Atlantic Area P. D. Greany 87-C R C R-1-2479 $100,000 09-15–87 Chemical Mediation of
A RS, USD A 8702167 09–30–89 0 viposition and Egg Development
Athens, GA 30613 by a Bollworm Endoparasite
South Atlantic Area Peter E. Teal 87-C R C R-1-2490 $100,000 08-01-87 Genetics and Biosynthesis of Sex
ARS, USDA 8702164 07-31-90 Pheromone Blends by Heliothis
Athens, GA 30613 Species
Univ. of Missouri Thomas R. Yonke 87-C R C R-1-2463 $8,000 08-01-87 Genetics of Maize Insects: An
Columbia, M 0 65211 8702179 07-31-88 Invitation by the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences
§
Mid-South Area
ARS, USDA
Stoneville, MS 38776
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695
Clemson Univ.
Clemson, SC 29634
Texas A & M Res. Foln.
College Station, TX 77843
K. R. Hopper
George G. Kennedy
David G. Heckel
Roger W. Meola
87-C R C R-1-2473
8702251
87-C R C R-1-2.505
8701.265
87-C R C R-1-2506
8702153
87-C R C R-1-2474
8702224
$100,000
$100,000
$93,548
$100,000
TOTAL $901,548
09–15–87
09–30–90
09-01-87
08-31-90
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
Host Plant Attractance and
Within-Habitat Search Rate of
Heliothis parasitoids
Effects of Hornworm Resistance
in Tomato on Natural Enemies of
Heliothis zea
Basic and Applied Genetic, .
Linkage Mapping in Heliothis
wirescens
Characterization and Isolation of
the Heliothis Zea Diapause
Termination Factor
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEAR C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: INSEC T P EST SCIENCE - G Y PSY M 0 TH
G R A NTS AWARDED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 U NT A G REE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R 0 M
TO
Univ. of Illinois Michael R. Jeffords 87-C R C R-1-2516 $150,000 09-15-87 European Microsporidia as
Champaign, IL 61820 8702071 09-30-90 Biological Control Agents of the
Gypsy Moth
Univ. of Massachusetts Joseph S. Elkinton 87-C R C R-1-2498 $100,000 09-01-87 Spatial Analysis of Gypsy Moth
Amherst, M A 01003 8702146 08-31-89 Density and Mortality
Univ. of Massachusetts David E. Leonard 87-C R C R-1-2497 $20,000 09-01-87 Gypsy Moth Storage Proteins as
Amherst, M A 01003 8702265 08-31-88 Indices of Nutritive Quality in
Field Populations
Univ. of Maryland Richard B. Imberski 87-C R C R-1–2562 $50,000 09-01-87 Reproductive º of Gypsy
College Park, MD 20742 870.1645 08-31-88 Moths: Mechanism of Light-
induced Sterility
Oregon State Univ. R. E. Berry 87-C R C R-1–2478 $251,824 09-01-87 Regulation of Development and
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 8702064 08-31-90 Detoxication in Gypsy Moth
Lymantria dispar (L.)
§
Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station
Forest Service, USDA
Broom all, PA 19008
North Atlantic Area
ARS, USDA
Philadelphia, PA 19118
Temple Univ.
Philadelphia, PA 19122
!niv. of Vermont
Burlington, WT 05405
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
William E. Wallner
Richard S. Soper
M. G. Wolfersberger
George M. Happ
William R. Engels
87-C R C R-1-2524
8702168
87-C R C R-1–2503
8701944
87-C R C R-1-2487
8701968
87-C R C R-1-2488
8701969
87-C R C R-1-251.7
8701523
$15,000
$100,000
$100,000
$54,724
$60,000
TOTAL $901,548
09-01-87
08-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
Conference Grant: Comparison of
Features of New and Old World
Tussock Moths (Lymantriidae)
Epizootiology of Entomophaga
aim aiga, a Fungäl # #of
II]
the US# M Oth
Selection of Optimal Bacillus
thuringiensis Strain for Gypsy
MOth #
Control of Reproduction of Male
Gypsy Moths
Baculovirus-mediated
Transformation of Insects
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESEAR C H G R A NTS PROGRAM
P R O G R A M A REA: INSEC T PEST SCIENCE - PIN E B A R K BEETLE
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M 0 U NT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGAT 0 R PR 0 POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of California Donald L. Dahlsten 87-C R C R-1-2480 $90,000 09-01-87 Host Specificity of Ips spp.
Berkeley, CA 94720 8701961 08-31-89 Parasitoids in Three California
Pinus Species
Univ. of Florida James L. Nation 87-C R C R-1–2491 $160,000 09-01-87 Chemical Ecology of Host
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702177 08-31-90 Colonization by the Black
Turpentine Beetle
Univ. of Georgia C. Wayne Berisford 87-C R C R-1-2494 $103,117 09-01-87 Evaluation of Behavioral
Research Foundation, Inc. 8702286 08-31-89 Chemicals for Suppression of
Athens, GA 30602 Southern Pine Beetle
North Central Experiment R. A. Haack 87-C R C R-1-2481 $50,000 09-01-87 Impact of Ultrasonic Acoustics on
Station 8702150 08-31-88 the Colonization Behavior of a
FS, USDA Pine Bark Beetle
St. Paul, MN 55108
North Carolina State Univ. Fred P. Hain 85-C R C R-1-1860 $160,000 09-15–85 Host Resistance of Southern
Raleigh, NC 27695 8702217 09-30-89 Yellow Pines to Bark Beetle
Attack
§
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Brigham Young Univ.
Provo, UT 84602
Univ. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98.195
Charles F. Aquadro
Stephen L. Wood
Robert I. Gara
87-C R C R-1-2482
8702160
87-C R C R-1–2582
8701484
87-C R C R-1–2499
870.1173
TOTAL $901,548
$100,000
$88,431
$150,000
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-90
Genetic Divergence in the Pine
Weevils
A World Catalog of Scolytidae and
Platypodidae (Coleoptera)
Effect of Fungal Pathogens Of
Lodgepole Pine on Mountain Pine
Beetle Activity
§
HUMAN REQUIREMENTS FOR NUTRIENTS
The emphasis in this program area is on
determining human requirements for
nutrients. Support is not provided for
clinical research or for demonstration or
action projects.
Research in human nutrition contributes
to improving human nutritional status by
increasing our understanding of requirements
for nutrients in relation to different
patterns of food intake. Findings help fill
the gaps of our knowledge related to nutrient
requirements, bioavailability, the
inter relationships of nutrients, and the
nutritional value of foods consumed in the
United States as they relate to these
requirements. Special attention in this
program area is given to the study of trace
constituents of foods and their effect on
human health.
§
C 0 MPETITIVE RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: H U M A N N UT RITION
G R A NTS AWARD E D F 0 R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R GANIZATION P RIN CIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A G REE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Univ. of California Quinton R. Rogers 87-C R C R-1–2418 $70,000 07–15–87 Neural Responses to
Davis, CA 95616 8700288 07–31-88 Disproportionate A mino Acid
Diets: Role of Monoamines
Univ. of California Kathryn G. Dewey 86-C R C R-1–1968 $72,400 06-01-86 Nutrient Intake and Growth of
Davis, CA 95616 8702277 05-31-89 Breast-Fed Infants, 3–18 Months
Univ. of California Bo Lonnerdal 87-C R C R-1–2572 $40,000 09-01-87 Manganese Absorption in Humans
Davis, CA 95616 8700289 08-31-88
Univ. of Colorado Health K. M. Hambidge 87-C R C R-1–2337 $160,996 09-15-87 Psychocognitive Effects of Mild
Sciences Center 8700402 09-30–90 Zinc Deficiency in Infants
Denver, C 0 80262
Univ. of Florida Peggy L. Borum 87-C R C R-1-2465 $42,000 09-01-87 Is Carnitine an Essential Nutrient
Gainesville, FL 32611 8700231 08-31-88 for the Newborn?
š
Iowa State Univ. of
Science & Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Univ. of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
Purdue Research
Foundation
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Louisiana State Univ. &
A & M College
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Univ. of Massachusetts
Amherst, M A 01003
Boston Univ.
Boston, MA 02118
Massachusetts Inst. of
Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
James A. Olson
Donald M. Mock
S. Suzanne Nielsen
Daniel H. Hwang
John J. Cunningham
Steven H. Zeisel
George Wolf
87-C R C R-1-2320
8700019
87-C R C R-1–2331
8700310
85-C R C R-1-1621
8700177
87–C R C R-1-2513
8700136
87-C R C R-1-2565
8700251
87-C R C R-1-2464
8700132
87-C R C R-1-2321
8700312
$270,000
$50,000
$40,000
$60,000
$50,000
$56,000
$260,000
§§§
07-01-87
06-30-88
09–15–85
09-30-88
09–15–87
09-30-89
09–15–87
09-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
Evaluation of * j and
Requirements of Humans for
Witamin A
Biotin in Human Milk
Resistance of Legume Proteins to
Proteolysis: Role of Heat-Stable
Proteinase Inhibitors
Effects of Different Types of
Dietary w? Fatty Acids on
Eicosanoid Synthesis
Witamin C Status in Healthy
Women: A Stable Isotope
Approach
Choline Deficiency in Humans -
Effects on Muscle Function
Biochemical Reasons for the
Requirement of Vitamin A in the
Mammalian Organism
à
Massachusetts Inst. of
Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Johns Hopkins Univ.
Baltimore, MD 21218
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
State Univ. of New York
Albany, NY 1220.1
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Vernon R. Young
Tomas R. Guilarte
Maija H. Zile
Gretchen M. Hill
Joseph L. Napoli
Dennis D. Miller
Daphne A. Roe
87-C R C R-1-2566
8700059
87-C R C R-1-2527
8700102
87-C R C R-1-2449
8700223
87-C R C R-1–2575
8700230
87-C R C R-1-2332
8700046
87-C R C R-1-2315
8700238
87-C R C R-1-2338
8700129
$51,000
$40,000
$110,000
$51,000
$65,000
$70,000
$50,000
09–15–87
09–30–88
09-01-87
08-31-88
08-01-87
07-31-89
09–15–87
09-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-88
Methionine Kinetics in Relation to
Methionine Requirements in Man
Maternal Vitamin B-6 Nutrition:
Effects on the Dopaminergic
System of Progeny
Metabolism and Function of
Retinoic Acid in the Small
Intestine
Estimation of Daily Copper Intake
Dietary Carotenoids and the
Concentrations of Vitamin A in
Tissues
Calcium Bioavailability in Dairy
Foods: Walidation and Application
of a Method
Photodegradation of Carotenoids
in Vivo: Assessment of Role of
Photosensitizers
š
Monell Chemical Senses
Center
3500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Medical College of
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19129
Univ. of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Virginia Polytechnic Inst.
& State Univ.
Blacksburg, W A 24061
Virginia Commonwealth
Univ.
Richmond, W A 23298
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Michael G. Tordoff
A. Catharine Ross
J. Freeland-Graves
George E. Bunce
Gregory S. Heard
William H. Karasov
87-C R C R-1-2316
8700176
86-C R C R-1-1980
8702767
87-C R C R-1-2312
8700116
86-C R C R-1–1946
8702762
85-C R C R-1-1592
8700221
87-C R C R-1-2311
8700186
$86,000
$70,000
$80,000
$30,000
$50,000
$60,000
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-01-86
06-30-88
08-01-87
07-31-89
07-01-86
06-30-88
09-01-85
08-31-89
07-01-87
06-30–89
Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Food
Intake in Man
Witamin A and Immunity
Requirements of Manganese in
Women
Interaction of Zinc and Vitamin
B6 in Estrogen-directed Gene
Expression
Bioavailability and Requirements
of Biotin for Infants and Children
Nutritional Modulation of
Intestinal Vitamin Transport
§
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Janet L. Greger
John W. Suttie
87-C R C R-1-2323 $80,000
8700100
87-C R C R-1-2322 $189,000
87001.45
TOTAL $2,253,396
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-15-87
09-30-89
chloride, Calcium and Sodium
Interactions
Human Phylloquinone
Requirement
304
LOW-INPUT AGRICULTURE
Question : This year, we have a $3.9 million for Low-Input
Agriculture Research. This is a new initiative and I am very
interested in the use of this money. How are you awarding
$3,900,000?
Answer: Each of the four regions in the United States will
have an Administrative Council and Technical Committee. The
Administrative Council is composed of 5 members with representatives
from State Agricultural Experiment Stations, Cooperative Extension
Services, Agricultural Research Service, private research and
education institutions, and product representatives. The
Administrative Council is responsible for overall policy formulation
at the regional level, appointing the technical committee, ensuring
the involvement of all eligible institutions and submitting an
annual plan of work to the United States Department of Agriculture.
The technical committee is the action level in each region. It
establishes goals and criteria for selecting projects and prepares
the regional plan of work. It includes researchers, extension
specialists, and farm management specialists. In some regions the
administrative council and technical committee may be merged . For
1988 an ad-hoc working group was formed to get the program underway.
It has the same representatives as discussed above but has not been
formally established. The funds for each region are being sent
through one experiment station. For 1988 these stations are Vermont,
Georgia, Nebraska, and California. Initially, $15,000 is being sent
to each region to prepare a plan of work. That process is now
underway. After the plan of work is approved by USDA the remainder
of the funds will be sent to the regions to implement projects.
The key elements being considered in the Regional Plans of Work are:
1. Active participation of universities, Agricultural
Research Service, private research and education
institutions, and producers.
2. Inclusion of both research and extension with
interdisciplinary approaches.
3. Early emphasis on providing information to farmers
in readily usable form so that past and ongoing research
can be applied immediately.
Question : What do you expect the focus of this research to be
and what concrete results might we expect? .
Answer: The focus of this research will be the development of
profitable farming practices with reduced dependence on purchased
inputs, particularly chemical pest icides and fertilizers. The
concrete results expected include test demonstrations on
commercial-scale farms using a combination of low-input and
conventional farming practices. We also expect a wide
305
range of readily usable materials, such as video instructional
cassettes, user-friendly computer software, popularized publications,
and field days that will enable farmers to adapt low-input farming
methods that reduce environmental risks and increase profits.
Question : Do you expect to meet the deadline of July 1, 1988
for reporting to the committee on the activities in this area, and
your recommendations for future funding?
Answer: By July 1, 1988 we will report on the projects approved
and plans of work developed in each of the regions. We will also
report on the involvement of various organizations including private
foundations, producer groups, and various universities and agencies.
Question: Why is there no budget request for additional
Low-Input Agricultural Research for Fiscal Year 1989?
Answer: Due to the discretionary nature of the Hatch Act
formula and related base funded programs, amounts allocated to State
institutions permit the institutions to fund research in those areas
that they identify as high priority. This flexibility allows the
state institutions to continue support of the Low-Input program if
they consider it a high priority.
Question: In addition to the $3.9 Million provided for fiscal
year 1988, how much other money through CSRS is being spent on
Low-Input Agriculture?
Answer: Recently the Cooperative State Research Service, in
cooperation with Iowa State University, assessed conventional and
organic-related farming systems research being undertaken at State
Agricultural Experiment Stations with funding from CSRS programs.
The results of this assessment indicated that $68.0 million applies
to either organic or conventional farming systems, of which $3.5
million has direct relevance to organic-related farming systems.
The report is Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report
91, published in February, 1986.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTERS
Question: What is the status of the Mid-America International
Trade Center and the trade center to be established at Kentucky?
Answer: Guidelines prepared explicitly for International Trade
Development Centers for Agriculture have been submitted to both
institutions by the Cooperative State Research Service to solicit
their proposals. Conferences have been held with officials of both
institutions to explain applicable procedures and assistance will be
provided upon request.
306
SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS
Question: For the following Special Research Grants, please
provide information regarding the grantees, the amount, the type of
research being conducted, and the progress to date:
Pest Management
Rural Development Centers
Animal Health
Pesticide Clearance
Minor Use Animal Drugs
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Aquaculture
Mosquito Research
Tropical and Subtropical
Dark-end Syndrome
Biocontrol of Grasshoppers
Wood Utilization Research
Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
Resources
Prime Farmland Reclamation
Belgian Endive
Acid Precipitation
Shrimp Aquaculture (under Federal Administration)
Answer: A list of the fiscal 1987 grants awarded in these area
is provided, as well as information on research and progress to
date. Most of the 1988 grants will not be awarded until later
during the year.
Pest Management. Research being conducted under fiscal year
1987 grants will continue work to synchronize the management of pests
with the production of the crop to maximize the economic yield,
increase the efficiency of production and grower profits by reducing
production costs, sustain agricultural productivity in national and
international markets, and resolve environmental and biological
problems associated with past pest control approaches.
IPM programs have greatly decreased production costs and
environmental bio-safety problems associated with the commodities
currently under study. For example, increased net profits of
approximately $500 per acre for the Northeast and North Central
apple-producing areas of the United States have been documented.
Disease and insect management programs have extended the life of
alfalfa stands by one year. In California alone, the result is a $15
million annual increase in profits to producers. Economic studies
have substantiated over $510 million annually as direct benefits to
Texas as a result of IPM programs for cotton in the state. The
greatest impact of the current National IPM program is the leverage
it places on interdisciplinary and interaction research at all of the
44 participating institutions. A publication, "National IPM Program,
Organization, Objectives, Progress, and Accomplishments, 1984-1986"
has been published which gives fuller details and accomplishments of
the program.
307
Rural Development Centers. Research conducted under the fiscal
year 1987 funds will provide information to public officials, rural
families, and entrepreneurs in the individual states and across the
regions served by each of the four Regional Rural Development Centers
existing in fiscal year 1987. Much of the research sponsored by the
Centers is funded from several consecutive grants. Work reported
here is that which was completed in 1987, or is being generated from
1987 funds. Some examples are :
The Northeast Center, Pennsylvania State University, sponsored a
collaborative study by researchers from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Delaware to help local officials make effective economic investment
decisions. An expert system for microcomputers called NEEDS, North
East Economic Development System, was developed, implemented and
tested in several Northeastern States, and is being made available to
local officials through Extension Service and State development
agencies. Similarly, the North Central Center, Iowa State
University, sponsored research to develop computer simulation
software to help local governments prepare budgets on road and bridge
maintenance. This information was disseminated through a regional
conference on inters tate rural transportation.
The Western Center, Oregon State University, is conducting a
study on variations in consumer prices among small towns in the
Western Region. Based on previous Centers studies, the results will
be helpful to retail businesses for pricing and promotion, and to
advise people moving into the area on cost of living differentials.
A companion study is assessing the critical concerns of elderly
persons migrating into the Western region and will develop a data
base to be shared among State scientists in a regional research
project.
The Southern Center, Mississippi State University, is
undertaking a major program to establish research priorities across
the South. Four task forces have been established to evaluate :
strategies for job creation and retention; alternatives for financing
infrastructure; farm and off-farm alternatives for small-scale
farmers; and , rural leadership and human resource development.
Reports from these task forces in 1988 are expected to influence and
redirect research to timely and critical areas.
Animal Health. Animal Health Research being conducted under the
fiscal year 1987 grants will be directed toward solving reproductive
diseases of beef and dairy cattle and toward control of a nest rus
which should reduce the calving interval, thereby providing higher
productivity with less capital input into the industry. Beef and
dairy cattle respiratory diseases such as shipping fever will receive
research effort primarily through the application of biotechnology
methods and procedures to enhance the host immune response, modulate
subunit vaccines and manipulation and control of cellular reactions
to certain respiratory viruses. Enteric diseases such as
salmonellos is in calves and Johne's Disease in beef and dairy cattle
will be the focus of several grants in 1987. More accurate
diagnoses, definition of the carrier state and the humoral reaction
of certain gram negative bacteria in calves will receive emphasis.
308
One project is on bovine coccidiosis, looking at the surface antigens
for prospects of effective vaccination. Metabolic diseases and
mastitis will be the center of emphasis in profiling the intermediate
metabolites in calcium metabolism and characterizing the functions of
certain lymphocytes and the lyphokine communicators at the cellular
level. Swine diseases such as TGE and Rotaviruses, haemophilus
prleumonia, pseudorabies, leptospiros is and porcine proliferative
enteritis were emphasized in 1987. The grants awarded for Poultry
Disease research include the application of monoclonal antibodies and
development of DNA probes to detect Mycoplasma gallisepticum and
Pasteurella multocida which are two primary causes of respiratory
disease losses in turkeys and chickens. Also, molecular techniques
will be used to diagnose laryngotracheitis, Marek's Disease and
Infectious Brazil Disease in chickens. Studies funded in sheep and
goat disease research included the molecular characterization of
Bluetongue Virus antigens, recombinant vaccine development for ovine
footrot and chemical investigations of Corynebacterium
pseudotuberculosis. Horse or equine disease research funding
emphasized endotoxemic collie and further refinement of a vaccine for
Potomac Horse Fever. Aquaculture awards went to scientists studying
monoclonal antibodies in the detection of Infectious Hematopoietic
Necrosis Virus (IHN) and disease resistence in Channel catfish.
Funding was initially appropriated for Animal Health Special
Grants in Fiscal Year 1979. Accomplishments include the development
of DNA probes for detection of bluetongue and anaplasmosis in ticks.
Several other research teams are near development of newer, more
Specific diagnostic methods for salmonella, campylobacter,
pseudorabies, brucellosis, retroviruses, Johne's disease, avian
pasteurella, chlamydiosis, foot rot in sheep, and diseases of
catfish. Many of the Animal Health Special Grants are supporting
work utilizing the latest biotechnological tools to develop new
vaccines for bluetongue, pseudorabies, chlamydia induced
polyarthritis in sheep, brucellosis, anaplasmosis, avian coccidiosis.,
strangles in horses, cryptosporidios is in calves, liver fluke
infection in cattle, equine infectious anemia, and rotovirus
infections in calves. Improved diagnostic methodology utilizing
monoclonal antibodies and labeled antigens is being developed in
detection of bovine virus diarrhea, infectious bovine rhino-
tracheitis, porcine rotoviruses, and vesicular diseases in cattle.
Pesticide Clearance. Research being conducted under fiscal year
1987 Pesticide Clearance Grants will be coordinated through the
headquarters office located at Rutgers University and the four
regional research laboratories located at Cornell University,
Michigan State University, University of Florida and the University
of California at Davis. This program provides national 1eadership and
a focal point for obtaining efficacy and residue safety data for
pesticides and biological control agents considered for use in small
acreage plant and minor species animal pest and disease control
practices. The need for public participation in the development of
this data arose because the agricultural chemical, animal drug and
biological pest control industries cannot economically justify the
time and expense needed to conduct the research necessary for the
registrations of these materials with such small market potentials.
309
The Federal registrations resulting from this research will make
possible commercial production of many small-acreage crops that would
otherwise be either impossible or non-competitive. Fiscal year 1987
research should result in the examination of over 250 crop and animal
pest or disease control needs and the eventu registration of about
125 products address these needs.
Funding was initially appropriated /for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1976. In the intervening years 2,603
clearances for use of pesticides on ornamental crops have been
obtained by the program. Over 525 tolerances for use in food crops,
9 approvals for use of drugs in minor animals and 6 approvals for
biological control agents have also been obtained by the project.
Minor Use Animal Drugs. Research being conducted under the
fiscal year 1987 grants will provide data necessary for the clearance
of animal drugs needed for use in minor species and for minor uses in
the major food animal species. Because of their limited use, the
cost of such clearances cannot be borne by the drug manufacturer.
Such clearances are urgently needed to prevent loss from disease and
to deter the improper use of such drugs. Improper administration may
not only prove to be harmful to the animal but also result in
residues harmful to the consumer.
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1982. Accomplishments include the
clearance of eight drug usages with six others pending approval in
1988. To date, 161 drug requests have been submitted for clearance.
Working in conjunction with many universities, the United States
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ARS and 14
different pharmaceutical companies, 12 research projects are now
active and will be continued through 1988 to establish data for
clearances. The Center for Veterinary Medicine of the Food and Drug
Administration is cooperating and supporting this program to the
fullest extent. The program is a prime example of Federal
interagency cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry and
commodity interests to effectively meet an urgent need.
Pesticide Impact Assessment. Research being conducted under the
fisca1 year 1987 grants continues to address issues that will
contribute to scientifically sound decisions on pesticide regulatory
issues. Particular emphasis has been placed on areas relating to the
environment and human exposure to pesticides. A better understanding
of the impacts of various types of pesticide application methodology
on the delivery of chemicals to the desired target will reduce the
risk of environmental pollution and farmworker exposure. A promising
pesticide waste disposal system is anticipated that is practical for
relatively small agricultural operations. Of particular interest is
research relating the movement of pesticides into water under various
agricultural practices and in a variety of soil types. This special
area of research will provide information that will be particularly
useful in the decision-making process that will specify conditions
under which certain chemicals can be used.


310
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1977. Accomplishments fall in several
areas of scientific research. Of particular significance has been
the research that contributes to agricultural pest control needs
within fifty-three States and Territories in addition to providing
the Department with information to make well-founded comments on
regulatory issues that impact the use of pest control chemicals in
agriculture. Since the inception of this program, approximately nine
hundred research projects by State Agricultural Experiment Station
scientists have been funded in the areas of human exposure,
application technology, waste disposal, environmental fate, economic
benefits and pest resistance to pesticides. This research has played
an important role in providing data to minimize risk while
maintaining the necessary quality and quantity of agricultural
products.
Aquaculture- Research being conducted under the fiscal year
1987 grants is directed at providing and improving the scientific and
technical base needed by the aquaculture industry. Research grants
were awarded on a competitive basis to address disease identification
and control in catfish and trout, nutritional requirements of
freshwater prawns and channel catfish, and optimization of transport
conditions for red drum fingerlings. Additionally, a discretionary
grant was awarded to Louisiana State University for studies on the
commercial culture of crawfish and red drum. This research will help
to reduce losses and improve profitability for producers as
aquaculture continues to develop as a major alternative agricultural
opportunity.
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1981. Accomplishments include the
development of better methods to control reproduction in several
commercially important aquaculture species including trout, catfish,
and Sturgeon. Several disease and fish health problems affecting the
industry such as IHN virus in trout have been studied as well as
methods to improve detection and diagnosis of diseases of catfish,
trout, and other salmonids. Techniques for the development of
polyploid catfish and trout have been developed in order to
genetically improve aquaculture stocks. The effects of dietary
lipids on the fatty acid content and flavor of channel catfish have
been studied as well as diet formulations for crawfish, trout, and
prawns. Research at Louisiana State University has led to improved
production efficiency for the commercial culture of crawfish and the
commercial propagation of red drum.
Mosquito Research. Mosquito Research being conducted under the
fiscal year 1987 grant continues to investigate the basic and applied
aspects of riceland mosquito management. The program has
significantly expanded its ability to field test these findings under
the practical conditions of a mosquito abatement program. The
project has produced over 100 technical articles, dissertations, and
theses and has significantly impacted rice growing regions since its
inception in 1980. The investigations have continued in two
principal areas: ecosystem analysis and mosquito management.
311
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1982. Accomplishments include:
ecosystem analysis, which has established the development and
survival rates of the principal riceland mosquito species, and the
age distribution and movement of a relatively new species in
California, Aedes melanimon. Mark and recapture techniques are being
employed to determine the flight range of the principal species, An.
quadrimaculatus and Ps. columbia/confinnis complex studies in key
physical factors that affect survival and reproductive behavior are
underway, as are studies on genetic variability and structure that
will be used to determine the viability of genetic control
techniques. Community Biology studies have identified the
effectiveness of damselfly nymphs in controlling larvae, and
determined the manner in which predators such as mosquito fish and
backswimmers detect mosquito larvae. The red imported fire ant has
been demonstrated to be an important predator of flood water mosquito
populations by egg predation. The effectiveness of spiders is being
assessed and are considered to be most effective along the levees.
The use of U2 aircraft overflights to identify rice fields of high
mosquito potential continues. Reflectance data on over 100
commercial fields is being analyzed. Mosquito management studies
centered on the use of mosquito larvicidal fungus, Lagenidium
giganteum. A biochemical characterization of this organism has been
conducted. Field tests of effectiveness have also been conducted
with infection rates as high as 85%. Other biological control
strategies using bacteria and Notonecta have been completed.
IGR-like compounds are also under test for effectiveness, as are
several chemical larvicides and adult icides. Environmental Impact
Assessment of fungus L. giganteum has been completed. The Grand
Prairie Municipal Mosquito Abatement Program has been added as a
Principal Investigator to provide practical large scale field testing
of the basic concepts developed in the program.
Tropical and Subtropical. Research being conducted under fiscal
year 1987 grants will be in the following areas: crop modeling;
finding profitable new crops; maintaining and increasing soil
productivity; marketing of agricultural products; tropical fruit and
vegetable production; controlling damaging insects, diseases, and
weeds of crop plants; improving the growth of animals; and control of
some animal diseases. Some anticipated accomplishments to date are
finding a biological control for whiteflies damaging citrus,
developing a nucleic acid probe to diagnose bovine anaplasmosis, ways
to improve U.S. Caribbean agricultural trade, finding new pasture
grasses for beef cattle, finding tomato germplasm resistant to
pinworms, biological control of the red coconut scale, finding a
control for root rots of beans, developing growth models for
intercropping, and finding new areas in Hawaii for growing cocoa.
Fiscal year 1983 was the initial year of funding for this Special
Research Grant. Some accomplishments to date include developing
tomato varieties that yield well under tropical conditions and also
are resistant to some diseases, developing wine technology for use in
Puerto Rico, finding squash germplasm in the Caribbean that is
suitable for Puerto Rico, development of methodology necessary to
propagate pineapples by tissue culture, use of drip irrigation for
tropical growing conditions, improving the production of taro, and
developing better pastures for increased beef production.
312
Dark-end Syndrome. Funding was initially appropriated for this
Special Research Grant in fiscal year 1987. Research conducted
during fiscal year 1987 was done as part of a collaborative study by
the Idaho, Oregon, and Washington State Agricultural Experiment
Stations. Experiments were conducted to determine the stages of
plant and tuber development when this crop is most susceptible to
Water and temperature stress conditions that promote the disorder.
Other tests showed that different planting dates and fertilizer
amounts also influence the severity of this physiological disorder.
Some cultivars were found to be more susceptible than others. The
dark-end syndrome disorder is caused by growing conditions that
promote high levels of sugars to develop at one end of the potato
which upon processing, especially French fries, result in an
unacceptable dark color. Fiscal year 1988 funds will be used by these
three State Agricultural Experiment Stations to conduct trials to
develop recommendations that can be used to make these conditions
less likely to occur.
Biocontrol of Grasshoppers. Research being conducted under the
fiscal year 1987 grant at the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station
will continue to study the basic biology of the fungus, Entomophaga
grylli, process of transmission in grasshopper populations, and
impact upon the general grasshopper population. The research
complements studies in North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, and New
York. The Kansas study represents the lower rangelands region.
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1984. Research accomplishments follow:
Entomophaga grylli has been found to exist in a protoplast form while
the grasshopper is alive. Sectioned tissue samples showed that
protoplasts colonize primarily grasshopper fat body during the
infection period. At approximately the time of host death, both the
fat body as well as other tissues are penetrated by the fungus.
Cause of death is attributed mainly to depletion of nutrients, but
other factors may be involved. A previously unknown stage of the
Entomophaga grylli life cycle designated as the cryptoconidia was
discovered. Resting spores were known to transmit the disease, but
they took longer than the observed epizootics. This discovery
explains the rapid epizootics and horizontal transmission of
Entomophaga grylli. More recent research has developed an
immunological technique (ELISA) to identify individuals infected with
the resting spore stage of the fungus. It is currently being
determined whether this assay will also detect later stages of the
fungus. Appropriate immunoassays are being developed for all stages
of the fungus in order to monitor the course of infection and to
relate the degree of infection to specific behavioral changes.
Baseline data on normal food consumption and egg laying behavior of
three grasshopper species has been determined, and experiments are in
progress to determine pre lethal effects of the fungus.
Experimentation on the effect of temperature and photo period on
fungus-induced mortality indicate that the incidence of mortality
increased under temperatures corresponding to mid-July averages
compared to mid-October temperatures. Photoperiod had no effect on
3.13
grasshopper mortality. Results indicated that environmental
conditions can influence the course of infection and helps explain
the timing of epizootics in field populations. Future emphasis will
focus on humidity and diet interactions. -
Wood Utilization Research. Research being conducted under the
fiscal year 1987 grant will continue to expand the uses for the
target groups of species - Western conifers, Southern pines, and
Eastern hardwoods. Three universities are loci for these studies
with ten other universities actively engaged. Fiscal year 1987
funding was $2,703,696. The areas of research to be conducted are:
Timber Manufacture and Processing; Wood Based Composite Materials;
Structural Engineering; Protection and Preservation of Wood; Wood
Chemistry; Timber Harvesting and Transport; and Economic Evaluations
and Technology Transfer. There are presently eighty-one projects in
various stages of completion. The program is providing answers that
increase the utility of wood and its competitive position as a
material. These studies continue to produce results that are
beneficial to consumers, wood products manufacturers, wood loggers,
and forest landowners.
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1985. Several projects have been
completed including one studying veneer clipping that the plywood
industry has estimated will result in savings of millions of dollars
annually when fully implemented. The researchers who developed this
procedure are actively engaged in transferring the technology.
Another completed project prioritized harvesting research issues in
the South. A third developed means to examine and to control some
Polychlorinated Phenols in soils. Safety of loggers using cable
logging techniques is another issue examined and improved through a
program that analyzes the strength of standing spar trees to ensure
load capacity. Structural integrity of wood-framed houses can be
improved by selective mailing patterns elucidated through a computer
program developed through this research program. Laser cutting of
wood has been demonstrated and is included in a large study examining
the increased yield from hardwood lumber.
Southwest Consortium For Plant Genetics and Water Resources.
This grant was called Plant Stress in fiscal years 1986 and 1987. It
is now called Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
Resources. Research being conducted under the fiscal year 1987
grants will fund a total of 30 investigators at five institutions:
New Mexico State University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Texas
Tech University, The University of Arizona, and The University of
California at Riverside. Every project involves two or more of the
five research institutions. The interdisciplinary nature of the
Consortium's program brings together scientists from different
disciplines who are conducting plant genetic and water research
specifically related to environmental stress - investigating ways
plants survive harsh conditions created by heat, insufficient water
or poor water quality.
314
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1986. A number of accomplishments have
been identified. Researchers at Texas Tech and the University of
California at Riverside are working to identify a wheat variety which
is drought resistant and more water efficient. Like many of the
Consortium projects, this research has both an applied and a basic
research component. Isolation and identification of genes responsible
for conferring salt tolerance in plants is being done at the
University of Arizona and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Using a
native desert plant, "ice plant", University of Arizona and New
Mexico State University scientists have found a gene regulated,
adaptive modification of basic photosynthetic metabolism allowing the
plant to be more water efficient and adaptive to salt water stress.
Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory and New Mexico State
University have discovered a polypeptide in j ims onweed, a weed which
grows in metal rich mine tailings, which binds metal molecules taken
up from soils with high levels of heavy metals. Identification of
the gene will facilitate the transfer of heavy metal tolerance to
agronomically important plants or plants which could be used to
reclaim polluted and contaminated land. Researchers from Los Alamos
National Laboratory and New Mexico State University have discovered
an unusual event which holds great promise for increasing the
efficiency of nitrogen fixation in alfalfa by Rhizobium. A bacterial
strain, which is normally pathogenic to non-nitrogen-fixing alfalfa
plants, is not only non-pathogenic to nitrogen-fixing alfalfa plants
but is , in fact, beneficial. This tri-partite association results in
increased nitrogen fixation and increased assimilation of fixed
nitrogen by the plant. These scientists are working to understand how
the new pathway is activated so they can genetically engineer this
trait into commercial varieties of alfalfa, soybeans, peas and
lentil, without the the mediation of the pathogenic bacteria.
Prime Farmland Reclamation. Funding was initially appropriated
for this Special Research Grant category in fiscal year 1987.
Research being conducted under the fiscal year 1987 grants has been
initiated with the installation of field and supporting laboratory
studies in Illinois and Kentucky. These studies are designed to
obtain information on which to base guidelines for effective
rebuilding of soils, without root restricting compacted layers, and
with a goal to understand the natural and man-caused problems
encountered in reclamation. Changes in soil physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics are being evaluated and related to crop
yields and plant growth responses. The research programs of the two
states are being coordinated through joint planning and reporting
sessions to maximize the exchange of information among scientists and
with the coal industry, which is also sharing in the support of the
projects.
Belgian Endive. Funding was initially appropriated for this
Special Research Grant category in fiscal year 1987 to the
Massachusetts State Agricultural Experiment Station. The
Massachusetts State Agricultural Experiment Station contracted with
the Connecticut State Agricultural Experiment Station at New Haven to
conduct a collaborative research study on Belgian Endive with a
portion of the fiscal year 1987 Special Research Grant funds.
315
Research consisted of variety evaluation, weed control, cultural
practices, nitrogen fertilization, storage and forcing studies, in
order to better understand the mechanisms controlling growth and
quality of this crop. This research will be used to develop
recommendations for its successful production, as an alternative
horticultural crop, for tobacco soils of the Connecticut River Valley
of Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Acid Precipitation. Research being conducted under the fiscal
year 1987 grants will :
1. Establish exposure-response relationship for acidic
deposition and related gaseous pollutants with the
yield of both nationally and regionally important
agricultural crops.
2. Develop information on the mechanisms by which air
pollution damage occurs in sensitive crop systems to
support exposure-response models and to justify
extrapolations.
3. Provide data on interactions that will contribute to
the information needed to assess effects on a regional
scale by determining whether climate, soil type, biotic
stresses (such as insects), and other air pollutants
influence plant response to acidic deposition.
Funding was initially appropriated for this Special Research
Grant category in fiscal year 1983. Accomplishments include
findings that reflected emphasis of the fiscal year 1987 program on
effects on crops and cropping systems. The results from field
investigations have indicated that under typical growing conditions,
there are no differences in the response of the major crop plants
(soybeans, corn, wheat) exposed to simulated rain with high ambient
levels of acidity compared to simulated rain with low levels of
acidity. Recent investigations with other crop species such as oat,
potato and sorghum have supported the conclusion that acidic rain is
not an important direct influence on crop production.
Several studies have demonstrated that stage of development is
an important factor affecting plant response to highly acidic rain.
Reductions in the numbers of female flowers of cucumber plants and
reduced pollen germination in corn occurred as a result of treatment
with acidic rain but this was not manifested in an effect on crop
yield under normal growing conditions.
Previous work, which indicated that the yields of most crops
tested are reduced by ambient levels of ozone (0-3 ppm), was
expanded with the testing of additional crops. The results from
studies in the Midwest and Southeast indicated that both muskmelon
and watermelon are sensitive to ozone at levels within the ambient
range, although cultivars varied in their sensitivity.
316
Results of field studies with soybeans indicate that the
effects of ozone on crop yield may be reduced by drought stress.
High relative humidity during ozone exposure, however appears to
increase ozone damage, as demonstrated in experiments with geranium
in which reduced seed set occurred after a 6-hour exposure to 0. 30
parts per million (ppm) ozone at 90% relative humidity but not at
low humidity.
Several studies were completed to examine the interactive
effects on crops of insect and disease organisms with pollutants.
Studies with soybean indicated that defoliation by Mexican bean
beetle increased significantly with increasing ozone concentration
and that larvae tended to weigh more and develop faster when reared
on foliage exposed to ozone.
Laboratory and greenhouse studies indicated that highly acidic
rain reduced the severity of late blight disease of potato, however,
this effect was not observed in field studies using ph 2.8 rain when
exposure duration was lower. It is unlikely that ambient levels of
acidic rain will prevent late blight disease, although these results
suggest that the disease effects are not exacerbated by acidic rain.
Shrimp Aquaculture (under Federal administration). Research
conducted under the fiscal year 1987 grant addressed the
intensification of production systems, prevention and detection of
diseases, seed production, and nutritional requirements for marine
shrimp. A commercial prototype production system was developed and
performance trials were conducted. Protocols for viral detection in
marine shrimp were established.
Funding was initially appropriated for this program in 1985.
Intensification trials in a commercial prototype system and in ponds
have resulted in some of the highest production densities obtained
in this country for marine shrimp. This research has led to a
better understanding of the spawning and maturation of marine shrimp
resulting in better control of artificial propagation in commercial
systems. Work in the area of shrimp diseases has resulted in
improvements in the detection of virus infections and a better
understanding of the modes of transmission of these infections.
Nutritional studies with larval shrimp have resulted in the
improvement in the quality and viability of larval shrimp produced
under artificial conditions.
:
Univ. of Arkansas W. C. Yearian 87-C RSR-2–3047 $43,628 09-01-87 Development of Thresholds for SAES
Agric. Expt. Stn. 8702736 w 08-31-89 Multispecific Insect Infestations
Fayetteville, AR 72701 on Grain Sorghum
Univ. of Arizona L. Irene Terry 86-C RSR-2–2927 $20,000 09-01-86 Combining Western Flower Thrips SAES
Tucson, AZ 85721 8702831 08-31-88 Apple Management Model with
RED AP 0L Fruit Set Predictions
to Create a Decision Support
System
Univ. of California Steven E. Lindow 86-C RSR-2-2950 $25,000 09-15–86 Management and Mechanism of Land Grant-1862
Berkeley, CA 94720 8702787 09-30–88 Copper Tolerance Among Bacteria
SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM
P R O G R A M A RE A: INTEGRATED PEST M A N A G E MENT
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A GREE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
& F R O M
TO
on Tree Fruits
Univ. of California Milton N. Schroth 86-C RSR-2-2954 $11,250 09-15-86 Development of Biological SAES
Berkeley, CA 94720 8702786 09-30-88 Control Agents for the Early
Dying Pest Complex
Univ. of California Joseph G. Hancock 86-C RSR-2-2951 $40,000 09-15-86 Chronic Stresses and Yield Land Grant-1862
Berkeley, CA 94.720 8702821 09-30-88 Impacts on Forage Alfalfa by
Pathogens on Roots
Univ. of California Becky B. Westerdahl 86-C RSR-2-2957 $11,250 09–15-86 Integrated Use of Microbial and SAES
Davis CA 95616 8702833. 09-30-88 Chemical Nematicides for
Potatoes in Tulelake
:
Univ. of California
Davis, CA 95616
Colorado State Univ.
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Colorado State Univ.
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Colorado State Univ.
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Athens, GA 30602
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Athens, GA 30602
Bryce W. Falk
Monty D. Harrison
Gary A. McIntyre
John L. Capinera
F. W. Nutter, Jr.
David C. Bridges
86-C RSR-2-2935
8702796
87-C RSR-2-3205
8702832
86-C RSR-2-2937
8702288
87-C RSR-2-3087
8702753
87-C RSR-2-3082
8702727
87-C RSR-2–3048
8702725
$30,000
$16,867
$50,000
$14,500
$68,000
$56,260
09-01-86
08-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
09-15-86
09-30-88
06-15–87
06-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-01-87
06-30-89
The Etiology and Ecology of
Barley Yellow Dwarf Viruses in
California Cereals
Erwinia carotovora subsp.
Carotovora in Potato Early Dying
and its Interaction with
Werticillium dahliae
Western Regional Integrated Pest
Management Special Projects
Program
Evaluation of Wairimorpha n. sp.
as a Biocontroſ Agent of Mormon
Cricket
Integration of Late Leafspot
Control Tactics to Increase
"Percent Chance of Profit"
Integration of Management
Strategies for Large Crabgrass
and Lesser Cornstalk Borer in
Grain Sorghum
SAES
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
Univ. of California
Davis, CA 95616
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Calvin 0. Qualset
M. D. McCorcle
85-C RSR-2-2729
8702775
87-C RSR-2-3003
8702399
$15,000
$35,355
09-15–85
09-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
Identification of Host Resistance
Genes to BY D and Their Transfer
to Useful Cultivars of Small
Grains, Especially Wheat
Prediction of Pest Distribution in
the Corn Belt: A
Biometeorological System
SAES
Land Grant-1862
:
Univ. of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
Purdue Res. F dri.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Louisiana State Univ. &
A & M College
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Univ. of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Univ. of Massachusetts
Amherst, M A 01003
Univ. of Massachusetts
Amherst, M A 01003
Guy W. Bishop
Eldon E. Ortman
R. L. Wanderlip
Ronnie L. Byford
David N. Ferro
David N. Ferro
Stephen J. Herbert
85-C RSR-2-2708
8702756
87-C RSR-2-3182
8702788
87-C RSR-2-3012
8702398
87-C RSR-2-3049
8702735
86-C RSR-2-2788
8702211
87-C RSR-2-3004
8702212
86-C RSR-2-2779
870.1549
$15,000
$19,000
$16,000
$11,977
$73,680
$65,000
$5,150
$15,065
$22,000
07-01-85
06-30-88
08-01-87
07-31-89
05-01-87
04-30–89
07-01-87
06-30-89
06-01-86
05-31-88
05-01-87
04-30-88
05-15-86
05-31-88
Relationships of Aphid Wectors to
Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus Spread
in Washington and Idaho Cereals
Research Communications
Modeling ‘Shattercane' and Second
Generation European Corn Borer
Effects on Corn
Insecticide Resistance:
Characterization and Impact on
Horn Fly IPM in the Southern U.S.
Modeling Mortality Factors of
Colorado Potato Beetle
Integrated Insect Management of
Potato in Northeastern United
States
Crop Management, Yield and
Stand Persistance Interaction of
Alfalfa
SAES
Univ. of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
Univ. of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
James R. Davis
Robert H. Callihan
86-C RSR-2-2958
8702784
87-C RSR-2-3088
8702758
09-15-86
09-30-88
06-15-87
06-30-88
The Etiology of Premature Death
of Potato: The Role of
Colletotrichum coccodes
Integration of Biological Stresses
for Control of Rush Skeletonweed
SAES
SAES
Land Grant-1852
land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Univ. of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
William 0. Lamp
G. W. Bird
Roger D. Moon
86-C RSR-2–2860
8701550
85-C RSR-2-2642
8702870
87-C RSR-2–3016
8702400
$22,000
$15,583
$85,000
08-01-86
01-31-89
07-01-85
06-30–89
07-01-87
06-30–89
The Effect of Potassium
Applications on Pest Management
Decisions in Alfalfa
Three Models for Predicting
Potato Plant Growth and Tuber
Yield in North Central Potato
Systems
Integrated Pest Management in
Beef Cow-Calf Production
Systems
Multispecies Pest Interactions,
Cultural Environments, and
Models for Corn Management
Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus
Isolates Vectored by Corn Leaf
Aphids
High Stocking Rate Potential for
Controlling Big Sagebrush
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
Univ. of Maine
Orono, ME 04469
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55104
Montana State Univ.
Bozeman, M T 59717
Montana State Univ.
Bozeman, M T 59717
A. Randall Alford
David A. Andow
E. B. Radcliffe
Kenneth B. Johnson
Thomas W. Carroll
Carl L. Wambolt
86-C RSR-2-2759
87021.96
87-C RSR-2-3015
8702401
87-C RSR-2-3014
8702402
85-C RSR-2-2679
8702790
85-C RSR-2-2645
8702774
87-C RSR-2-3089
8702760
$20,000
$158,000
$46,336
$16,077
$14,000
$9,500
04-15-86
04-30–88
06-01-87
05-31-89
05-01-87
04-30-89
06-01-85
05-31-89
06-01-85
08-31-88
06-15-87
06-30-88
Effects of Limonin and Related
Compounds on Colorado Potato
Beetle Larvae
Multiple Pest, Water, Nitrogen
Interaction with Potato Yield
Evaluation of Three Potato to
Crop-Pest Models
SAES
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
§
Montana State Univ.
Bozeman, MT 59717
North Carolina Agric. Res.
Service
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695–7601
North Carolina Agric. Res.
Service
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695–7601
North Carolina Agric. Res.
Serv.
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695–7601
Agric. Expt. Stn.
North Dakota State Univ.
Fargo, N D 58105
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Rutgers Univ.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
J. Wayne Brewer
Harold D. Coble
John R. Meyer
K. R. Barker
Donald C. Nelson
Fred C. Swift
87-C RSR-2-3139
8702770
87-C RSR-2-3064
8702737
85-C RSR-2–2571
8702734 -
87-C RSR-2-3063
8702733
85-C RSR-2-2712
8702777
87-C RSR-2–2991
8702043
$9,500
$67,000
$70,000
$67,000
$8,532
$29,402
07-01-87
06-30-88
06-15-87
06-30-89
09-01-85
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-01-85
06-30-88
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588–0430
T. O. Holtzer
87-C RSR-2-3011
8702403
$80,748
06-01-87
05-31-89
05-01-87
04-30-89
Coleoptera as Vectors of
Sclerotinia sp. Fungus to Control
Canada. Thistle
Development and Implementation
of Economic Thresholds for Weeds
in Cotton
Gound Cover in Peach Orchards as
Related to Biotic and Abiotic
Interactions
Quantification and Modeling of
Soybean Responses and
Interaction with Heterodera
gl yci neS
Walidation of Three Models for
Predicting Potato Plant Growth
and Tuber Yield
European Corn Borer Tunneling,
Stalk Rot, Water Stress, and Corn
Plant Physiology
Phytoseiid Mites as Predators on
European Red Mite on Apples
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853–2801
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Jan P. Nyrop
Gary W. Fick
William E. Fry
87-C RSR-2-3005
8702042
85-C RSR-2-2723
870.1551
87-C RSR-2-3007
8702197
$20,460
$18,000
$20,000
05-01-87
04-30–89
09-15-85
09-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Control of Cheatgrass on Western
Nevada Rangelands by Simulated
Grazing Management
Development and Walidation of
Management Decision Rules for
European Red Mite
Conceptual Models of Pest
Effects on Alfalfa for the
Northeast
Leafhopper and Hºsphaeniina
Leaf Spot on Alfalfa
Predicting Potato Leafhopper
Migration: The Starting Point for
Alfalfa IPM Strategies
Trichoderma spp. and Rootstock
Resistance as Components of IPM
for Apple Crown Rot
Integrated Production
Management System for Irish
Potatoes
Optimal Fungicide Use on Potato
Plants
SAES
SAES
SAES
New Mexico State Univ.
Las Cruces, N M 88003
Univ. of Nevada
Reno, NW 89557-0025
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Kirk C. McDaniel
Robin J. Tausch
Edward J. Bechinski
Elson J. Shields
W. F. Wilcox
Robin R. Bellinder
87-C RSR-2-3189
8702795
86-C RSR-2–2928
8702773
87-C RSR-2–2994
8701544
87-C RSR-2–2993
870.1545
87-C RSR-2-2992
8702045
86-C RSR-2-2783
8702199
$9,500
$20,000
$15,000
$14,000
$56,393
$10,000
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-86
08-31-88
06-01-87
05-31-88
06-01-87
05-31-88
05-01-87
04-30–90
05-15-86
05-31-88
Integrated Pest Management for
Economical Control of Broom
Snakeweed
Bioeconomics and Management of
Interactions Between the Potato
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Oklahoma State Univ.
Stillwater, 0 K 74078–0500
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
C. A. Shoemaker
Elmer E. Ewing
Russell E. Wright
Peter Westigard
86-C RSR-2–2778
8702198
86-C RSR-2-27.91
870.2202
87-C RSR-2-3065
87027.32
87-C RSR-2-3190
8702798
$20,000
$20,000
$63,000
$15,500
$10,000
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-15-86
09-30-88
08-01-87
07-31-88
An Integrated Approach to
Management of Several Potato
Pests: Simulation and
Optimization Modelling
Employing Pest Defoliation
Models for Potato IP M
Annual Cumulative Effect of
Blood Sucking Arthopods on Beef
Cattle Production
Economic Impact of Whitetop
(Cardaria spp.) on the Sagebrush
cosystem of Eastern Oregon
Immigration of Tetranychus
urticae Koch from Orchard
Groundſ Cover into Pear
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
0 hio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43212–1194
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Catherine A. Tauber
Maurice J. Tauber
Rosemary Loria
Randall C. Rowe
Larry L. Larson
87-C RSR-2–2998
8702200
87-C RSR-2-3009
870220.1
85-C RSR-2-2680
8702203
87-C RSR-2-3017
8702405
86-C RSR-2-2952
8702772
$10,000
$20,000
$19,000
$80,000
06-01-87
05-31-88
06-01-87
05-31-88
06-01-85
05-31-88
06-01-87
O5–31-89
Phenological Effects of Potato
Cultivars on Colorado Potato
Beetle
Pesticide Resistance in Colorado
Potato Beetle: Genetics and
Detection
Common Scab of Potato: Effects
of Cultivar Resistance and
Inoculum Source
Walidation and Extension of
Models that Predict Yield Loss
Due to Potato Early Dying
SAES
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Mary L. Powelson
Mary L. Powelson
Brian A. Croft
Richard W. Smiley
Zane Smilowitz
Felix L. Lukezic
Arthur A. Hower
Larry A. Hull
36-C RSR-2-2960
8702822
87-C RSR-2-3215
8702863
87-C RSR-2-3167
8702782
87-C RSR-2-3165
8702776
85-C RSR-2-2683
8702486
85-C RSR-2–2714
870.1552
85-C RSR-2-2715
870.1553
87-C RSR-2–2995
8702044
$17,000
$16,868
$25,000
$17,000
$18,000
$21,000
$24,000
$21,000
09-15-86
09-30-88
09-15–87
09-30-88
07-15-87
07-31-88
07-15–87
08-31-88
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-01-85
09-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-88
Interactions Between Meloidogyne
chitwoodi and Werticillium #
in the Early Dying Disease of
Potatoes
Erwinia carotovora subsp.
carotovora in Potato Early Dying
and its Interaction with
Werticillium dahliae
Comparative Immigration and
Colonization of Apple by
Predaceous Mites
Rhizoctonia Root Rot of Cereals
in Conservation Tillage Systems
Potato Plant Response to Insect
Feeding and Abiotic Stresses
Biological Control of Forage
Legume Leaf Diseases
Effect of Clover Root Curculio-
Root Pathogen Interaction on
Alfalfa Rhizosphere Dynamics
Monitoring Patterns of
Azinphosmethyl Resistance in
Adult Platynota Idaeusalis
SAES
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Agri. Expt. Stn.
Texas A & M Univ.
College Station, TX 77843
Utah State Univ.
Logan, UT 84322-1445
Utah State Univ.
Logan, UT 84322–5305
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. &
State Univ.
Blacksburg, W A 24061
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. &
State Univ.
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Blacksburg, W A 24061
Ke Chung Kim
James R. Cate
Ting H. Hsiao
Wincent P. Jones
E. C. Turner, Jr.
Thomas L. Payne
86-C RSR-2-2780
8701546
87-C RSR-2-3051
8702728
85-C RSR-2-2693
8702754
87-C RSR-2–3186
8702785
87-C RSR-2-3058
8702729
87-C RSR-2-3067
8702730
$15,000
$67,000
$66,805
$24,000
$40,000
$67,000
$68,000
07-01-86
06-30-88
Clemson Univ.
Clemson, SC 29634
Clemson Univ.
Clemson, SC 29634
Michael R. Strand
J. D. Mueller
87-C RSR-2-3066
8702726
87-C RSR-2-3050
8702731
$68,000
08-01-87
07-31-89
07-01-87
08-31-89
07-01-87
06-30-89
06-15–85
12-31-88
07-15-87
07-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
Genetic and Taxonomic Distance
of Host-Associated Populations of
Microtonus Aethiopoides
(Braconidae: Hymenoptera)
Enhanced Biological Control in
Soybean: Influence of Pest Niche
on Parasitism
Response of Cotton to
Hoplolaimus columbus Populations
from North and South Carolina
Ecological and Genetic Wariation
in Diapause in Anthonomus
grandis
Field Hybridization of Alfalfa
Weevil Stains: Biological and
Ecological Evaluations
Pesticide Resistance in Codling
Moth, Pandemis Leafroller and
Western Tentiform Leafminer
Introduction of 0 phyra aenescens
in Livestock IPM #.
against House Flies
Use of Behavioral Chemicals and
Host Tree Cutting in Southern
Pine Beetle IP M
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
§
Univ. of Vermont & State Alan R. Gotlieb 85-C RSR-2-2648 $30,229 06-01-85 Alfalfa Performance as Influenced SAES
Agricultural College 870.1548 12-31-89 by the Interactions of Mechanical
Burlington, WT 05405 Wounding, Climate, Sitona
hispidula Populations, and
Fusarium Root Rot
Univ. of Wermont G. B. MacCollom 87-C RSR-2-3008 $56,973 05-01-87 0 dor Enhancement of Traps f
3. ps tor SAES
Burlington, WT 05405 8702041 04-30–90 Adult Apple Maggot Rhagoletis
pomonella
Washington State Univ. Dennis C. Gross 87-C RSR-2-3143 $28,000 07-01-87 Biological Systems to Control Land Grant-1862
Pullman, W A 99164–6430 8702771 06-30-88 Pathogens Involved in Early Dying
of Potatoes
Washington State Univ. Keith S. Pike 85-C RSR-2–2704 $15,000 07-01-85 Relationships of Aphid Wectors to SAES
Pullman, W A 99164 8702755 06-30-88 BY DW Spread in Washington and
Idaho Cereals
Washington State Univ. Gerald S. Santo 86-C RSR-2-2953 $16,000 09-15-86 Relationship of Root-Knot and SAES
Pullman, W A 99164-5045 8702759 09-30-88 Root-Lesion Nematodes to Early
Dying on Potato
Washington State Univ. Stephen D. Wyatt 85-C RSR-2-2684 $14,000 07-01-85 Barley Yellow Dwarf Monoclonal SAES
Pullman, WA 99164–6430 8702797 w 06-30-89 Antibody Production
Univ. of Wisconsin Douglas I. Rouse 85-C RSR-2-2650 $16,218 06-01-85 Evaluation of Three Models for Land Grant-1862
Madison, WI 53706 8702825 05-31-89 Predicting Potato Plant Growth
and Tuber Yield in Potato Systems
Univ. of Wisconsin Walter R. Stevenson 87-C RSR-2-3013 $120,000 05-01-87 Integrated Crop Management of SA
Madison, WI 53706 8702404 04-30–89 ſº crop manag SAES
§
West Virginia Univ. Joseph E. Weaver 36-C RSR-2-2781 $10,000 05-15-86 Alfalfa Weevil Larval Densities in Land Grant-1862
Morgantown, WV 26506 870.1547 05-31-88 Relation to Yield and Quality of
Alfalfa
Univ. of Wyoming Michael A. Smith 86-C RSR-2-2936 $11,000 09-01-86 Economic Threshold Levels of Big SAES
Laramie, WY 82071 8702757 08-31-88 Sagebrush Control
Univ. of Wyoming F. A. Gray 85-C RSR-2-2705 $40,000 07-01-85 The Interaction of Northern Root- SAES
Laramie, WY 82071 8702783 $ 06-30-88 knot Nematode and Phytophthora
Root Rot in Alfalfa
Univ. of Wyoming David A. Koch 87-C RSR-2-3213 $14,514 09-15–87 Integrated Control of Leafy SAES
Laramie, WY 82071 8702860 09-30-88 Spurge with Herbicides and Grass
Competition
TOTAL $2,787,120
§
MS Agricultural & Forestry H. Doss Brodnax, Jr. 86-C RSR-2-2777 $86,031 06-01-86 Southern Rural Development SAES
Expt. Stn. 870.0958 12-31-88 Center
Mississippi State Univ. *
Miss. State, MS 39762
Oregon State Univ. Russell C. Youmans 86-C RSR-2-2761 $86,031 09–15-86 Western Rural Development Land Grant-1862
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 8702476 09-30-88 Center
Pennsylvania State Univ. Daryl K. Heasley 86-C RSR-2-2760 $86,031 06-01-86 Northeast Regional Center for Land Grant-1862
University Park, PA 16802 8702295 05-31-89 Rural Development
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: R U R AL DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A GREE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R PROPOSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Agric. & Home Economics Peter F. Korsching 87-C RSR-2-3192 $86,031 09-01-87 North Central Regional Center SAES
Expt. Stn. 8702792 11-30–89 for Rural Development
Iowa State Univ.
A mes, IA 50011
TOTAL $344,124
§
SPECIAL RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PR 0 G R A M A REA: A NIM AL H E ALT H RESE A R C H
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F OR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R GANIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT N U M BER AM 0 UNT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F ROM
TO
Univ. of Arizona Lynn A. Joens 87-C RSR-2-3094 $145,374 08-01-87 Porcine Proliferative Entertis: A
Tucson, AZ 85721 8702018 07-31-90 Synergistic Disease
Umiv. of Arizona J. Glenn Songer 87-C RSR-2-3118 $90,375 09-15–87 Role of Phospholipase D in
Tucson, AZ 85721 8701574 0.9–30–89 Pathogenesis of Corynebacterium
pseudotuberculosis Infection
Univ. of California Richard Yamamoto 87-C RSR-2-3101 $108,794 07-01-87 Species and Strain-specific
Davis, CA 95616 8702141 06-30-89 Recombinant DNA Probes for
Mycoplasma gallisepticum
Univ. of California Mark C. Thurmond 87-C RSR-2-3097 $84,087 07-01-87 Humoral Recognition of Gram
Davis, CA 95616 8701788 06-30-89 Negative Core Antigens in
Neonatal Calves
Univ. of California James S. Cullor 87-C RSR-2-3095 $123,451 07-01-87 Bovine Defensins: Natural
Davis, CA 95616 8701779 06-30-89 Antibiotics Against Mastitis
Pathogens
Univ. of California Bennie I. Osburn 87-C RSR-2-3096 $148,082 07-01-87 Modulatory Effects of Cimetidine
Davis, CA 95616 8701784 06-30-89 on the Bovine Immune System and
Sal monella Carrier State
SAES
SAES
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
g
Univ. of California-San
Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Athens, GA 30602
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Athens, GA 30602
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Athens, GA 30602
Lynette B. Corbeil
Wicki S. Blazer
William L. Ragland
Debra D. Morris
87-C RSR-2-3077
8701726
87-C RSR-2–3040
870.1592
87-C RSR-2-3119
8702119
87-C RSR-2-3144
8701900
$110,935
$150,000
$28,167*
$41,874
$57,984
*Split-funded with Aquaculture Research for a total amount of $47,810.
08-01-87
07-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
07-01-87
06-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-90
07-01-87
06-30-89
Milk ELISA to Detect Salmonella
dublin Carrier Cows
Haemophilus somnus
Reproductive Infections: Diagnois
and Im munity
Dietary Factors Governing the
Expression of
Polioencephalomalacia in Cattle
Dietary Lipid and Disease
Resistance in Channel Catfish
Immunomodulation of Chickens
with Nonionic Block Polymers
Endotoxemia in Equine Colic:
Therapy Using a Platelet
Activating Factor - Receptor
Antagonist
Univ. of California
Davis, CA 95616
Colorado State Univ.
Fort Collins, C 0 80523
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 500.11
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Bradford P. Smith
Daniel H. Gould
Charles 0. Thoen
Prem S. Paul
87-C RSR-2-3175
8701781
87-C RSR-2-3208
8701826
87-C RSR-2-3.146
8701787
87-C RSR-2-3209
8702093
$134,955
$111,300
$103,869
09–15–87
09-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-15-87
09-30–90
Johne's Disease: Production of
Antigens for Use in Diagnostic
Tests
Characterization of Immunogens
in Transmissible Gastroenteritis
Wirus of Swine
SAES
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
:
Univ. of Illinois
Champaign, IL 61820
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Montana State Univ.
Bozeman, MT 59717
Deoki N. Tripathy
Bradley W. Fenwick
C. A. Speer
87-C RSR-2-3102
870.1590
87-C RSR-2-3121
8702099
87-C RSR-2-3148
8701939
$141,961
$127,818
$137,954
$135,418
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-15-87
09-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
09–15–87
09-30-90
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Iowa State Univ. of Science
& Technology
A mes, IA 50011
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Purdue Res. F dn.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
Kenneth B. Platt
James A. Roth
J. A. Shadduck
Judith N. Nielsen
Harish C. Minocha
Carl A. Pinkert
87-C RSR-2-3103
870.2090
87-C RSR-2-3120
870.1746
87-C RSR-2-3099
8702027
87-C RSR-2-3145
8702011
87-C RSR-2-3195
870.1761
87-C RSR-2-3147
8702034
$96,457
$149,459
$148,034
$149,854
$89,418
07-01-87
06-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
07-01-87
06-30–90
08-15-87
08-31-90
Pseudorabies Detection in
Vaccinated Pigs by Antiidiotypic
Monoclonal Antibodies
Immunosuppression and
Im muno modulation in BW D Wirus
Infection
Molecular Markers of
Laryngotracheitis Viruses of
Variable Respiratory Wirulence
Porcine Pulmonary Injury Due to
Neutrophils
Development of a DNA Probe for
Diagnosis of Leptospiral Infection
Development of a Subunit Vaccine
for Haemophilus
leuropneumoniae
Anti-Idiotypes of Bovine
Respiratory Disease Viruses:
Waccine Feasibility Studies
Infectious Disease Resistance in
Transgenic Pigs: A Pilot Project
Characterization of Functional
Epitopes Against Bovine
Coccidiosis
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
SAES
Wet School/College
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Agric. Res. Div.
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583-0704
Univ. of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Gary A. Anderson
Linda H. Keller
87-C RSR-2-3156
870.1743
87-C RSR-2–3105
8702117
$96,175
$129,472
09-01-87
08-31-89
07-01-87
06-30–89
Bovine Respiratory Syncytial
Virus: Subunit Vaccine, Im munity,
and Rapid Diagnosis
A Simple Assay for Screening
Efficacy of Brucella abortus
Waccines in Cattle
Development of a Vaccine for
Potomac Horse Fever
Secretory Antibody Response and
Pasteurella multocida Waccine
Avian T Cell Subset Markers as a
Probe of the Immune Response to
Marek's Disease
SAES
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Land Grant-1862
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, NY 14853
0hio State Univ. Res. F dn.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Ohio State Univ. Res. Foln.
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Francis A. Kallfelz
Alexander J. Winter
Y. M. Saif
Yasuko Rikihisa
Alvin W. Smith
Masakazu
Matsumoto
87-C RSR-2-3122
8701689
87-C RSR-2-3078
8701703
87-C RSR-2-3104
8702105
87-C RSR-2-3196
8701915
87-C RSR-2-3166
8701891
87-C RSR-2-3123
8702134
$144,142
$128,495
$147,983
$104,266
$30,042
$58,000
07-01-87
06-30–89
07-01-87
06-30–90
07-01-87
06-30–90
09-15–87
09-30-89
07-15-87
07-31-88
08-01-87
07-31-89
Witamin D Metabolites in Bovine
Parturient Hypocalcemia
Monoclonal Antibodies and Wiral
Proteins of Infectious Bursal
Disease Wirus
Recombinant Vaccine for 0 vine
Footrot
SAES
SAES
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
§
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Texas A & M Res. Foln.
College Station, TX 77843
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, WA 99164
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, WA 99164
R. W. Scholz
Richard A. Wilson
J. W. Templeton
Raymond Reeves
Jerry J. Reeves
87-C RSR-2-3171
870.1803
87-C RSR-2-3124
8701.777
87-C RSR-2-3157
870.1683
87-C RSR-2-3149
8701763
87-C RSR-2-3073
8701821
$51,621
$145,844
$74,372
$150,000
$149,972
09-15–87
09-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-01-87
08-31-90
Selenium Effects on the
Arachidonic Acid Cascade in the
Pathogenesis of Escherichia coli
Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Phenotype and Functions of T-
Lymphocytes and Lymphokines
Isolated from Bovine Mammary
Gland Secretion
Role of Cellular Receptors in the
Pathogenesis of Rotavirus and
Transmissible Gastroenteritis
Genetic Control of Macrophage
Function in Bovine Brucellosis
Recombinant Bovine IL-2
Enhancement of Bovine Immunity
Endocrine Control of Lactational
Anestrus in Beef Cows
SAES
SAES
SAES
South Dakota State Univ.
Brookings, SD 57007
Agricultural Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Tennessee
Knoxville, T N 37901
Texas A & M Res. F dn.
College Station, TX 77843
David A. Benfield
Michael A. Breider
James E. Womack
85-C RSR-2-2592
8702033
87-C RSR-2-3125
8701732
87-C RSR-2-3126
870.1755
$71,975
$146,616
$150,000
09-15-85
09-30–89
09-15–87
09-30–90
09-01-87
08-31-90
Effects of Pasteurella
haemolytica Pathogenic Factors
in Bovine Pulmonary Endothelium
Molecular Genetics of Interferons
and Resistance to Bovine
Respiratory Disease
SAES
Land Grant-1862
Wet School/College
Land Grant-1862
SAES
§
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, W A 99164-5045
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
West Virginia Univ.
Morgantown, WV 26506
Sandra S. Ristow
Gary A. Splitter
Virginia S. Hinshaw
E. Keith Inskeep
87-C RSR-2-3039
870.1842
87-C RSR-2-3128
870.1757
87-C RSR-2-3159
8702110
87-C RSR-2-3074
8701.701
TOTAL $5,408,340
$80,000
$150,000
$75,000
$113,853
09-01-87
02-28–89
09-15–87
09-30-89
09-01-87
08-31-90
09-15–87
09-30–90
A Battery of Monoclonal
Antibodies to Detect Infectious
Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus
Effects of 4–Ipomeanol on Bovine
Wiral and Bacterial Pneumonia
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Univ. of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 32071
W. L. Castleman
Kevin T. Schultz
Oliver J. Ginther
John A. Ellis
87-C RSR-2-3127
8701737
87-C RSR-2-3172
870.1559
87-C RSR-2-3158
870.1697
87-C RSR-2-3079
870.1694
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$144,892
09-15-87
09-30-89
08-01-87
07-31-90
09-15–87
09-30–90
09–15–87
09-30-90
Molecular Characterization of the
Bluetongue Neutralizing Antigen
Effector Cell Recognition of
BHV-1 Glycoproteins Coded by
Transfected Genes
Tissue Tropism of Virulent Avian
Influenza A Wiruses
Early Embryonic Loss in Heifers
Roles of L H and Uterine
Luteolysins in Luteal Function in
Anestrous Cows
Dynamics of Host-Virus
Interaction in Bluetongue: Host
Specific Immune Responses
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
Wet School/College
SAES
Wet School/College
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A RE A: PESTICIDE C L E A R A N CE
G R A N T S A WAR DED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATIO N PRINCIPAL G R A NT NU MBER A M O U NT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of California James N. Seiber 84-C RSR-2–2341 $259,562 03-01-84 Minor Use Pesticide Research —
Davis, CA 95616 8700941 02-29-88 Western Region IR-4
Univ. of Florida Willis B. Wheeler 84–C RSR-2–2342 $259,562 02-01-84 Southern Region Leader
Gainesville, FL 32611 8700.940 * 09-30-88 Laboratory Cooperative Research
for Minor Use Pesticides and
Biologicals Registrations
Michigan State Univ. Fumio Matsumura 84–C RSR-2-2346 $259,562 02-15-84 North Central Leader Laboratory
East Lansing, MI 48824 8700943 06-30-88 Program for Minor Use Pesticide
Research to Supplement the IR-4
Program
Agric. Expt. Stn. Robert H. Kupelian 87-C RSR-2-2982 $259,562 03-01-87 A National Agricultural
Rutgers Umiv. 8700002 * 02-28–90 Program: Clearance of Chemicals
New Brunswick, NJ 08903 and Biologics for Minor or Special
Uses/Pesticides
Cornell Univ. John B. Bourke 87-C RSR-2-2983 $259,564 03-01-87 NE Regional Laboratory for
Ithaca, NY 14853 8700279 09-30–88 Analysis of Pesticides and
TOTAL $1,297,812
Biologics for Minor or Special
Uses
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
g
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: MIN 0 R USE A NIM AL D R U GS
G R A N T S A W A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of California James N. Seiber 86-C RSR-2-2749 $43,418 05-01-86 Minor Use Animal Drug Research-
Davis, CA 95616 8700.936 10-31-88 Western Region IR-4
Univ. of Florida S. F. Sundlof 86-C RSR-2-2750 $43,420 04-01-86 Southern Region Leader
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702052 03-31-88 Laboratory Cooperative Research
for Minor or Specialty use Animal
Drugs
Michigan State Univ. F. Matsumura 86-C RSR-2-2747 $43,418 05-01-86 North Central Leader Laboratory
East Lansing, MI 48824 8700944 04-30-88 Program for Minor Use Drug
Research to Supplement the IR-4
Program
Agric. Expt. Stn. Robert H. Kupelian 87-C RSR-2–2974 $43,418 02–15–87 A National Agricultural
Rutgers Univ. 8700003 s 02-28–89 Program: Clearance of Chemicals
New Brunswick, NJ 08903 and Biologics for Minor or Special
Uses/Animal Drugs
Cornell Univ. John B. Bourke 87-C RSR-2–2975 $43,418 03-01-87 Northeast Regional Laboratory
Ithaca, NY 14853 8700.952 09-30-88 for Analysis of Animal Drugs for
TOTAL $217,092
Minor Uses
SAES
Wet School/College
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: P ESTICIDE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT NUM BER A M 0 UNT A GREEMENT TITLE
INVESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO 0
F R0 M
TO
Univ. of Alaska Donald E. Carling 84–C RSR-2-2424 $5,000 06-15-84 In Vitro Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia SAES
º: & Forestry 8702453 - 06-30-88 Sp. to Selected Fungicides
xpt. Stn.
Fairbanks, A K 99701
Auburn Univ. Robert H. Walker 84-C RSR-2-2380 $8,381 06-01-84 National Agricultural Pesticide SAES
Auburn Univ., AL 36849 8702437 05-31-88 Impact Assessment Program
Univ. of Arkansas Robert E. Frans 87-C RSR-2-3091 $12,860 06-15–87 Pesticide Impact Assessment SAES
Agric. Expt. Stn. 870.2412 06-30-88 Research and Data Analyses for
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Arkansas, 1987
Agric. Expt. Stn. Paul B. Baker 87-C RSR-2-3174 $7,066 09-01-87 Collection and Analysis of SAES
Umiv. of Arizona 8702413 08-31-88 Information Relative to the Use
Tucson, AZ 85721 of Pesticides
Univ. of California Harold G. Alford 87-C RSR-2–2976 $335,166 02-15-87 Western Region Agricultural SAES
Berkeley, CA 94720 87009.45 11–30-88 Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program
e g e Harold G. Alford 87-C RSR-2-3198 $29,215 09-01-87 Determining the Impact Of Land Grant-1862
; *. 8702778 02-28-89 Recently Enacted Legislation on
Pesticide Use in California
Agriculture
:
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Delaware
Newark, DE 19717–1303
Umiv. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Athens, GA 30602
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan.
Boyd Graduate Studies
Research Center
Athens, GA 30602
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Guam
Mangilao, GU 96923
Dewey M. Caron
James W. Todd
James W. Todd
Claron D. Bjork
87-C RSR-2-3069
8702421
87-C RSR-2-3160
8702443
87-C RSR-2-2978
8700949
86-C RSR-2-2772
8702466
$5,000
$15,860
$335,166
$5,000
07-01-87
09–30–88
07-01-87
06-30-88
02-01-87
01-31-89
05-01-86
04-30-88
Impact of Russian Wheat Aphid on
Small Grains in Colorado
Pesticide Impact Assessment and
Data Analysis
Microbial Degradation of
Phenamiphos and Telone II in
Contaminated Soils
Seasonal Population Dynamics of
Thrips in Peanut after Application
of Aldicarb at Planting
Southern Region State
Agricultural Experiment Station
Special Studies for Pesticide
Impact Assessments
Control of New Pests on Guam
with Pesticides
SAES
Colorado State Univ.
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Connecticut Agric.
Expt. Stn.
New Haven, CT 06504
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Frank B. Peairs
Charles R. Frink
L. T. Ou
87-C RSR-2-3086
8702435
86-C RSR-2-2956
8702456
85-C RSR-2-2552
8702434
$7,044
$5,638
$14,540
06-01-87
11-30-88
09-15-86
09-30-88
05-01-85
12-31-88
Persistence of Pesticides in
Ground Water in Connecticut
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Iowa State Univ.
of Science & Technology
Iowa Agricultural & Home
Economics Expt. Stn.
A mes, IA 50011
Univ. of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
Purdue Univ.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546
John W. Hylin
Paul A. Dahm
Gene P. Carpenter
Benjamin Jones, Jr.
Thomas N. Jordan
David L. Hensley
Bobby C. Pass
87-C RSR-2-3025
8702391
87-C RSR-2-3020
8702291
87-C RSR-2-3092
8702420
87-C RSR-2-3177
8702441
84-C RSR-2-2382
8702394
86-C RSR-2-2775
8702446
87-C RSR-2-3018
8702292
$5,645
$21,787
$7,367
$22,413
$12,771
$11,216
$6,824
05-01-87
04-30–88
05-01-87
04-30–88
09-15–87
09-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-89
06-01-84
06-30-88
09-15-86
09-30-88
05-01-87
04-30-88
Pesticide Impact Assessment and
Data Analysis
Iowa's Contribution, National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program (NAPIAP)
Idaho's Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis
Pesticide Use Under National
Pesticide Assessment Program
Pesticide Effect on Nitrogen
Fixation in Legumes
Pesticide Impact Research and
Data Analysis
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Louisiana State Univ.
& A & M College
Baton Rouge, LA 70893
Univ. of Maryland
College Park, MD 20740
Univ. of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, MI 48824
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55.108
Agric. & Forestry
Expt. Stn.
Mississippi State Univ.
Miss. State, MS 39762
Jerry B. Graves
Allen L. Steinhauer
Lorin R. Krusberg
George W. Bird
Phillip K. Harein
Jack T. Reed
84-C RSR-2-2355
8702392
87-C RSR-2-31.78
8702455
86-C RSR-2-2746
8702791
87-C RSR-2-3161
8702457
87-C RSR-2-3035
8702416
87-C RSR-2-3179
87024.10
$9,533
$5,799
$20,000
$10,075
$15,140
$12,577
09-01-84
08-31-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
03-01-86
08-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
09-15-87
09-30-88
08-01-87
07-31-88
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis
Maryland's Participation in
N APIAP
Assistance in the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program
Impact of Pesticides in Michigan
Apple and Corn Production in
1987
Minnesota Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis
Assessment of Special Review
Candidates and Registered
Pesticides in Mississippi
SAES
Univ. of Massachusetts
Amherst, M A 01003
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, M 0 65211
David N. Ferro
Mahlon L. Fairchild
87-C RSR-2-3093
8702442
87-C RSR-2-3187
8702438
$5,257
$11,573
06-15–87
06-30-88
08-01-87
01-31-89
Integrated Pest Management of
Potato in Northeastern United
States
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Montana State Univ.
Bozeman, M T 59717
North Carolina Agric.
Res. Service
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, NC 27695
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of New Hampshire
Durham, N H 03824
J. Wayne Brewer
Thomas J. Sheets
Roger E. Gold
James S. Bow man
87-C RSR-2-3162
8702427
87-C RSR-2-3180
8702425
84-C RSR-2-2364
8702423
87-C RSR-2-3068
8702381
$6,422
$13,025
$14,787
$5,000
07-01-87
06-30-88
09-01-87
08-31-88
04-15-84
O9–30–88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Persistence of Pesticides in Soil
and Barley and Effects on
Selected Arthropods
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis
Pesticide, Benefits, Usage, and
Application Technology
Participation in the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis
Monitoring for Resistance of
European Red Mites to Acaracides
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis in
New Mexico
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
Agric. Expt. Stn.
North Dakota State Univ.
Fargo, ND 58105
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Rutgers Univ.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
New Mexico State Univ.
Las Cruces, N M 88003
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Nevada
Reno, NW 895.57
John D. Nalewaja
Fred C. Swift
H. Grant Kinzer
Harry G. Smith
87-C RSR-2-3181 .
8702411
87-C RSR-2-3188
8702454
37-U RSR-2-3036
8702384
84–C RSR-2-2426
8702294
$7,774
$6,257
$5,320
$5,000
08-01-87
07-31-89
08-01-87
07-31-88
09–15–87
09-30-88
06-01-84
05-31-88
Evaluation of Data on RPA R and
Pre-RP A R Pesticide Essential to
Nevada Agriculture
SAES
§
Ohio Agric. Res.
& Devl. Center
Wooster, 0 H 44691
Agric. Expt. Stn.
0klahoma State Univ.
Still water, 0 K 74078
Pennsylvania State Univ.
114 Kern Bldg.
University Park, PA 16802
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Rio Piedras, PR 00928
Acie C. Waldron
0. Norman Nesheim
Herbert Cole, Jr.
Winand K. Hock
84-C RSR-2–2374
8702290
84-C RSR-2-2372
8702452
87-C RSR-2-2977
8700946
87-C RSR-2-3075
8702440
$13,159
$8,595
$335,166
$8,432
06-01-84
09-30-88
05-15-84
05-31-88
02–15–87
02–29-88
06-01-87
11–30-88
Ohio Agric. Res.
& Devel. Ctr.
0 hio State Univ.
Wooster, 0 H 44691
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, 0 R 97331
Pennsylvania State Univ.
University Park, PA 16802
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Acie C. Waldron
James M. Witt
Herbert Cole, Jr.
Nilsa M. Acin-Diaz
86-C RSR-2-2757
8700950
83-C RSR-2–2107
8702426
87-C RSR-2–2977
8702781
84-C RSR-2-2383
8702445
$335,166
$7,356
$31,700
$5,320
04-15-86
09-30-88
09–15-83
09-14-88
02–15–87
09-30-88
09–15–84
09-30-88
Ohio Program for National
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program
North Central Region Special
Studies Program for Pesticide
Impact Assessment
Continued Participation in the
National Agricultural Impact
Assessment Program
Oregon Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program
Northeastern Region Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program
Pennsylvania Participation in
National Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program
Northeastern Region Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Data Analysis
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Agric. Expt. Stn.
South Dakota State Univ.
Brookings, SD 57007
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37901-1071
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Texas A & M Univ.
College Station, TX 77843
Utah State Univ.
Logan, UT 84322
Virginia Polytechnic Inst.
& State Univ.
Virginia Agric. Expt. Stn.
Blacksburg, W A 24061
Univ. of Werm ont
& State Agric. College
Burlington, WT 05405
David W algenbach
Carroll J. Southards
Rodney L. Halloway
Howard M. Deer
Michael J. Weaver
Alan R. Gotlieb
87-C RSR-2-3032
8702383
83-0 RSR-2-2094
87024.17
87-C RSR-2-3163
8702449
87-C RSR-2-3026
8702414
84–C RSR-2-2371
8702409
87-C RSR-2-3140
8702439
$5,000
$7,203
$8,142
$19,451
$5,030
$8,518
$5,000
06-15–87
06-30-88
Univ. of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Clemson Univ.
Clemson, SC 29631
W. Michael Sullivan
William DuBose, III
87-C RSR-2-3100
8702451
87-C RSR-2-3046
8702422
$8,489
09-01-87
08-31-88
05-01-87
04-30–88
09–15–33
09-14-88
09-01-87
11-30-88
05-01-87
04-30–88
05-15-84
05-31-88
07-01-87
10-31-88
The Uniformity of Pesticide
Distribution with Irrigation
System Application
South Carolina Participation in
National Agricultural Pesticide
Impact Assessment
SD AES Participation in NAPIAP
Management of Grasshopper
Populations with Insecticide
Treated Baits
Pesticide Impact Assessment
Research and Information System
in Tennessee
Benefit and Uses of Pesticides in
Texas
Utah Participation, National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program (NAPIAP)
Virginia's Contribution to National
Pesticide Impact Assessment
(NAPIAP)
Effects of Selected Herbicides on
Nontarget Fungus Pathogens of
Weeds
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
#
Agric. Res. Ctr.
Washington State Univ.
Pullman, W A 99164
Univ. of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Wyoming
Laramie, NY 82071
Richard C. Maxwell
Jeffrey A. Wyman
Alvin F. Gale
87-C RSR-2-3027 $9,948 04-01-87 Benefit Assessment of Pesticides
8702424 09-30-88 in Washington State
87-C RSR-2-3164 $11,491 07-01-87 Insecticide Resistance
8702450 06-30-88 Management in Potatoes
84-C RSR-2–2356 $5,000 05-01-84 Continued Participation in the
8702387 e 06-30-88 National Agricultural Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program
TOTAL $1,865,664
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
SPECIAL RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PRO G R A M A REA: A QUAC ULTURE RESEARCH
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A MOUNT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of Georgia Res. Fan. Wicki S. Blazer 87-C RSR-2–3040 $19,643* 07-01-87 Dietary Lipid and Disease
Athens, GA 30602 870.1592 06-30–89 Resistance in Channel Catfish
Louisiana Agric. Expt. Stn. William H. Brown 87-C RSR-2-2986 $189,500 02-01-87 Commercial Aquaculture of
Louisiana State Univ. 8700939 07-31-88 Crawfish and Red Drum
& A & M College
Baton Rouge, LA 70893
Mississippi Agric. Louis R. D'Abramo 87-C RSR-2–3041 $64,762 07-01-87 Determination of Selected
& Forestry Expt. Stn. 870.1555 12-31-89 Nutritional Requirements of
Mississippi State Univ. Juvenile Freshwater Prawns
Miss. State, MS 39762
Oregon State Univ. J. S. Rohovec 87-C RSR-2–3042 $14,594 09-15–87 Intracellular Infections by
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 870.1840 09-30–88 Renibacterium salmoninarum and
Host Response
Oregon State Univ. C. J. Bayne 87-C RSR-2–3043 $80,000 08-01-87 Enhancement of Natural Im mumity
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 8702478 07-31-89 in Salmonids
* Split-funded with Animal Health for a total awarded amount of $47,810.
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
Land Grant-1862
§
Clemson Univ. J. R. To masso, Jr 87-C RSR-2-3044 $30,884 09-01-87 Opti º
9 * * * 2 *- ptimum Transport Conditions for SAES
Clemson, SC 29634 870.1597 08-31-89 Red Drum Fiji.
:::::::: M Res. Foln. D. M. Gatlin, III *; ;-soº $60,297 09-01-87 Effects of Dietary Fish Oil on SAES
1838 08-31-89 º
College Station, TX 77843 ºn and Flavor of
TOTAL $459,780
SPECIAL RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PRO GRAM A REA: MOSQUITO RESEARCH, RICEL AND AGR 0ECOSYSTEM
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO 0
F R 0 M
TO
Texas A & M Res. Fan. J. K. Olson 86-C RSR-2-2831 $432,288 07-01-86 Riceland Mosquito Management SAES
8702749 06-30-88 Program
College Station, TX 77843
TOTAL $432,288
§
SPECIAL RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: T R O PICAL AND SU BT R O PIC AL RESEARCH
G R A N T S A W A R D E D F 0 R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A G R EE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of California Joseph Arditti 86-C RSR-2-2820 $56,110 07-01-86 Selection of Salinity Tolerant
Irvine, CA 92717 8702465 06-30-88 Taro
Univ. of Florida Dean F. Davis 87-C RSR-2-2971 $32,500 01-01-87 CBA G Management Grant for
Gainesville, FL 32611 8700737 01-31-88 Tropical and Subtropical
Agriculture
Univ. of Florida Ronald H. Cherry 85-C RSR-2–2572 $28,326 07-01-85 Impact of Bacillus popilliae on
Gainesvilla, FL 32611 8702488 06-30-88 Florida Sugarcane Grubs
Univ. of Florida K. H. Quesenberry 86-C RSR-2-2846 $58,768 07-01-86 Genetics, Physiology, Ecology,
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702522 06-30-88 and Utilization of Tropical Forage
Legumes
Univ. of Florida Laurence H. Purdy 85-C RSR-2–2577 $19,620 07-01-85 Sugarcane Rust: Physiological
Gainesville, FL 32611 870.2519 06-30-88 Races and Host Responses to
Infection
Univ. of Florida J. E. Pena 86-C RSR-2–2845 $51,060 07-01-86 Management of Annona
Gainesville, FL 32611 870.2523 06-30-88 Pollinators and Pests
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
É
Univ. of Florida Jerry F. Butler 86-C RSR-2–2819 $34,755 07-01-36 Characterization of Host/Tick Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702532 06-30-88 Interaction for Wectors of ASF in
the Caribbean
Univ. of Florida R. M. Giblin-Davis 86-C RSR-2–284.1 $31,093 07-01-86 Culture and Biology of Red Ring SAES
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702553 06-30-88 Nematode and Evaluation of Host-
Palm Resistance
Univ. of Florida Lynn E. Sollenberger 86-C RSR-2-2824 $12,000 07-01-86 Establishment, Response to Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702493 06-30-88 Defoliation, and Utilization of
N-75 Dwarf Napiergrass
Univ. of Florida D. D. Blatensperger 85-C RSR-2-2576 $10,873 07-01-85 Potyvirus and Cucum virus Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702489 * 06-30-88 Interaction with Forage Legumes
Univ. of Florida W. B. Sherman 86-C RSR-2-2822 $21,000 07-01-86 Low-chill Prunus Cultivar Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702490 06-30-88 Improvement for the Subtropics
and Tropical Highlands
Univ. of Florida C. H. Courtney 85-C RSR-2-2580 $39,522 07-01-85 Epidemiology and Control of Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702491 06-30-88 Trypanosoma vivax of Ruminants
in the Caribbean
Umi v. of Florida Lee R. McDowell 86-C RSR-2-2843 $38,725 07-01-86 Mineral Nutrition of Grazing Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702492 06-30-88 Ruminants in Florida and
Caribbean Basin Countries
Univ. of Florida John W. Scott 86-C RSR-2-2844 $45,000 07-01-86 Methodology for Developing SAES
Gainesville, FL 32611 87024.94 06-30-88 Multiple Disease Resistant, Heat-
tolerant Tomatoes
Univ. of Florida G. H. Palmer 86-C RSR-2-2842 $47,325 07-01-86 Development of a Subunit Land Grant-1862
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702555 06-30–88 Diagnostic Test for Bovine
Babesiosis
§
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Clayton W. McCoy
86-C RSR-2-2821
8702554
sai,453
$48,000
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
Managing the Plant-animal
Interface in Tropical
Legume-grass Pastures
C B A G Management Grant for
Tropical and Subtropical
Agriculture
Survival of Beauveria bassiana as
a Biological ControTAgent in
Tropical Soils
Pathology and Efficacy of
Beauveria bassiana Against Lesser
Cornstaſk Borer
Collection and Screening of
Desmanthus Germplasm for the
Caribbean
Biological Control of Whiteflies
Damaging Citrus in Florida and
the Caribbean
DNA Probes for Diagnosis of
Mycoplasmal Diseases of Plants
Development of a Nucleic Acid
Probe for Diagnosis of Bovine
Anaplasmosis
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
L and Grant-1862
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
W. F. Brown
Dean F. Davis
J. E. Funderburk
William O. Pitman
F. D. Bennett
M. J. Davis
R. K. Jansson
A. F. Barbet
86-C RSR-2-2823
8702521
87-C RSR-2-2971
8702780
87-C RSR-2-3130
8702597
87-C RSR-2-3129
8702598
87-C RSR-2-3131
8702599
87-C RSR-2-3132
8702600
87-C RSR-2-3107
8702719
87-C RSR-2-3106
8702720
$9,583
$21,591
$26,000
$14,131
$43,352
$35,740
$50,890
01-01-87
01-31-89
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30–88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Development of a Monitoring
System for Sweet Potato Weevil
Management
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
*
g
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Guam
Mangilao, G U 96923
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Guam
à angilao, G U 96923
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Guam
Mangilao, G U 96923
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Guam
Mangilao, GU 96923
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Guam
Mangilao, G U 96923
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Donald L. Hopkins
Ilse H. Schreiner
Chin-Tian Lee
James McConnell
R. Muniappan
J. L. Demeterio
P. Y. Yang
85-C RSR-2-2575
8702520
86-C RSR-2-2840
8702448
85-C RSR-2-2706
8702429
87- C RSR-2-3029
87024.30
87-C RSR-2-3030
8702431
84–C RSR-2-2461
87024.32
87-C RSR-2-3071
8702503
$25,982
$30,100
$32,200
$35,200
$46,500
$50,400
$39,640
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
J. L. Seale, Jr.
87-C RSR-2-3150
8702743
$22,074
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-01-86
09-30-88
08-01-85
07-31-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-37
06-30-88
07-01-84
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Intra-Caribbean and U.S.-
Caribbean Agricultural Trade:
Implications for Development
Role of Plant Growth Regulators
and Xylem-Limited Bacteria in
Citrus Blight
Biology and Control of Mango
Shoot iſ oth and Mango Blotch
Miner on Guam
Promote Flowering and Dwarfing
of Winged Bean with Plant Growth
Regulators
Environmental Factors Affecting
Flowering in Some Wanda and
Dendrobium Hybrids in the
ropics
Biology and Biological Control of
the Red Coconut Scale, Furcaspis
oceanica Lindinger
Potential of Potato in Guam,
Saipan and other Micronesian
Islands
Management of Anaerobically
Digested Livestock Waste for
Agricultural Production
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
3.
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Richard E. Green
H. M. Harrington
Wen-hsiung Ko
R. M. Manshardt
C. Womersley
J. A. Silva
85-C RSR-2-2657
8702458
86-C RSR-2-2828
8702459
85-C RSR-2–2661
8702460
85-C RSR-2-2653
8702461
85-C RSR-2-2654
8702463
84-C RSR-2-2386
8702468
$22,764
$60,553
$36,694
$6,672
$41,214
$21,569
08-01-85
07-31-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
08–01-85
07-31-88
08-01-85
07–31-88
08-01-85
07-31-88
07-01-84
06-30-88
Matching Drip—Irrigation System
Design and 0 peration to Soil
Hydraulic Properties
The Molecular Basis of Heat
Tolerance in Tropical Plants
Nature of Sexual Reproduction in
Phytophthora of Tropical Crops
Identification and
Characterization of Phytophthora
Blight Resistance in Pāpāyā
Fundamental and Applied Aspects
of Anhydrobiosis in the Reinform
Nematode Rotylenchulus
Reinformis
Prediction of Maximum Yields of
Sugarcane with Growth Simulation
Models
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resouces
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Robert E. Paull
Edward P. Caswell
Thomas L. German
Joseph DeFrank
C. L. Chia
Bruce Tabashnik
86-C RSR-2-2830
8702469
86-C RSR-2-2826
87024.71
86-C RSR-2-2829
8702472
85-C RSR-2-2656
8702473
86-C RSR-2-2818
8702474
85-C RSR-2-2633
8702467
$35,133
$40,479
$43,320
$40,996
$17,614
$48,291
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
08-01-85
07-31-88
07-01-86
12-31-88
07-01-85
06-30-88
The Development of Chilling
Injury: The Role of Protein
Turnover
Genetic Wariation in
Mitochondrial DNA's Among
Geographic Populations of
Rotylenchulus Reniformis
Characterization of the Tomato
Spotted Wilt Virus Genome
Identification/Characterization of
Living Mulches for Nematode
Suppression in Cropping Systems
Papaya Management Expert
System
Computer-aided Management of
Insecticide Resistance in Tropical
Pests
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
David S. Hay mer
H. Y. Yamamoto
D. L. Wincent
Ronald F. L. Mau
M. Aragaki
Jean B. Wyckoff
87-C RSR-2-3072
8702507
85-C RSR-2-2655
8702464
86-C RSR-2–2817
8702462
86-C RSR-2-2827
8702470
37-C RSR-2-3070
8702501
87-C RSR-2-3083
8702502
$47,700
$44,335
$62,619
$68,153
$36,300
$34,700
07-01-87
06-30-88
08-01-85
07-31-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Isolation of Sex Determining and
Sex Differentiating Genes in
Hawaiian Fruit Flies
Chemistry and Physiology of
Rancidity Development in
Tropical Nuts and Oils
Management Strategies to
Prevent Delayed Puberty in
Cattle in Subtropical Areas
Biological Analysis of Thrips
palmi in the Pacific Basin
Integrated Control of Legume
Root-rots Caused by Rhizoctonia
Solani
Trade and Macroeconomic Policy
Impacts on Small Island
Agricultural Systems
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Marian Rauch
Mike A. Nagao
James H. Fownes
James L. Brewbaker
Harry Yamamoto
C. L. Murdoch
87-C RSR-2-3080
8702506
87-C RSR-2-3090
8702566
87-C RSR-2-3152
8702740
87-C RSR-2-3134
8702748
87-C RSR-2-3151
8702742
87-C RSR-2-3136
8702518
$28,040
$36,000
$31,600
$47,000
$44,570
$35,400
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07/01/87
06/30/88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Development of a Methodology
for Culture-Specific Food
Groupings and Assessment
Synchronous Development of
Tropical Fruit Trees
The Role of Nitrogen Fixation in
Sustainable Production of
Agroforestry Systems
Genetic and Biological Control of
the Leucaena Psyllid
Light Stress (Photoinhibition) and
the Violaxanthin Cycle
Rhizosphere Chemistry in
Relation to Crop Productivity in
Tropical Soils with Low P
Concentrations
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst- of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Hawaii Inst. of Tropical
Agric. & Human Resources
Univ. of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
R. C. Jones
Suresh S. Patſ!
Tung Liang
P. Leung
Robert M. Caldwell
Franklin Chang
87-C RSR-2-3137
8702517
87-C RSR-2-3110
8702567
87-C RSR-2-3109
8702577
87-C RSR-2-3108
8702578
37-C RSR-2-3135
8702579
87-C RSR-2-3133
8702580
$44,260
$44,100
$26,000
$39,798
$42,850
$46,260
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-89
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Soil Productivity in the Tropics as
Affected by Inherent Changing
Mineralogy
Molecular Biology of Race-
cultivar Specificity in Halo Blight
of Bean
Delineating Hawaiian Climate for
Crop Introduction, with Emphasis
on Cocoa
Optimal Market Size of Cultured
Marine Shrimps
Intercrop Modeling: A
Generalized, Process-Level
Approach
Basis of the Chem osterilant
Action of J2581 in Fruit Flies
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Louisiana State Univ.
& A & M College
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Charles M. Smith
Megh R. Goyal
Linda Wessel-Beaver
Lii-Jang Liu
Linda W. Beaver
Alejandro E. Segarra
Victor Snyder
85-C RSR-2-2621
8702495
35-C RSR-2-2664
8702570
86-C RSR-2–2810
8702571
86-C RSR-2-2813
8702538
87-C RSR-2-3112
8702593
87-C RSR-2-3138
8702594
87-C RSR-2-3153
8702595
$33,000
$35,420
$18,890
$40,000
$34,707
$43,263
$37,838
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-15-35
07-31-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
07-01-87
06-30-88
Warietal Resistance to Insect
Pests of Rice in the Caribbean
Basin
Irrigation Requirement
Estimations in Puerto Rico
Collection and Evaluation of
Cucurbita Moschata Accessions
from Puerto Rico and the
Dominican Republic
Selection of Pineapple Varieties
Resistant to Diseases and Pest Via
Somaclonal Wariation
Development of Tropical Tomato
Germplasm with Pinworm
Resistance
Bioregulation of Tropical Fruit
Susceptibility to Fruit Flies and
Pathogens
Crop and Soil Management
Systems to Reduce Nutrient
Stress in the Caribbean
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Mariano A. Padilla
James S. Beaver
Alberto Pantoja
Nelia Acosta
R. Guadalupe-Luna
Hector M. Lugo
87–C RSR-2-3111
8702596
86-C RSR-2-2811
8702572
85-C RSR-2-2665
8702568
85-C RSR-2-2663
8702573
85-C RSR-2-2666
8702539
85-C RSR-2-2662
8702569
$38,597
$28,550
$18,500
$50,000
$29,287
$40,889
07-01-37
06-30-88
07-01-86
Ü6-30-88
07-15–85
07-31-88
07-15-85
07–31–88
07-15-85
07-31-88
07-15–85
07-31-88
A Fertilizer–Stocking Rate
Management System for Beef
Cattle Grazing Stargrass Pastures
Comparison of Three Selection
Methods for Large Seeded Dry
Beans in the Tropics
Warietal Resistance to Insects of
Rice in the Caribbean Basin
Improvement of Vegetable
Production Through Integrated
Nematode Management
Postharvest Technology of
Tropical Fruits and Vegetables
Produced in Puerto Rico
Control of "Mal Seco" in Taniers
through Crop and Soil
Management Practices
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, P R 00708
Julio Bird
86-C RSR-2-2812
870.2537
$30,000
07-01-36
06-30-88
Virus Diseases of Passion Fruit
(Passiflora Edulis) in Puerto Rico
and the Jominican Republic
SAES
§
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, PR 00708
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Virgin Islands
Kingshill, WI 00850
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Virgin Islands
Kingshill, WI 00850
Agric. Expt. Stn.
Univ. of Virgin Islands
Kingshill, WI 00850
A. C. Maldonado
Adriano A. Navarro
Michael W. Michaud
Stephen Wildeus
85-C RSR-2-2667
8702540
85-C RSR-2-2579
8702576
86-C RSR-2-2814
8702575
86-C RSR-2-2816
8702574
TOTAL $2,930,268
$33,964
$56,500
$37,290
$49,066
07-15-85
07-31-88
07-01-85
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
07-01-86
06-30-88
Improvement of the Yield and
Nutritive Walue of Edible Aroids
with New Techniques
Water Use in Small Farming
Systems in the Tropics
Develop Agronomic Techniques to
Improve Sward Establishment in
the Caribbean
Evaluation of the Reproductive
Potential of Tropical Virgin
Islands White Sheep
SAES
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
F R O M
TO
Agric. Expt. Stn. Gary A. Lee 87-C RSR-2-3199 $47,400 09-01-87 Potato Dark-End Syndrome
Univ. of Idaho 8702810 08-31-89 Research Program/Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843 & Experiment Station
Oregon State Univ. Ling-Jung Koong 87-C RSR-2-3033 $47,400 05-15-87 Soil and Irrigation Management
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 8702500 05-31-88 Effects on Potato Production and
Quality
Washington State Univ. Willy M. Iritani 87-C RSR-2–2997 $47,400 04-01-87 Preventing Sugar End Syndrome
Pullman, W A 99164 870.1227 10-31-88 via Cultivar Development and
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: D A R K-E N D SYN D R O M E OF POTATOES
G R A N T S A. W. A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U NT A G REEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
Cultural Practices
TOTAL $142,200
SAES
SAES
SAES
§
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A NTS P R O G R A M
PROGRAM A REA: BIO CONTROL OF GRASSHOPPERS, KANSAS
G R A NTS AWARDED FOR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T NUM BER A M O U N T A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
TO
Kansas State Univ. David C. Margolies 87-C RSR-2-2987 $45,504 08-01-87 Influence of Behavior and
Manhattan, KS 66506 8702050 07-31-88 Environment on Biological Control
TOTAL $45,504
of Grasshoppers
Land Grant-1862
3.
Louisiana State Univ. P. Klinkhachorn 87-C RSR-2-3052 $36,967 07-01-87 An Enhanced Yield Optimization
& A & M College 8702508 06-30–89 Program for Use With an
Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Automatic Defect Detection
System
Univ. of Maine Barbara J. W. Cole 87-C RSR-2-3053 $47,680 06-01-87 Studies of Betula Extractives
Orono, ME 04469 8702513 05-31-89
Michigan State Univ. James W. Hanover 85-C RSR-2-2604 $489,860 06-15–85 Advanced Technology
East Lansing, MI 48824 870.1554 06-30–89 Applications to Eastern Hardwood
SPECIAL RESEA R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: W 00 D UTILIZATION
G R A NTS AWA R D E D F OR FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT NU M BER A MOUNT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Utilization
Michigan State Univ. S. E. Selke 87-C RSR-2-3054 $45,000 07-01-87 Use of Eastern Hardwoods in
East Lansing, MI 48824 87025.11 06-30-89 Wood Fiber-Plastic Composites
Michigan State Univ. James W. Hanover 85-C RSR-2-2604 $44,320 06-15-85 Advanced Technology
East Lansing, MI 48824 8702516 06-30-89 Applications to Eastern
Hardwoods Utilization
Michigan Tech. Univ. Peter E. Laks 87-C RSR-2-3056 $44,000 06-01-87 Chemistry and Utilization of
Houghton, MI 49931 8702510 05-31-89 Black Locust Bark
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Public
Univ/College
§
Michigan Tech. Univ. Stephen M. Shaler 87-C RSR-2-3055 $49,000 07-01-87 Characterizing the Interfacial Public
Houghton, MI 49931 8702515 06-30-89 Properties of Polymer/Wood Fiber Univ/College
Composites
Univ. of Minnesota R. O. Gertjejansen 87-C RSR-2-3057 $45,984 06-01-87 Paper Birch as a Core Material SAES
St. Paul, MN 55104 8702509 05-31-89 for Aspen Waferboard and
Oriented Strand Board
Agricultural & Forestry William T. Nearn 85-C RSR-2-2553 $901,232 04-01-85 Wood Utilization Research SAES
Expt. Stn. 8702444 06-30-89 Programs
Mississippi State Univ.
Miss. State, MS 39762
Oregon State Univ. George W. Brown 85-C RSR-2-2555 $901,232 05-01-85 Center of Wood Utilization Land Grant-1862
Corvallis, 0 R 97331 8702436 04-30–89 Research
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. R. W. Conners 87-C RSR-2-3059 $49,466 06-15–87 Defining the User Defect Data in Land Grant-1862
& State Univ. 8702512 06-30–89 Terms of an Industrial Image
Blacksburg, W A 24061 Processing System
Umiv. of Washington Bjorn F. Hrutfiord 87-C RSR-2-3060 $48,955 06-15–87 Chemistry of the Eastern Poplars Public
Seattle, WA 98195 8702514 06-30–89 Univ/College
TOTAL $2,703,696
§
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R G G R A M
PROGRAM A REA: PLANT STRESS, NEW MEXIC 0, CALIF OR NIA & TEXAS
G R A NTS AWA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
A M 0 UNT A G REEMENT TITLE
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER
IN WESTIGAT 0 R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
New Mexico State Univ. John D. Kemp 86-C RSR-2-2748 $364,980 03-01-86 Southwest Plant Genetics/Water
870.1045 09–30–88 Resources Consortium
Las Cruces, N M 88003
TOTAL $364,980
SAES
§
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
PRO GRAM AREA: PRIME FARML AND RECLA MATION, (IL)
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT NU M BER A M O U N T A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
FR 0 M
TO
Univ. of Illinois Ivan J. Jansen 87-C RSR-2-3061 $189,500 05-15–87 Prime Farmland Reclamation SAES
Urbana, IL 61801 8702723 05-31-90 After Surface Mining
Univ. of Kentucky Richard I. Barnhisel 87-C RSR-2-3062 $94,800 05-15–87 Restoration of the Productivity of SAES
Res. Foln. 8702739 05-31-88 Prime Farmland Following
Lexington, KY 40506-0057 Surface Mining
TOTAL $284,400
§
SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM
PROGRAM AREA: BELGIU M EN DIVE, M ASSAC H USETTS
G R A N T S A W A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER AM O U NT A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
FROM
TO
Univ. of Massachusetts Kenneth A. Corey 87-C RSR-2-3023 $56,880 05-01-87 Production of Belgian Endive
Amherst, M A 01003 8702389 04-30-88
TOTAL $56,880
SAES
§
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: A CID PRECIPITATION
G R A N T S A W A R D E D F O R FISC AL YEA R 1987
0 R G A NIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A N T N U M BER A M O U N T A GREEMENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL NUM BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
Univ. of Florida R. Hilton Biggs 87-C RSR-2-3211 $30,000 09-15-87 Acid Deposition-Free Radicals
Gainesville, FL 32611 8702836 09-30-88 and Physiological Responses of
Citrus Sinensis (L.) 0sb.
Univ. of Illinois Wayne L. Ban wart 87-C RSR-2-3212 $90,000 09-01-87 Interaction of Acid Rain and
Urbana, IL 61801 8702835 08-31-89 Drought Stress on Yield and
Growth of Corn
Univ. of Massachusetts William J. Manning 87-C RSR-2-3200 $94,800 09-01-87 Effects of Ozone, Acid Rain and
Amherst, M A 01003 8702816 08-31-90 Phytophthora megasperma on
Soybeans
Univ. of Maine Richard Jagels 87-C RSR-2-3206 $109,653 09-15–87 Anatomical and Chemical
Orono, M E 04469 8702814 * 0.9–30–89 Alterations in Red Spruce Foliage
Following Exposure to Acidified
Fog
Univ. of Minnesota Sagar W. Krupa 87-C RSR-2-320.1 $80,204 09-01-87 Comprehensive Characterization
St. Paul, MN 55104 8702813 08-31-89 of Pollutant Exposure Dynamics
of Alfalfa to Ambient
Atmospheric Deposition in
Minnesota
Univ. of Missouri Robert W. Blanchar 37-C RSR-2-3202 $35,000 09-01-87 Foliar Application of Sulfuric
Columbia, M 0 65211 8702817 08-31-89 Acid and Rhizosphere pH in
Layered Soil
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
Land Grant-1862
SAES
Land Grant-1862
SAES
§
Rutgers Univ. B. A. Zilinskas
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
0hio State Univ. Res. Fan. B. R. Stinner
Columbus, 0 H 43212
Pennsylvania State Univ. Eva J. Pell
University Park, PA 16802
87-C RSR-2-3203
8702818
87-C RSR-2-3204
8702815
87-C RSR-2-3207
8702830
$67,200
$20,000
$99,771
TOTAL $626,628
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
09-01-87
08-31-89
Sorting Out Acid Precipitation
Effects from Ozone Effects (An
Analysis of EDU/Plant Responses)
Land Grant-1862
Effects of Acid Precipitation on
Soil-Inhabiting Invertebrates in
Corn Systems
Land Grant-1862
Impact of 0.3 and Acid Rain on Land Grant-1862
Rubisco and Related Rate of
Senescence in Radish
3.
SPECIAL RESE A R C H G R A N T S P R O G R A M
P R O G R A M A REA: G ULF C 0 AST SH RIM P
G R A N T S A WA R D E D F O R FISC AL YEAR 1987
0 R GANIZATION PRINCIPAL G R A NT NU (MBER A M 0 UNT A GREE MENT TITLE
IN WESTIGATO R P R O POSAL N U M BER PERIO D
F R O M
TO
The Oceanic Institute E. S. McSweeny 85-C RSR-2-2537 $222,363 01-01-85 Marine Shrimp Farming
Makapuu Point 8702871 06-30–88
W aim analo, HI 96795
Oceanic Institute James A. Wyban 85-C RSR-2-2537 $1,155,180 01-01-85 Marine Shrimp Farming
Makapuu Point 8700942 06-30-88
W aim analo, HI 96795
Gulf Coast Robin M. OverStreet 85-C RSR-2-2538 $507,691 01-01-85 Marine Shrimp Farming
Research Laboratory 870.0947 12-31-87
East Beach Drive
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Gulf Coast Robin M. OverStreet 35-C RSR-2-2538 $65,000 01-01-85 !Marine Shrimp Farming
Research Laboratory 8702872 12-31-87
East Beach Drive
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
TOTAL $1,950,234
Private Non-profit
Private Non-profit
Other/MS InSt. of
Higher Learning
Other/MS Inst. of
Higher Learning
369
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE PROJECT, STIRLING ENGINE
Question: In fiscal year 1987, USDA made some money available
for research and development of an external combustion engine. How
many grants were awarded for this kind of work? What industrial and
university entities are involved in either a primary or a secondary
role in these grants? What concepts are they pursuing?
Answer: Two grants total ing $485,000 were made. One for
$138,223 went to the Department of Agricultural Engineering of Ohio
State University, and the other for $346, 776 went to Valmont
Industries of Valley, Nebraska. Valmont Industries is
subcontracting some of their work to the University of North Dakota
Energy and Mineral Research Center and to Mechanical Technology,
Inc. located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They will also utilize a
consultant from the University of Maine's Agricultural Engineering
Department. Valmont will use biomass, wood chips, stover, and wheat
straw, as well as coal in a fluidized bed combustor with a heat pipe
to power a 75 to 100 brake horsepower Stirling engine. Ohio State
University will utilize a small atmospheric fluidized bed combus tor.
They will develop a heat pipe transfer system and power a 5
horsepower Stirling engine. The fuel will be corn cobs, wood
by-products, and high sulfur coal.
Question: Is industry cost-sharing in these grants? Is it a
requirement that they do so? How much private sector investment has
occurred, addressing the solid-fueled Stirling concept, since 1980?
Answer: Walmont Industries is cost-sharing in the USDA grant
although that is not a requirement of the grants program. We have
no way of knowing how much all of industry has invested in the
solid-fueled Stirling concept. Walmont Industries reports some
$9 million of company investment in the project. The Department of
Energy has funded development of a liquid-fueled mobile Stirling
engine system with over $130 million since 1980.
Question: What will be the final results of the grants? Will
commercially available equipment result?
Answer: The grants will result in reports on the development
and operation of stationary external combustion engine systems using
biomass energy. Commercially available equipment will not be a
product of these grants. These units are still research prototypes.
Question: Approximately how many million gallons of diesel
fuel and how many billion cubic feet of natural gas are now being
used for irrigation water pumping on an annual basis?
Answer: In 1983, an ERS study showed some 530 million gallons
of diesel fuel and 14.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas were used
for pumping irrigation water. In addition, irrigation pumping also
took 23 billion kwh of electricity, 257 million gallons of LP gas
and 57 million gallons of gasoline. Use of gasoline is declining
while diesel fuel use is expanding.
370
Question: What is the minimum of time and the minimum amount
of government participation needed to ensure that solid-fueled
external combustion engine systems, in the 100 horsepower class, be
made ready for industry to begin the commercialization process •
Answer: Information needed to determine the state of readiness
and thus the time and funds necessary to produce a system ready for
commercialization is inadequate. Durability testing of components,
redesign of parts, and retesting can be time consuming. These are
one of a kind parts that must be made and tested.
Question: If the equipment were commercially available, what
markets other than irrigation water pumping could be served? In
other words, what additional applications are envisioned.
Answer: The Stirling engine could be used for virtually any
stationary application requiring shaft power. For example, electric
power generation, power for saw mills, grain processing, mixing
concrete, running cotton gins, etc.
Question: Do you see a need for additional government
financing of this work? What will happen without such support--to
the research and to the entities conducting the research?
Answer: Without government financing, the research efforts
likely will be reduced.
HIGHER EDUCATION
Question: The Administration's Budget contains a met
decrease of $5,452,000 in Higher Education Programs at a time
when there is an acknowledged shortage of expertise in key fields
such as Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Veterinary Medicine.
How did CSRS decide to place increased emphasis on Higher
Education Strengthening Grants in lieu of the Morrill-Nelson
program or Graduate Training grants?
Answer: In recent years, research and extension programs and
facilities at the 1890 land-grant institutions have been
strengthened through the provisions of Sections 1444 and 1445 of
P. L. 95-113, as amended, and Section 1433 of P. L. 97-98. A
stable funding base for resident instruction at these
institutions is needed to ensure a strong overall program in the
food and agricultural sciences. This increase will maintain the
funding level at the full $2 Million which was the appropriated
level prior to the reduction made in fiscal year 1986 due to
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Support for training programs at 1862
land-grant institutions is provided indirectly through the
Competitive Research Grants program and through the provisions of
the Hatch Act and related formula base funded programs.
Question: Higher Education Training Grants have received
broad support because they encourage pre-doctoral students to
compete for fellowships in areas where expertise is most needed.
Please explain why CSRS has recommended that these grants be
eliminated ?
371
Answer: Other than the Higher Education Strengthening Grants
program for 1890 land-grant institutions, the Department is not
requesting funds in fiscal year 1989 to support Higher Education
Training Grants. Support for the development of agricultural
expertise will be provided through an increased Competitive Research
Grants program and through the provisions of the Hatch Act and
related base formula funded programs.
Question: The National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges and other groups have registered their support
for the establishment of a Competitive Challenge Grants Program to
at tract students to agriculture. What do you think about this
suggestion, particularly the involvement of business and local
government contributing to the funding base of the program?
Answer: The Department is aware of the proposal for such a
program supported by almost 100 agribusiness executives with whom we
have been in contact and the Resident Instruction Committee on
Organization and Policy --RICOP-- which is the major organization
representing the interests of the administrators of food and
agricultural science academic programs at land-grant universities.
The program would generate matching private and/or state funds to
ameliorate targeted problems in this Nation's food and agricultural
sciences higher education system. Given other priorities, we are
not recommending funding for this new program in 1989.
Question: During last year's hearings, the Committee asked
USDA to provide data on the number of research scient is ts that
would be retiring in the next ten years. Based on the
information provided, it is clear that we must do a 11 we can to
encourage students to pursue Agriculture and Natural Resources
Science as fields of study. In the context of the Fiscal Year
1989 Budget proposal, what is CSRS doing to encourage greater
participation of women and minorities in the food and
agricultural sciences?
Answer: The Higher Education Strengthening Grants program
request is $2 million in the President's FY 1989 Budget. This
program provides a stable funding base to develop a strong
resident instruction program in the food and agricultural
sciences at historically black land-grant institutions, Tuskegee
University, and the University of the District of Columbia.
These inst itutions provide a continuing source of minority
graduates both for entry into professional positions and for
entry into graduate programs across the Nation. Funds in this
program provide resources to strengthen the quality of food and
agricultural sciences academic programs in such areas as :
curriculum revitalization in the basic sciences, systems
analysis, business and marketing, ethics and public policy,
environmental sciences, as well as the humanities and social
sciences ; faculty development strategies including exchange
programs with other universities, industry, and government, local
and regional seminars, strengthening mechanisms to enhance peer
assessment and development of teaching techniques, and
establishment of a senior faculty mentors program for new
faculty; and student internships.
372
Also included in the FY 1989 Budget is an increase in the
Evans-Allen program to 1890 Colleges and Tuskegee University. These
funds provide continuing support of agricultural research at 1890
Land-Grant Universities and Tuskegee University. Additionally,
other base funded formula research programs contribute significantly
to the support of female and minority students.
GRADUATE FELLOWS
Question: Is the Department of Agriculture surveying the
activities of graduate fellows completing their studies to
encourage their pursuit of careers in the Agricultural Sciences?
Answer: While it is still too early in the program to identify
specific career paths of individual fellows we do have information
relative to the few who have completed their academic programs.
Of those who have completed their programs, and, on whom we have
information : three have chosen careers in government with the
Economic Research Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and
a local Water District; two have accepted positions with major
agribusiness firms ; two will be pursuing doctoral degrees ; two
have accepted post-doctoral appointments at their universities;
and one has accepted a university faculty position. We are also
planning a National Symposium, to be co-hosted by the National
Academy of Sciences, to provide a forum for the discussion of issues
in scientific talent development. The accomplishments of the first
class of USDA graduate fellows will be highlighted.
Question: What major areas of research are the fellows
pursuing?
Answer: A review of the fellows ' dissertation titles
indicates some exciting areas of research as follows:
National Need Area : Agricultural Engineering
Oklahoma State University
Optical Range-Finding from Image Focus
The Ohio State University
ADAPT - A Model to Stimulate Pesticide Movement into
Subsurface Drains
Texas A&M University
A Stochastic Weather Generation Model to Develop Hourly
Precipitation and Temperature
University of Florida
Irrigation Management Based on an Adaptive Sensor
Based Expert System and Hourly Evapotranspiration Model
University of Illino is
Quantitative Analysis of Herbicide Incorporation by Tillage
Tools Using Computer Image Process ing
373
National Need Area : Food and Agricultural Marketing
University of Wisconsin-Madison
A Computable General Equilibrium Model of Trade
Liberalization in Agriculture
Texas Tech University
Economic Potential for Processed Potatoes and Onions In
West Texas
North Carolina State University
Effect of U. S. Farm Programs on the Supply of U.S.
Commodities
University of California-Davis
De terminants of Successful Formulation of New Commodity
Futures Markets
University of California-Davis
An Analysis of Pacific Rim Trade in Salmon
National Need Area: Biotechnology
Colorado State University
Application of Nucleic Acid Hybridization Probes for
Blue tongue and Bovine Viral Diarrhea Viruses
University of Iowa
Mutations in the Bacteriophage Lambda Terminase Binding
Sites Which Do Not Affect DNA Packaging
University of Missouri
Cultivar Specific Resistance to DNA Transferred by
Agrobacterium Tume faciens
University of California-Los Angeles
Methods by which Transcriptional Control of Several Genes
Involved in Photosynthesis are Achieved at Molecular Level
National Need Area: Food Science/Human Nutrition
Tufts University
Rice in Puerto Rico: Increased Food Security or
Vulnerability?
Kansas State University
Froduction of Processed Meats with Reduced Caloric Density
by the Addition of Dietary Fiber
Mississippi State University
Some Effects of Ultra filtration and Accelerated Ripening
Treatments on the Development of a Lowfat Cheese
Cornell University
Hormone Regulation of Hepatic Gene Regulation
374
Cornell University
Characterization of the Glucose-6-phosphatase System in
Isolated, Permeabilized Hepatocytes and Studies of
Carbohydrate Metabolism in Vitro
University of California-Davis
The Role of Lactofer rim in Iron Absorption from Milk
Question: Toward what a reas of research is there a need to
draw more students?
Answer: Annual demand for persons having doctoral degrees
or postdoctoral experience in biochemistry, molecular biology,
genetics, water sciences, food science, nutrition,
bioprocessing/agricultural engineering and plant/animal/soil
sciences is expected to be very strong. Likewise, there will be
strong employment opportunities available to qualified graduates
in business and finance, institution management, and marketing.
Question : In what new and innovative ways can students be
recruited into food and agricultural science careers?
Answer: Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources
are working diligently to improve their recruitment and retention
programs, to augment faculty development opportunities, and to
strengthen curricula. Many are working in concert and are
sharing resources for the solution of mutual problems. Opportunties
exist to attract students from other than the Colleges of
Agriculture and Natural Resources into careers in agriculture.
RICOP and other groups such as the Association of Colleges of
Business Administration have proposed initiating a Challenge Grants
Program and a Post-Doctoral Training Grants Program as means to
at tract more students into agriculture. Industry has shown a strong
willingness to provide matching funds for the Challenge Grants
program.
The Department has also cooperated with the Department of
Education to co-sponsor a study by the National Academy of Sciences
to critically examine vocational and technical education related to
agriculture in secondary schools. This study is expected to improve
the curricula related to agriculture and thereby create a desire
among science oriented high school students to pursue and
complete a degree in one of the food and agricultural Sciences.
375
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHILES
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question : What percentage of the Department's budget is devoted
to basic and applied research? What is the trend over the past 15
years in both total research dollars and research as a percentage of
the Department's budget?
Answer: Outlays for research and development in the 1989 budget
represent about two percent of total USDA outlays. Basic research
accounts for about one-half of the research and development outlays.
Total research and development outlays have increased by 150 percent
during the past 15 years. As a result of growth in other areas of
the USDA budget, primarily commodity and nutrition programs, 1989
research and development outlays represent two percent of total
outlays, down from 3.6 percent in 1974.
BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
Question: What organizational steps has the Department taken to
promote basic and applied research in biotechnology (defined in these
questions as use of recombinant DNA, cell fusion and novel
bioprocessing techniques as opposed to traditional selective breeding
or use of micro-organisms for brewing and baking)?
Answer: The Department has established three organizational
entities to facilitate research. The first two are concerned with
the oversight and regulation of agriculture-related biotechnology.
The need for them was based on the perception that biotechnology has
an enormous beneficial potential for agriculture but that there are
legitimate environmental and health concerns. The Agriculture
Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee was established to ensure
that research is conducted safely. Its role is to review proposals
and make recommendations regarding their approval by the Assistant
Secretary for Science and Education. The second entity, the Office
of Agricultural Biotechnology, serves a Department-wide staff
coordinating functions and provides a mechanism for assuring
consistency between Departmental research and regulatory activities.
The third entity, the National Biological Impact Assessment Program
--NBIAP-- was established by the Assistant Secretary for Science and
Education to promote both basic and applied biotechnology research.
NBIAP is a CSRS-administered program designed to provide the
scientific underpinning needed to assess and monitor the potential
impacts of biotechnological processes and products. The fiscal year
1989 budget includes an increase of $250,000 for NBIAP under the
Special Research Grant Program.
Question: Researchers report that insufficient information
regarding basic plant molecular biology has hindered agricultural
plant biotechnology development. What steps is the Department taking
to remedy this situation?
Answer: The Department is well aware of the critical need for
basic fundamental knowledge regarding plants needed for agricultural
plant biotechnology development. The Competitive Research Grants
Program was developed and has been enlarged to provide research
376
grants targeted to plant sciences. In addition, the biotechnology
competitive grants area contributes greatly to addressing the area of
basic plant molecular biotechnology. The Department has requested an
additional $2.6 million to support biotechnology competitive research
grants.
In fiscal year 1988, a new Plant Science Centers program will be
initiated with at least $2 million from each of the three agencies:
NSF, DOE, and USDA. The USDA funding will be obtained over a
two-year period. The Plant Science Centers program is intended to
bring together the best basic scientists from many disciplines such
as chemistry, biochemistry, genetics and plant physiology, to
collectively bring to bear their expertise and discover fundamental
information about plants to enhance biotechnology opportunities,
eventually resulting in the development of commercial products for
world market competition.
Question: What is the dollar amount and percentage of research
funds expended by the Agricultural Research Service on plant
recombinant DNA - related research? On animal recombinant DNA -
related research? On biotechnology techniques for commodity
processing and delivery? What is the trend in these areas since
1980?
Answer: The Agricultural Research Service will expend in FY
1988, $18,899,400 (8.9%), $14,462,000 (15.2%), and $5,581, 200 (5.3%)
on recombinant DNA research on plants, animals, and commodity
processing/conversion, respectively.
The expenditures have nearly doubled since 1980 in
biotechnological research.
Question: I understand that roughly $12 million in Hatch Act
funds will be directed toward broadly-defined biotechnology research
in the proposed 1989 budget, about the same as last year. Can you
specifically identify the amounts reported spent over the last four
years on recombinant DNA - related plant and animal research? What
are these amounts as a percentage of total Hatch Act funds
distributed in those years?
Answer: The amount of recombinant DNA research supported by
Hatch Act funds over the last four years is as follows:
Hatch Act Recombinant DNA Research
($ in thousands)
Percent of
Total
Fiscal a/ Hatch Act
Year Plants Animals Other Total Obligations
1987 $ 1,529 $536 $815 $2,880 2.0%
1986 1,529 536 815 2,880 2. 0%
1985 1,499 583 725 2,807 1. 9%
1984 1, 128 5 17 629 2, 274 1. 6%
a/ Includes research on microbials and mixtures of plant
e- and animal biota.
377
Question: The largest amount of biotechnology research is
funded through the Cooperative State Research Service 's Competitive
Grants. In the 1989 budget proposal, what is the amount set aside
for plant and animal recombinant DNA - related research? What are
those figures as a percentage of all Competitive Grant expenditures?
Has the dollar amount and percentage increased over the last four
years?
Answer: The 1989 CSRS budget proposal includes a total of $48.5
million for biotechnology research some of which would be expected to
support recombinant DNA research. The actual amount for Competitive
Research Grants recombinant DNA projects is not known in advance.
Until the fiscal year 1989 grants are actually awarded, this
information is not available. The fiscal year 1988 grants are also
yet to be awarded. However, data for fiscal years 1986 and 1987 is
available. The information follows:
Fiscal Years
($ in millions)
Competitive Research Grants
1987 1986
Amount of Plant recombinant DNA Research $12.1 $12.6
Amount of Animal recombinant DNA Research $5.3 $3.8
Amount of Competitive Research Grant Awards $38.5 $40. 1
% Plant recombinant DNA research to total
Competitive Research Grant awards 31.4% 31.4%
% Animal recombinant DNA research to
total Competitive Research Grant awards 13. 8% 9. 5%
Question : What percentage of Competitive Grant proposals
received by the Department in each of the last four years have
involved plant recombinant DNA research? Animal recombinant DNA
research? What percentage of these proposals have been funded in
each of the past four years? What percentage of non-biotechnology
research proposals have been funded ?
Answer: We do not retain copies of unsuccessful proposals once
final action has been taken on them. The data you have requested is
only available for fiscal years 1986 and 1987. The percentage of
proposals that deal with recombinant DNA has remained constant for
the past two years, 24% for the plant science proposals and 33% for
the animal science proposals. The overall funding rate for
competitive grant proposals has run about 20% for proposals dealing
with recombinant DNA as well as those that do not.
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CENTERS
Question: Recent reports have pointed out the advantages of
multi-disciplinary biotechnology research centers. In fact, much of
the progress in animal biotechnology research is at tributable to
basic biomedical advances. How does the Department encourage
cooperative research involving agriculture and other disciplines,
including biomedical research? What is the status of the proposed
multi-disciplinary facility at the University of Florida's
Biotechnology Research Institute?
378
Answer: Multidisciplinary research is encouraged by the
programs supported by the Department of Agriculture. For many years
a percentage of the Hatch formula funds have been devoted to regional
research involving different disciplines in a number of universities
and Federal laboratories directed towards solving a specific
agricultural problem. This has been particularly helpful in a number
of disease conditions in animals using biomedical advances.
USDA leaders are continually working with Universities and Federal
biotechnology laboratories to assist them in developing
multidisciplinary biotechnology programs.
Perhaps the best example of a specific program is the new Plant
Science Centers program in cooperation with the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy. This program is
specifically designed to bring together the basic sciences, e.g. :
chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and plant physiology to address
gaps in our basic knowledge relating to plants. Government agencies
have been encouraged to participate with Universities and other
institutions in these Centers.
The guidelines for the feasibility study for the Agricultural
Biotechnology Institute at the University of Florida were sent to the
university on February 12, 1988. Upon receipt of a proposal from the
University of Florida, CSRS will execute a cooperative agreement with
the institution. In the meantime instructions are being provided to
the University for the documentation needed to evaluate the project,
make a site visit, and prepare the final feasibility study. Early
July is the target date for closure.
BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
Question: Would you list by commodity the amount of
biotechnology research funded by the Agricultural Research Service
over the last four years? The amount funded by the Cooperative State
Research Service?
Answer: Biotechnology research supported by Cooperative State
Research Service is as follows:
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988
(in thousands of dollars)
Hatch Act tº e º O Gº e o 'º e º 'º e º e º e º º o $12, 150 $11,555 $11,555 $12,075
Cooperative Forestry . . . . . . . . 242 230 230 240
Evans-Allen Program . . . . . . . . . 220 209 209 218
Special Research Grants . . . . . 3, 418 3,396 3, 245 3, 245
Competitive Research Grants . 30,040 29,063 28,882 33,669
Animal Health & Disease . . . . . 537 5 11 51 1 534
Forestry Competitive Grants . 1,760 1, 254 2, 346 1, 173
Total e Gº e º e º e º e º e tº e g º e º º 48,367 46, 218 46, 978 51, 154
Biotechnology research supported by the Agricultural Research
Service is as follows:
379.
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988
(in thousands of dollars)
Plant Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10, 237 $10,822 $15, 102 $18,899
Animal Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 771 8, 343 12,549 14, 462
Soil and Water Conservation . 227 216 412 431
Commodity Conversion and
Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 316 6,959 6, 565 5,581
Human Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 48 - - - -
Total © º º e º O & © e º 'º tº e º 'º e º O 26,602 26, 388 34,628 39, 373
This information is not available by commodity.
BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
Question: A critical need for the further development of
biotechnology-related products is adequate research for safe and
efficient regulation of those products. How is the Department
addressing that need, and what plans do you have for future
regulatory research?
Answer: The products of biotechnology research must be shown to
be safe. The Department of Agriculture recognizes that government,
industry, and academia need scientific data on which to base safe
development of products from biotechnology. The current reservoir of
data on bioengineered organisms in both natural and managed
ecosystems needs to be expanded.
The Department has begun to receive specific inquiries about
prospective research tests of genetically modified organisms in
agricultural ecosystems. USDA, under the authority of amendments to
the National Agricultural Research, Education, and Teaching Policy
Act, has established appropriate controls with respect to the
development and use of the application of biotechnology to
agriculture research. These controls include supplementation of
existing Institutional Biosafety Committees for reviewing specific
agricultural proposals at the local level, establishment of the
Office of Agricultural Biotechnology to coordinate research biosafety
reviews and the development of research review procedures, and
establishment of the Agriculture Biotechnology Research Advisory
Committee to mobilize scientific expertise for developing
recommendations on agricultural biotechnology research and policy at
the national level.
In addition to the above administrative mechanisms, which are
similar to those established and utilized for over a decade by the
National Institutes of Health for biomedical recombinant-DNA
research, USDA has also established a research monitoring mechanism
that is unique to agricultural research. Agricultural research on
living organisms, whether bioengineered or not, often involves
outdoor testing. To avoid the possibility of unintended effects on
agricultural production systems, USDA utilizes a pre-existing
national infrastructure centered in land-grant universities and
agricultural experiment stations for assessing the performance of new
agricultural varieties produced by traditional methods. This
380
infrastructure has been enhanced to help address and resolve
scientific uncertainties and public concerns about the possible
unintended effects of bioengineered organisms on biotic systems.
The enhanced infrastructure is called the National Biological
Impact Assessment Program -- NBIAP. It provides a comprehensive pool
of scientific expertise as well as sites, facilities and resources
for studying the biotic effects of biotechnology research field
tests. The Program is expanding scientific knowledge to facilitate
applications of biotechnology to agriculture. Program elements
include pre-release assessment of biological impacts, post-release
monitoring of test sites, development of new technologies for
tracking bioengineered organisms, development of protocols and
procedures for releasing, sampling, and monitoring bioengineered
organisms in the context of agricultural research, and the
development and exchange of information on bioengineered organisms in
managed ecosystems. CSRS is requesting a $250,000 special research
grant for NBIAP in the fiscal year 1989 budget.
TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question: The Tropical/Subtropical Agricultural Research
Program was initiated to provide a foundation for improvement in
agricultural productivity and efficiency. What is the current
impact of this program in light of these goals?
Answer: The Tropical/Subtropical Special Research Grants
program has helped provide a research foundation for improvement in
agricultural productivity and efficiency through research in the
areas of reducing pest losses from diseases, insects and weeds;
improving animal and crop production; reducing postharvest losses of
crops from poor handling and shipping practices; and improving
agricultural production through better use of land and water
TeSO Ul Iſ CeS e
A few specific examples are research conducted in Florida to
control the ringspot virus of papaya through finding and developing
resistant varieties; evaluation of tropical forage legumes either
alone or in combination to increase beef cattle production; and
controlling root weevils of citrus. Drip irrigation technology,
which uses much less water than other irrigation methods, has been
developed for use in the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico scientists have
increased yields of yams and taniers through use of virus-free
planting stock and have found rice germplasm resistant to insect
pests.
RESEARCH IN FLORIDA
Question: How is the Caribbean Initiative affecting
agricultural concerns in the State of Florida?
Answer: Research is being conducted by Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station scientists on many of Florida's agricultural
concerns. Research is in progress presently toward finding
resistance in palm trees to red ring nematodes, determining if plant
growth regulators can alleviate citrus blight, developing even better
disease and heat tolerant tomatoes, finding new ways to further
381
improve pastures for beef cattle, finding better diagnostic tests and
controls for several livestock diseases, searching for a biological
control of whiteflies damaging Florida citrus, and trying to devise
new methods of controlling sugarcane rust. Previous Florida
research has been directed mainly toward reducing agricultural pest
losses from insects and diseases and improving animal and crop
production.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS POULTRY ISOLATION UNIT
Question: Dr. Jordan, last week I addressed a question to
Secretary Lyng concerning the $500,000 provided in the FY 88
appropriation through CSRS for the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville for the upgrading of its poultry isolation unit. It
has come to my attention that CSRS denied a request by the University
to use some of these funds for critical construction needs on the
poultry isolation unit. I am interested on knowing on what grounds
the request was denied and on what steps the CSRS is taking to assist
the University on this critical need?
Answer: The fiscal year 1988 appropriation provided $500,000
for a Special Research Grant to upgrade the poultry isolation unit at
the University of Arkansas. Special Research Grants are authorized
under Section 2(c) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 U. S. C.
450i(c). This legislation provides that no grant may be made under
this authority "for the planning, repair, rehabilitation,
acquisition, or construction of a building or facility." In
accordance with a grant proposal received from the University of
Arkansas and in discussions with College of Agriculture
administrators, these funds will be used for the hiring of personnel
and purchase of equipment for the isolation unit.
---
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question: To what extent does that $2.6 million represent an
actual increase in scientific man-years of research?
Answer: The proposed increase in biotechnology funds could
support 10-15 scientist-years plus 15 post-doctoral scientists.
Question: What is being done to improve the links between the
Agriculture Colleges at our land-grant schools and the departments of
biochemistry, genetics and other fields which can have application to
agricultural research?
Answer: The Competitive Research Grants program of the USDA has
been extremely successful in providing links between the agricultural
colleges and the appropriate departments of other colleges,
universities, and institutions. The availability of funding has
attracted highly qualified scientists to areas dealing with basic
83–470 O - 88 – 13
382
agricultural research. There are numerous examples of distinguished
scientists from private universities who are now pursuing plant
molecular biology as a result of "seed" funding provided by the
Competitive Research Grants program that led them to potential
application of their expertise to agricultural problems. As is
inevitable, this early support brought these scientists in contact
with other scientists in the land-grant institutions. Thus, the
Competitive Research Grants program has been extremely effective in
providing linkages between scientists in biochemistry, genetics,
botany, etc., and other departments at universities throughout the
country. The plant science centers would also encourage
multi-disciplinary approaches to research.
LOW-INPUT AGRICULTURE
Question: I believe that Low input agriculture is a crucial
area of research. In Iowa, the state legislature has established a
research center in that area. Farmers are very concerned about the
contamination of groundwater and so are their friends in Iowa's
cities. What was the appropriated level in this area in FY 88 and
what does your budget call for in FY 89.
Answer: In fiscal year 1988, $3.9 million has been appropriated
to CSRS for a new program on low-input agriculture. In addition,
$68. 1 million in other non-designated funds are directed to this
work. For 1989, earmarked funds are not proposed for this research
but we estimate that about $62.9 million of Hatch and other funds
would be directed to this research. Iowa's Leopold Center is a
highly commendable effort supporting sustainable or low-input
agriculture as well as water quality research and education. CSRS is
cooperating with the Leopold Center in conducting a national
conference in Ames during May on the development and implementation
of the regional plans of work for the low-input program. CSRS
funding on groundwater quality research is estimated at $5.7 million
in 1988 and $5.1 million in 1989.
Question: Please provide some detail concerning the specific
types of projects that are being funded in this area.
Answer: The plans of work and project proposals for the new
low-input program being initiated in fiscal year 1988 are still being
developed, therefore, it is not yet known which projects will be
implemented. We do know, however, that an information study will be
done, as called for in the law. The study will be conducted jointly
by the National Agricultural Library and various universities and
private organizations. A wide range of subject matter is included in
the proposals now being prepared, including the use of legumes in
crop rotations; application of manure, green manure crops, and sewage
sludge on farms; biological and mechanical methods of controlling
disease, insects and weeds; intercropping and overseeding of legume
cover crops; integrating of crops with livestock systems, and much
more. In our report, we will describe the projects that have been
approved. Ongoing projects in the states contribute data on many
components of the alternative systems. This large information base
facilitates faster progress in new work being planned.
Examples of research on water quality include efforts to
understand the reactions of agricultural chemicals in soils, how fast
383
they move toward groundwater, and how much contamination originates
with agricultural practices. Management strategies are being
developed to improve the probability that farmers can use profitable
techniques to avoid contamination from occurring, including improved
soil testing and recommendations. A new emphasis is being put on
systems that can apply variable rates of fertilizers and pesticides
to different parts of a field based on soil and residue
characteristics. There are numerous ideas showing promise, but
progress is slow on difficult, and often critical, aspects of the
innovative approaches.
THE FOOD AND INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT CENTER
Question: How are plans proceeding to integrate the new
National Center for Food and Industrial Agricultural Product
Development at Iowa State University with the Department's existing
product development center?
Answer: The feasibility study, completed in 1987, presented
plans for the Center at Iowa State to concentrate on applied and
developmental research and scale results through pilot plant,
proof-of-concept demonstrations. The Iowa State Center will be able
to place more emphasis on economic alternatives for new products and
processes, identifying markets and demonstrating feasibility. When
completed and staffed the Center at Iowa State University will
cooperate with the four established ARS Regional Research Centers.
Iowa State University has been contacted and asked to submit a
proposal for the construction of the National Center for Food and
Industrial Products from the 1988 fiscal year appropriation of
$6,375,000. The award is anticipated about July.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS FOR AGRICULTURE
Question: How is the administration progressing in the
implementation of the International Ag Trade Development Center
program authorized in the 1985 Farm Bill?
Answer: Fiscal year 1986 and 1987 grants have been awarded by
the Cooperative State Research Service to the centers at Oklahoma
State University, Iowa State University and North Dakota State
University. Guidelines for the preparation of new proposals or
renewal of grants for International Trade Development Centers have
been prepared and distributed to institutions who will receive grants.
The proposed centers include the Mid-America World Trade Center in
Wichita, Kansas; CINTRAFOR at the University of Washington; IMPACT at
Washington State University; the University of Kentucky; and the
previously authorized center at Oklahoma State University. A
workshop is being organized for these trade center officials to
facilitate the planning, coordination, and administration of their
development and outreach programs.
Question: Why did the administration not request funding for
these very important centers? Is it to be assumed that the
development and enhancement of agricultural exports, based on
regional strengths, is not a problem that merits attention or are we
to consider that any and all initiatives started by the Congress are,
regardless of their merit, not to be included in the President's
budget request?
384
Answer: The administration is cognizant of the need to expand
the exportation of agricultural commodities and related products in
order to solve the trade deficit problem and enhance economic
opportunities in rural America. This is an effort that does involve
many Federal and regional, State, and local agencies. However, the
Hatch Act formula and related base funded research programs
constitute the core of the Federal-State partnership. The
discretionary nature of the Hatch Act formula program allows State
institutions to fund research in those areas that are judged to be of
the highest priority.
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question: What are the Department's plans to work with the
States in their developing efforts to greatly enhance agricultural
biotechnology oriented research? It appears that many States,
including Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, New York, California, and
others, are becoming heavily involved in investing in agricultural
technology. Does the Federal government have plans to work with
States in a cooperative way to ensure the viability of some of these
programs?
Answer: The Cooperative State Research Service is very much
interested in the developing efforts in agriculture biotechnology.
CSRS has established a National Biological Impact Assessment
Program --NBIAP-- to assist the universities' biotechnology programs
implementing and expediting biotechnology research. This
organization has a computer catalogue by locations of different types
of research, possible sites for field trials and lists of individual
biotechnology scientists. The establishment of NBIAP was recommended
by the Biotechnology Committee of the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges for the specific purpose of
working with states to assure the quality and safety of their
biotechnology programs. We are requesting a special grant of
$250,000 to enhance this program in 1989.
The Competitive Research Grants Program directly assists many
institutions in most states by supporting biotechnology research
projects. In addition, the Department has established an Office of
Agricultural Biotechnology to coordinate research biosafety reviews
and research review procedures. An Agriculture Biotechnology
Research Advisory Committee has also been established to mobilize
scientific expertise for developing recommendations on agricultural
biotechnology research and policy at the national level.
AQUACULTURE RESEARCH CENTER
Question: Why does the President's budget not include any
continuing support for the developing Aquaculture Research Center
program? Is this not an important area of research?
Answer: In developing our 1989 budget, we placed the highest
priority on the basic programs which support the Federal-Land grant
partnership. We also propose funding for priority National programs
in a range of competitive research grant categories and selected
National interest special research grants. The discretionary nature
of the base programs will allow States to direct those funds to
aquaculture if that research is ranked as a high priority.
385
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
NON, LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES
Question : Dr. Jordan, you made reference in your statement to
universities that are "not of the land-grant model". How much money
is channeled through USDA to non, land-grant schools, etc.? How do
you feel about this?
Answer: All colleges and universities are eligible to compete
for grants under the Cooperative State Research Service Competitive
Research Grants Program and the Forestry Competitive Grants Program.
In fiscal year 1987 approximately $6.6 million was awarded to non
land-grant colleges and universities. In addition, $21. 1 million was
added by Congress for facilities and earmarked grants at non land-
grant institutions. It is to the advantage of agricultural research
to draw on scientific talent wherever it may be found in solving the
many serious problems facing agriculture.
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
Question: Even though the CSRS budget request is some $46.0
million less than the amount appropriated last year, there is a
request of $7.4 million to study the effects of the depletion of
stratospheric ozone on crops. We are not used to seeing such a large
request for a "new initiative". I'm aware of the international
effort for further study of changes in stratospheric ozone, but your
justifications don't give us much information about this. Could you
please elaborate? Are our agricultural scientists interested in
this? Also, are other federal agencies going to be involved in ozone
studies? If so, which ones and to what extent?
Answer: The relatively large request for work on the
consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion on plants reflects the
urgent need to develop an understanding of possible deleterious
effects on major crops and forest systems. The main problem is that
we do not know precisely how our major crop and forest plants would
be affected by the large increases in ultraviolet radiation, UV-B,
that may result even from very small changes in the amount of ozone
in the earth's stratosphere.
We know a great deal about the effects of UV radiation on animal
cells, particularly as a result of concern about skin cancer in
humans. Similar information is lacking about the effects of UV on
plant cells and on productivity of our major crops in general. From
laboratory experiments, we know that UV radiation is detrimental for
a wide variety of plant species. We know that some important crops,
e.g. tomato, sugar beets, onions, lettuce, etc., are among the most
sensitive of plant species. We know that the plant's natural
defenses against UV radiation, such as leaf waxes, pigments, and
other organic molecules that absorb UV, and DNA repair mechanisms,
are less effective at the shorter wavelengths and at increased doses
of the UV-B range. There is a possibility that our major crops might
be endangered because of increased UV radiation, but no one can
predict the exact consequences of the changes in ozone levels in the
stratosphere. It is in the national interest to implement a program
386
of basic research which, perhaps 10 years down the road, can provide
the means to ameliorate what may be an inevitable consequence of the
emission into the upper atmosphere of contaminants from such things
as supersonic aircraft engines, the use of certain propellants for
pressurized can products, and industrial pollution.
Other agencies, including the Agricultural Research Service and
the Environmental Protection Agency, will be involved in an overall
program designed to monitor levels of ozone, UV radiation, etc., on a
worldwide scale. We will be working with other agencies to assure
full coordination of research plans. Because of the wide range of
scientific expertise necessary, biometeorologists, physicists,
chemists, physiologists, agronomists, etc., and the worldwide nature
of the concern, the input from several agencies is required. A $7.4
million appropriation for the Competitive Research Grants program
component would fund approximately 60 scientists at a level of
$125,000 a year. Given the wide complexity of the problem and the
different approaches that will have to be taken, the requested level
is appropriate to begin addressing this urgent problem. For example,
differences in sensitivity of plants to UV radiation have been
attributed to differences in the optical properties of the epidermal
layers. This needs to be confirmed by physiologists, biochemists,
and plant geneticists. The results would be of benefit to plant
improvement programs which are dependent on traditional breeding or
modern gene transfer techniques. On a very different area of
research, it is known that insects see in the near ultraviolet; thus,
alteration in the quality of UV may affect their perception of flower
colors, essential for pollination, sex recognition, etc. Work in
this area would require close cooperation among biophysicists,
entomologists, ecologists, chemists, and others.
HIGHER EDUCATION
Question: There is a great deal of concern in the research
community about the lack of support and funding for programs which
encourage students to prepare for careers in the food and
agricultural sciences. I'm told agricultural colleges are finding it
difficult to recruit and educate needed scientists and business
representatives in the agricultural and natural resources areas.
Secretary Bentley, do you share these concerns which are being
expressed? Is this really a problem? Why is there so little support
in the way of financial support from USDA and the budget?
Answer: The Department is quite concerned about the decreasing
enrollments in food and agricultural science academic programs. Our
Higher Education Programs office in the Cooperative State Research
Service has developed baseline data relative to the food and
agricultural sciences higher education system. The Department has
recently become a co-sponsor of the National Science Foundation's
(NSF) Doctorate Records Project and will be obtaining special
analyses relative to Agriculture from those data. Additionally, we
have successfully negotiated with the NSF to obtain information on
their currently conducted Graduate Student Support Survey relative to
USDA support for graduate students. The accumulation of these data
and other data into the Food and Agricultural Education Information
System enable the Department to estimate needs within academic
387
disciplines and thus facilitate recruitment efforts aimed at assuring
the Nation of outstanding food and agricultural sciences expertise.
The Department has also cooperated with the Department of Education
to co-sponsor a study by the National Academy of Sciences to
critically examine vocational and technical education related to
agriculture in secondary schools. This study is expected to improve
the curricula related to agriculture and thereby create a desire
among science oriented high school students to pursue and complete a
degree in one of the food and agricultural sciences. Current USDA
Studies show the demand for scient is ts and professionals continues to
exceed the available supply in several food and agricultural
employment categories. For 1989, we are proposing focusing on higher
education funds to support the Higher Education Strengthening Grants
program for 1890 land-grant institutions. Support for the
development of agricultural expertise will also be provided as an
integral part of research conducted through the Competitive Research
Grants program and through the provisions of the Hatch Act and
related base formula funded programs.
Question : Are you familiar with a "competitive challenge
grants" proposal which, I understand would provide for matching of
federal funds with state/industry dollars? Do you support such an
initiative?
Answer: The Department is aware of the proposal for such a
program supported by almost 100 agribusiness executives with whom we
have been in contact and the Resident Instruction Committee on
Organization and Policy --RICOP-- which is the major organization
representing the interests of the administrators of food and
agricultural science academic programs at land-grant universities.
The program would generate matching private and/or state funds to
ameliorate targeted problems in the Nation's food and agricultural
sciences higher education system. We are not recommending funds for
this proposal in FY 1989.
GROUNDWATER RESEARCH
Questions: The State Agricultural Experiment Stations Committee
has selected as its number one research initiative the maintenance
and protection of water quality and quantity. We know that water is
a significant cost factor in production, and both the quantity and
quality of water available for agriculture are declining. I am told
agriculture uses approximately 86 percent of the groundwater
withdrawn, and half of the U. S. population depends on ground water for
drinking water. So, protection and efficient use of our water
resources are crucial. What is the total request in the research and
extension budgets for groundwater research? Is it sufficient? Do
you consider this a high priority item?
Answer: CSRS funding on groundwater research is estimated at
$5.7 million in 1988 and $5.1 million in 1989. ARS funding on
groundwater is estimated at $9.9 million in 1988 and $13.9 million in
1989.
Funds are used by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and
other institutions for basic data gathering on selected chemicals in
388
agriculture with emphasis on agriculture's current and potential
impact on soil and groundwater degradation. Examples are:
Efficiency in use and residual effects of pesticide and fertilizer
nutrients in soils and water, irrigation management efficiency, and
affects of soil and crop management on the need for applied chemicals
and their fate.
The quality of groundwater is a very important problem area for
research because of society's dependence on it for drinking. It is
further complicated because soils, substrata, aquifers, and other
water bodies once contaminated remain affected for many years. We
must learn through research the applicable characteristics of the
chemical, biological, and physical components of agricultural
production systems, and then develop management strategies to
minimize detrimental effects in water.
Questions: Are you cooperating with any other federal agency
(EPA or USGS) in the effort?
Answer: Yes, State Agricultural Experiment Stations enter into
research agreements or receive grants from the Environmental
Protection Agency and United States Geological Survey, whose
scientists also cooperate with State scientists in regional research
efforts and are involved in joint conferences and symposia. An
interagency workshop on identifying and prioritizing research needs
on water quality is being jointly planned for November 1988.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
FORMULA FUNDING VERSUS COMPETITIVE GRANTS
Question: The FY 1989 proposed budget causes concern for
research and extension efforts in my home state and other states
throughout the nation. It reduces those funds that have allowed
each state to develop programs responsive to the needs of local
people. This "grass-roots" approach made these programs locally
useful to farmers and rural America. Maintaining funds at the
current level or decreasing them could result in the elimination of
these important programs because state budgets may not be able to
absorb the costs of total programs or the inflationary increases on
existing programs. In addition, the change in funding from formula
to competitive grants raises concerns about the ability of small
states and small programs to be competitive on a national level.
Issues that are very important to the farmers of Idaho may not seem
important from a national perspective. What is the rationale for
maintaining the current level of funding for Hatch Act programs and
reducing funds for Smith-Lever formula programs?
Answer: The decreased level of funding for Smith-Lever formula
programs does not mean that extension effort in this area is
reduced. The decrease of $13.1 million consists of two parts:
first, the Administration is not requesting the $4 million provided
by Congress in FY 1988 for increased FERS costs of state Extension
workers, and second, the remaining $9.1 million is reallocated into
the earmarked effort requested to address the Agricultural
Competitiveness and Profitability National Initiative. Eighty
389
percent ($7.7 million) of this proposal will be allocated back to
the states under the Smith-Lever formula to support this initiative.
The states will not end up with any significant reduction in formula
program efforts.
Question: How can you assure me that smaller States or smaller
programs will not be ignored in the Competitive Grants process?
Answer: All State Agricultural Experiment Stations, colleges,
universities, other research institutions or organizations, Federal
agencies, private organizations, corporations and individuals are
eligible to compete for grants under the Competitive Research Grants
Program. To assist in equitably and objectively evaluating grant
proposals and to obtain the best possible balance of viewpoints the
Department of Agriculture solicits the advice of peer scientists and
others, who are recognized specialists in the research areas covered
by the applications received, to review the proposals. The peer
review group evaluates all proposals taking into account the
following factors : scientific merit of the proposal; objectives and
approach; human and physical resources; impact of anticipated
results; probability of success of project; and projected economic
feasibility for near-term application. Applications are ranked and
support levels recommended within the limitation of total available
funding for each program area. This thorough peer review process
ensures a comprehensive and equitable evaluation of the grant
proposals submitted by all applicants. -
WATER ISSUES
Question: Water quality and quantity has been identified as
the highest priority for research and extension programs for the
last three years by the Joint Council on Agriculture. Water quality
is a major concern to those of us in the West. The increasing
competition for water will intensify the need for development of
reliable information to be used in policy decisions. This
information must also be delivered to potential users of the
information through Agricultural Extension Service programs -
This year's budget request by the land-grant universities
included $25 million for research (CSRS) and $15 million for
Extension. The Administration's proposed budget for FY 1989
includes no increase for CSRS or Extension for water quality,
although $5 million is identified for ARS. What is the rationale
for this recommendation?
Answer: The FY 1989 budget reflects the reality of limited
funds that could not address all funding proposals. Continued base
funding of the Hatch Act provides individual Stations with
flexibility to fund water quality research; there are also
opportunities for regional research projects in this priority area.
Water quality has been identified as one of Extension's
National Initiatives. As such, some portion of the $10 million
proposal for Priority Initiative Projects may be used for specific
water quality issues, in addition to some of our on-going efforts in
this area .
390
Question: Why not provide the additional $5 million for
land-grant or CSRS research instead of ARS2
Answer: Hatch Act and other base funds would be available to
the land-grant institutions for this research.
AGRICULTURE PROFITABILITY VERSUS PRODUCTIVITY
Question: In the Administration's proposed budget, I noticed
that CSRS funding for agricultural productivity research has been
eliminated. At the same time, a new program for agriculture
profitability is proposed for Extension at a level of $10 million
dollars. If we eliminate agricultural productivity research, what
information will the Extension Service be disseminating to farmers
that will increase profits?
Answer: The base programs of research relevant to this area
are expected to be continued. The $3.9 million appropriated in
fiscal year 1988 under Subtitle C of Title XIV, Food Security Act of
1985 is the part proposed for elimination. The research information
base for State Cooperative Extension Service to use includes parts
of past and ongoing research projects being conducted by each State
Agricultural Experiment Station and other institutions.
Recently, the Cooperative State Research Service, in cooperation
with Iowa State University, conducted an assessment of conventional
and organic-related farming systems research underway at State
experiment stations with funding from CSRS. The purpose was to
determine how much of these research programs is applicable to the
needs of producers using alternative systems as compared with the
conventional procedures. Please note that although terms have
somewhat different meanings, alternative, sustainable, organic, and
low-input are more or less interchangeable. The results of this
assessment indicated that $68.0 million is neutral to either
alternative or conventional farming systems. Similarly, ARS
estimates that $102.7 million is neutral to either alternative or
conventional farming systems. Information from this ongoing
research serves as the solid base for ongoing extension educational
programs in these areas.
While the Extension Service strongly supports continued
agricultural productivity research, U. S. agriculture is faced with
vast amounts of data, information, and technology that are not now
being integrated into profitable systems for use on our nation's
farms. An important component of the new program for agricultural
competitiveness and profitability within the Extension Service is
the development of databases which will bring together the needed
information into an easily accessible and usable form. This program
will seek the cooperation of our nation's top expertise, private and
public, and involve all states in a coordinated effort to make our
best management decisions, utilizing production, management,
marketing, and policy information available to the farmers and to
those who help develop decision aids and management systems for
farmers.
Question: By eliminating funding for CSRS agricultural
productivity, will we have adequate research knowledge to justify
are extension program of this magnitude?
391
Answer: Extension's programs in regard to the National
Initiative on Agricultural Competitiveness and Profitability are not
tied to the level of research efforts in CSRS. The $10 million
requested is to fund educational programs already being planned and
in some cases already initiated by most State Extension Services to
respond to strong clientele demands in this area. Most of these
projects were funded with resources redirected from other activities
and new infusion of funds is required to continue such efforts.
SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANT
Question: I strongly support the Administration's proposed
increase in funding for biotechnology. I believe this will go a
long way toward improving American competitiveness in agriculture.
However, funding for Special Research Grants has been drastically
cut. In the case of the TCK Smut, Dark End Syndrome, Potato
Research, Soil Erosion in the Pacific Northwest, and Integrated Pest
Management programs, funding has been eliminated entirely. Are
these programs no longer necessary or has research in these areas
been completed? If not, how do you propose this research will be
accomplished and who will conduct it?
Answer: Research grants funded under these Special Research
Grants programs in fiscal year 1988 and prior years may be used over
a period of up to five years for completion of the studies proposed
in these grants. Also, if the State institutions identify these
programs as high priority and wish to continue the research the
discretionary nature of the Hatch Act formula and related base
funded programs could provide for maintaining these programs. Our
proposal for 1989 includes continued full funding for Hatch
research.
RAPESEED
Question: Idaho has a long history of rapeseed production,
growing a minimum of 5,000 acres over the past 40 years. The State
is also fortunate to have an established, active integrated research
program, and the interaction between the research programs and the
industry is a model for other states and regions to follow. The FY
88 CSRS budget for Alternative Crops included $175,000 for research
on crambe and rapeseed in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, and
Idaho. How much of this total did Idaho receive?
Answer: The work of Idaho on rapeseed is well recognized and
representatives from the Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station were
included in the High Erucic Acid Workshop of December 1986. Dr.
Gary Lee, Director of the Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station, is
a member of the Management Committee that directs the efforts of the
High Erucic Acid project of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, and
Idah. . The Management Committee and the Director of the Critical
Materials Office will decide how the $175,000 appropriated in fiscal
year 1988 will be allocated among the states. The major concern is
to direct resources to the most pressing problems for developing a
market for erucic acid whether from rapeseed or crambe. Each state
will receive funding to conduct a project or projects deemed
appropriate by the Management Committee. The program budget is now
being developed and the exact amount for Idaho is not yet available;
however, there will be an agreement among the states concerning the
allocation of funding.
392
Question: The Cooperative State Research Service Office of
Critical Materials has planned a project to develop the production
technology and new industrial uses for high erucic acid producing
crambe and rapeseed. In view of the proposed cuts in funding for
Alternative Crops research, will money be available to continue this
research?
Answer: The fiscal year 1989 budget requests $250,000 for
crambe and rapeseed projects.
ANIMAL AND PEST RESEARCH
Question: A major research concern in Idaho and other Western
States is the health of plants and animals. Methods are needed to
control pests in order to lower the cost of producing agricultural
outputs and allow a high competitiveness of American farmers. The
proposed budget does not include any funding for pest management or
animal health and disease. It also eliminates competitive grants
(Sec. 2b) for pest sciences. What is the logic that leads to a
conclusion that these programs are no longer necessary?
Answer: Due to the discretionary nature of the Hatch Act
formula and related base funded programs, amounts allotted to State
institutions permit them to fund research in these and other areas
that they identify as high priority. This flexibility could
provide for maintaining these programs if the State institutions
wish to continue the research. Also the Biotechnology, Plant
Science and Animal Science categories in the Competitive Research
Grants program offer opportunities for supporting animal and pest
research. We are proposing increases for these programs. Ongoing
ARS research in these areas will also be continued.
AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
Question: Not long ago we were discussing the great potential
for aquaculture as an opportunity for increasing productivity and
income in rural America. This proposed budget eliminates funding
for aquaculture research. Has research in this area been concluded?
Answer: Although specific research projects have been
concluded, there are others which are ongoing. These projects have
enhanced the scientific and technical base for this rapidly
expanding industry. We are proposing continued funding for a
project to develop hybrid striped bass as an alternate crop.
Aquaculture research will be continued in 1989 at an estimated level
of $3.0 million through the Hatch Act and other formula programs.
Question: What are the conclusions?
Answer: In general these studies have led to improved
production efficiency through diet formulation, reproduction and
breeding, disease and parasite control, and improved water quality
management. Research has led to a better understanding of
artificial methods to control reproduction in several commercially
important species such as catfish, trout, and sturgeon. Several
diseases and fish health problems affecting the industry such as IHN
virus in trout have been studied as well as methods to improve
detection and diagnosis of diseases of catfish, trout, and
393
salmonids. The effects of dietary lipids on fatty acid content and
flavor in cultured species have been determined as well as diet
formulations for trout, catfish, crawfish, and prawns. Techniques
for the production of polyploid catfish and trout have been
developed in order to genetically improve aquaculture stocks.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KASTEN
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION USERS ADVISORY BOARD
Question : Mr. Jordan, I understand that Dr. William E.
Marshall has been removed as Co-Chairman of the National Agricultural
Research and Extension Users Advisory Board. It is further my
understanding that during his tenure on the Board Dr. Marshall
provided energetic and able leadership in enabling the Board to
fulfill its purpose of giving an independent perspective on USDA
research and Extension activities. What were the reasons for, and
the circumstances surrounding, Dr. Marshall's dismissal? Did there
or does there exist any reason why he could not have been allowed to
fill out the remainder of his term?
Answer: Dr. William Marshall has been a dedicated member of the
National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board for
three consecutive terms. The Federal Advisory Committee Act states
that a person can serve a maximum of three terms on an advisory
committee whose members are appointed by the Secretary. This policy
assures continuity as well as a timely turnover. Therefore, under
the Act, Dr. Marshall could not continue to serve in that position.
As chairman of the UAB, Dr. Marshall provided effective leadership
through his broad understanding of agricultural issues and their
impact on the future of this nation. Upon Assistant Secretary
Bentley's request, Dr. Marshall has agreed to serve as an ex-officio
member of the Board through the August 1988 meeting to assist in the
transition of new leadership.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD
WESTERN REGIONAL WHEAT MARKETING CENTER
Question: Over the past two years, we have appropriated $6.9
million for the Western Regional Marketing Center in Portland,
Oregon. I continue to be very supportive of the construction of the
Center and the pre-program development activities which have been
outlined to me. What progress has been made toward the opening of
the Center?
Answer: A non-profit corporation, Wheat Marketing Center, Inc.
has been formed to be the legal custodian and conduct the business of
the Center. Wheat Marketing Center, Inc. developed a process for
evaluating potential sites, evaluated and selected a site and is now
in the process of negotiating the final memorandum of understanding
and signing a contract with the property owner. The proposal for the
$6.0 million appropriated in fiscal year 1988 has been solicited from
Oregon State University and should be obligated by June 1988.
394
Question: Of the total appropriation, what amount is budgeted
for the feasibility study? Capital construction? Pre-program
development activities?
Answer: The initial $900,000 was budgeted for construction and
equipment. Plans for the Center included sizable estimates for
equipping the wheat products laboratory and purchasing computer
equipment. The $6.0 million available in FY 1988 will be budgeted to
the construction of the center. Wheat Marketing Center Inc., WMCI,
and Oregon State University have pre-program development plans for
six individual initiatives in program development that total
$250,000. However, both the initial funding and FY 1988 funds were
appropriated for construction; any program funds must directly
support improving and enhancing facility design and construction.
Question: What is Cooperative State Research Service doing to
facilitate the pre-program development activities?
Answer: Cooperative State Research Service insisted that the
original proposal contain preliminary program plans as well as plans
for how the WMCI would cooperate with and coordinate other public and
private interests in wheat and related products marketing. We are
supportive of these more specific pre-program plans and commend the
principals involved for their advance planning. Programs will have a
major impact on the commercial success of the Center, and advanced
program planning would appear to be a prudent decision. CSRS will
continue to cooperate with WMCI and Oregon State University to try to
find ways of funding the pre-program planning effort. Twenty percent
of the project costs of this public/private, nonprofit enterprise
will be provided by non-Federal funds. These funds could be made
available for pre-program activities.
Question: In addition to wheat, the Center should serve as a
marketing facility for other regional commodities. What other
commodities seem to fit the concept outlined for the Center?
Answer: The Northwest is especially rich in both food and non-
food specialty agricultural products, small fruits and forage-crop
seed for example, that would appear to be compatible with the
objectives of the WMCI. There is the potential for including value
added agricultural products. However, there appears to be an
opportunity for regional cooperation and specialization because other
Centers in the Northwest either have or are planning marketing
programs in selected products.
Question: Because the center will be actively involved in
agricultural trade, some federal agencies may be appropriately housed
in the facility. Please identify federal agencies which would
complement the activities of the Center.
Answer: In a generic sense, any agency, Federal or State, that
has programs related to quality or health control and inspection,
dispersal of pests, financing, movement or transportation of
agricultural commodities and products would appear to complement the
Center's activities.
395
POTATO RESEARCH
Question: What potato research activities took place in the
three Pacific Northwest States last year?
Answer: Under the Special Research Grant program potato lines
from the USDA-ARS germplasm enhancement program at Aberdeen, Idaho,
were selected by the Idaho State Agricultural Experiment Station,
based on their external appearance, internal quality factors, storage
life, disease and insect resistance and production characteristic for
evaluation trials under Idaho growing conditions. Transplants
derived from promising seedling tubers and tissue cultured plantlets
derived from excised sprout tips were directly field tested at the
Oregon State Agricultural Experiment Station to provide disease free
seed for further testing. Recently released cultivars were grown
under a variety of cultural conditions at the Washington State
Agricultural Experiment Station to determine their yield, quality,
processability, storeability and other parameters known to be
influenced by either climate or cultural practices.
Question: What results were produced by that research?
Answer: Several new and promising cultivars were evaluated at
different locations in the tri-state area to determine their
performance under different cultural and climatic conditions prior to
decisions being made about their release as processing and fresh
market potato varieties for the trade.
Question: Dark end syndrome, which attacks potatoes in Eastern
Oregon, lessens the marketability of potatoes. What are the economic
consequences of failing to eradicate dark end syndrome? Is the
current funding level adequate to meet this goal?
Answer: Dark end syndrome is a problem that manifests itself
during processing and results in the ends of french fries turning
brown and shriveling up. Dark end occurs as a result of certain
specific climate and soil interactions and is limited generally to an
area in eastern Oregon. There is evidence that summer irrigation may
reduce or eliminate the problem. Although special grant funding is
not proposed for this research, ARS is devoting about $506,000 to
this research area. Research can also be funded at the State level
using Hatch, State or private funding sources.
396
EXTENSION SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
Question: With the completion of the two year long effort of
the Extension Service and the Extension Committee on Organization
and Policy (ECOP), the National Priority Initiatives have found
their way into the fiscal year 1989 budget.
I am pleased to see the reorientation of Extension programs toward
the future potential of rural communities. Using and developing
our natural and human resources is the best way to ensure the
profitability of agriculture in the years to come. Dr. Johnsrud,
would you please explain for the Committee the distinctions
between the Priority Initiatives Projects and the Agriculture
Competitiveness and Profitability Projects.
Answer: Funds for the Priority Initiatives Projects are being
requested to facilitate Extension's nationwide effort at
refocusing resources on National priorities and related key
issues, as identified by the National Initiatives effort. These
funds may be focused on any or all of the Initiatives.
The $10 million for Competitiveness and Profitability of
Agriculture is requested to fund educational programs already
being planned by State Extension Services to respond to strong
clientele demands in this area. Due to the enormity of this issue
and the need to focus on long-term solutions, this proposal is
requested over and above the Priority Initiatives package.
Question: What is the rationale for terminating the
Smith-Lever funds under the Section 3(c) and instituting the new
priority programs under Section (d) of Smith-Lever?
Answer: The basic rationale is to be able to target resources
at specific problems, in line with the National Initiatives effort
which has been developed by the Extension System. The earmarking
provision under Section 3(d) allows us to focus such resources on
specific national problems.
Question: If the full $22,000,000 for the new priority
programs is provided in 1989, what will the match contribution of
state and local governments be?
Answer: With the exception of the funds used for the
administration of the program (4%), all of the proposed funds
would require matching.
Question: Will funding be contingent on meeting match
requirements 2
Answer: Yes. Matching funds from non-Federal sources would
be required in order for the states to receive these proposed
funds.
Question: If these programs were funded under Section 3(c),
would matched funds be necessary?
397
Answer: Yes. The formula for the allocation of funds under
Section 3(c) of the Smith-Lever Act does require matching
contributions from our state and local partners.
RURAL REVITALIZATION
Question: The Extension Service budget for fiscal year 1989
includes a six-point plan for revitalizing rural America. This
plan would devise methods for increasing competitiveness of rural
areas, expanding its income base, developing cost-effective means
for meeting community needs, and encouraging investment in rural
reSOU reeS.
Extension has a unique network to rural America, and it is my
belief that Extension offers a viable plan for rural
revitalization. I am concerned, however, about the budgetary
constraints presented in the fiscal year 1989 budget.
For Rural Revitalization, Extension would provide $2,000,000 to be
matched by the states for a total of $4,000,000. The Explanatory
Notes provided by the Department state that "These efforts will be
supported by existing regional Rural Development Centers, several
Rural Technology Centers, and by a national rural information
center." Since no funding is provided for the five regional Rural
Development Centers in the fiscal year 1989 budget, how can they
be assumed as an integral part of the revitalization plan?
Answer: We expect that the States will continue to provide
the support for the Centers to continue their programs through
other non-earmarked sources of funds.
Question: I assume the Rural Technology Centers referred to
in this same citation, are those funded under the Extension
Service. Please elaborate for me how, without funding in fiscal
year 1989, these technology centers could be a part of the
revitalization effort?
Answer: The Rural Technology Centers referred to in the
Explanatory Notes are planned under the Secretary's Six-Point
Rural Regeneration Initiative. They are not established at this
time. Funding for the Centers may involve several of the USDA
agencies working with the Secretary's program.
Question: Please describe the function of the Rural
Information Center, its location and funding base. How will it be
involved in revitalization efforts?
Answer: The Rural Information Center (RIC) is a joint
information and referral project of the Extension Service and the
National Agricultural Library. It functions in support of the
USDA Rural Regeneration effort by quickly providing easily
accessible information to even the most remote rural community for
use by rural public decision-makers. It is jointly funded by
Extension and NAL.
RIC is located at the National Agricultural Library in Beltsville,
Maryland, and combines the technical expertise of the Extension
educational network with the information resources of the
398
Library. Information is available to public officials (local,
state, and national) on how rural communities can maintain a
competitive, diversified rural economy; can develop rural local
government services, facilities, and the ability to support them;
and can enhance local public decision-making efforts to deal with
structural change, RIC staff draw upon Library resources (books,
journals, study reports, program manuals) and over 300 existing
online databases to provide the information and referral service.
Extension provides the rural outreach, program expertise and
follow-up assistance to deal with the RIC information.
Question: Is it possible, considering the elimination of some
programs under Extension, that the earmark of $2,000,000 for Rural
Revitalization might be viewed as a "shift" in resources, rather
than an actual increase in funding?
Answer: The $2 million Rural Revitalization proposal is
intended to focus Extension programs on this critical issue and in
that sense might be viewed as a shift of resources.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question: The fiscal year 1989 budget would eliminate funds
for Financial Management Assistance provided to farmers over the
past two fiscal years.
Extension Service projects in 25 states benefited through the
competitive grants offered under the Financial Management Program,
helping farmers to develop financial plans and other methods for
coping with stressful times. How would the Extension Service
incorporate Financial Management Assistance into its overall
national initiatives?
Answer: Assisting farmers to analyze and make decisions on
farm financial management problems, to improve their farm
financial management skills, and to more effectively utilize farm
financial management tools will be a basic and vital part of the
National Initiatives programming. Extension has been expanding
its programs which provide farm financial management assistance as
we move from a crisis phase into long-term, sustainable,
competitive American agriculture utilizing current marketing
potentials, alternative agricultural opportunities, and low-input
agriculture where appropriate.
Question: Would the same 25 states receive funds equal to or
greater than offered under the Financial Management Program to aid
distressed farmers?
Answer: Under the formula provision of the proposed increase
for Agricultural Competitiveness and Profitability, which
distributes $7.7 million, all these states would receive funds in
excess of their portion of the $1.4 million earmarked efforts.
How much would go to specifically aid the distressed farmers
aspect of the initiative would be determined by the States.
Question: How much of the Extension Service budget for
Priority Initiatives would be allocated to counseling and
management services such as those provided under Section 1440 and
the Financial Management Program?
399
Answer: We are not certain at this time how much of the
Priority Initiatives program will be allocated for farmer
counseling or management assistance. We expect that the
Competitiveness and Profitability Initiative would also be a
source of funds. States will have the option to focus on this
specific issue.
EXPANDED FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM (EFNEP)
Question: One of the national issues that Extension has
identified for priority is improving nutrition, diet and health.
Yet, the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is
slated for a reduction in funds of $36,524,000. Will more of the
Section 3(d) funds be allocated for nutrition, diet, and health.
above the $22, lll,000 remaining for EFNEP?
Answer: It is realistic to envision that some of our
$10 million proposal in FY 1989 for Priority Initiatives Projects
which is requested under Sec. 3(d) would be allocated for
Nutrition, Diet, and Health programs since it has been identified
as one of our National Priority Initiatives by both our
cooperators and users.
Question: Why has the youth component been selected as the
key focus of EFNEP in 1989? -
Answer: Although the major focus for EFNEP would remain on
young homemakers with children, a portion of the program would
target youth. With the increased number of children born to
teenage mothers and the number of single households in poverty
headed by single females, the EFNEP outreach to the youth audience
is critical. Every effort will be made to attract other public
and private resources, including volunteers, that will extend the
number of EFNEP youth who can learn nutrition and also learn to
play more responsible and productive adult roles as they become
parents.
APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR RURAL AREAS (ATTRA)
Question: The President's fiscal year 1989 budget would
eliminate funds for the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas (ATTRA). In fiscal year 1988, Congress appropriated
$750,000 for ATTRA to develop its on-line data bases, to hire
staff, and to become fully operational. How is ATTRA proceeding
with its plans to become fully operational 2
Answer: ATTRA is proceeding at a satisfactory level to become
fully operational. It now has a staff of ten technicians and two
support personnel and has been answering queries since July 1987.
Question: How does ATTRA integrate its services with those of
the Rural Information Center?
Answer: There is very little duplication of effort, if any,
between ATTRA and RIC. ATTRA deals mainly with providing answers
on low-input technologies and pest and weed management. RIC is a
data base targeted to elected or government officials dealing with
rural economic development.
400
Question: For what information has ATTRA become a reliable
source that is not obtainable through another national center?
Answer: At this time no specific category of information can
be identified as unique to ATTRA.
SECTION 1440 GRANTS
Question: The proposed budget for the Extension Service would
terminate special grants for financially stressed and dislocated
farmers that were initiated as part of the 1985 Farm Bill.
Last December, the President signed legislation that expanded
Section 1440 authority to allow for broader application of
counseling and outreach to farmers and their families. In the
present climate of concern for the American farmer, please explain
how the Extension Service would provide comparable assistance to
the areas now served by Section l 440 and be able to accommodate
more requests for assistance as designated by the new law?
Answer: The Cooperative Extension Service is now providing
matching funds to the Section 1440 program in the eight
demonstration states. In many other states Extension is also
providing crisis intervention services and assistance in
developing alternative income opportunities for financially
distressed farm families. It is expected that these programs, in
cooperation with state and local mental health and job training
service providers, will continue beyond the termination of the
Section 1440 earmarked funding.
Question: What specific initiative does the Extension Service
have in mind to help farmers and their families through the
difficult and trying times associated with giving up their farms,
beginning new careers, or reorganizing their current operations?
Answer: Four of the eight National Extension initiatives will
direct some of their efforts toward helping farm families through
these difficult and trying times. The $10 million Agricultural
Competitiveness and Profitability Initiative will give primary
emphasis to the increased profitability of farming operations
through reorganization of current operations. The $2 million
Rural Revitalization Initiative will focus attention on generating
and sustaining real economic growth in rural areas through
increased job creation, business and enterprise development,
income generation, and revenue increased for local governments.
Alternative agricultural opportunities and family and economic
well being efforts would also be sources of assistance in these
efforts.
PESTICIDE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Question: The Extension budget includes an addition of
$947,000 over fiscal year 1988 levels for the Pesticide Impact
Assessments required to reregister pesticides commonly used in
agriculture. It is noted that this funding is necessary,
particularly, in light of recent concern about pesticides in
groundwater, residues in food, and the livelihood of endangered
401
species. The Integrated Pest Management Program provides
education for the development and maintenance of agricultural
production systems that reduce production costs due to unnecessary
pesticide use. Why does the budget propose elimination of the
$7,164,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1988 for Pest Management,
even though the Department acknowledges that there is grave
concern about pesticide use?
Answer: The Pest Management program has contributed to
solutions for problems involving pesticides. We believe the
highest priority components of the IPM programs will be continued
with discretionary funds available to states.
Question: How does the Extension Service reconcile its
position on increasing funding for the Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program, while reducing funds for Pest Management?
Answer: Because the NAPIAP must respond to regulatory issues
at the National level, we believe it is necessary to earmark
additional funds to meet the increasing requirements of this
program. It would be inappropriate to expect that state and local
units will increase their contributions for NAPIAP at the level
required to meet anticipated USDA commitments.
Question: Last year, the Department informed the Committee
that $273,000,000 in profits were achieved as a result of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Is not IPM a wise investment
for the farmer?
Answer: IPM programs, currently funded from all levels, are a
wise investment for individual farmers as well as for the general
public.
Question: Will the Extension Service be offering IPM programs
under its new National Priority Initiative Programs?
Answer: We do expect that the personnel, ideas, and programs
which currently comprise IPM will be important building blocks for
the Initiatives.
RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACT (RREA)
Question: Since the Renewable Resources Extension Act became
law in 1978, has there ever been sufficient funds to provide
landowners assistance in all 50 states?
Answer: Beginning in FY 1988, all 50 States are receiving
RREA funds to support expanded programming for natural resources.
In developing the second 5-year National Plan for Renewable
Resources Extension programs, the states identified continuing
unmet needs and program opportunities.
Question: Is the Department currently using the additional
$387,000 in funds to expand the RREA program into all 50 states as
intended by Congress in the fiscal year l 988 Continuing
Resolution? How are these funds being used? Please provide a
state breakdown.
402
Answer: In response to the direction provided by the
Congress, the Department has allocated these resources to those
seven States that were not included in the past and increased the
base program level for others.
The primary strategy and highest
priority is to establish a base program effort in each state.
Through the use of a state RREA Advisory Committee each state will
identify and prioritize its program needs and opportunities.
Depending upon these priorities, programs that address forestland
management, rangeland management, fish and wildlife management,
outdoor recreation, and environmental management and renewable
resources public policy issues will be developed and delivered.
The primary audiences are the owners, managers and users of
forest, range and related resources.
The following table provides
a state breakdown of how the funds have been distributed:
STATES RANKED
Georgia
California
Texas
North Carolina
Alabama
Oregon
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Mississippi
Washington
Arkansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Florida
Tennessee
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Missouri
Kentucky
Maine
West Virginia
Montana
Ohio
Illinois
Minnesota
Idaho
Colorado
New Mexico
Alaska
Indiana
Arizona
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
New Jersey
Wyoming
Nevada
Utah
FY 1988 RREA STATE ALL00ATIONS
1987 ALL00ATION
89,000
87,395
85,791
84, 186
82,581
80,977
79,372
77,767
76, 163
74,558
72,953
71,349
69,744
68, 140
66,535
64,930
63,326
61,721
61,721
58,512
56,907
55,302
53,698
52,093
50,488
48,884
47,279
45,674
44,070
42,465
40,860
39,256
37,65l
36,047
34,442
32,837
31,233
29,628
1988 ALL00ATION
89,000
87,395
85,797
84, 186
82,58]
80,977
79,372
77,767
76, 163
74,558
72,953
71,349
69,744
68, 140
66,535
64,930
63,326
61,721
61,721
58,512
56,907
55,302
53,698
52,093
50,488
48,884
47,279
45,674
44,070
42,465
40,860
39,256
38,746
38,746
38,746
38,746
38,746
38,746
New Hampshire 28,023 38,746
Maryland 26,419 38,746
Vermont 24,814 38,746
Kansas 23, 209 38,746
Nebraska 21,605 38,746
Connecticut * * 38,746
Iowa * * 38,746
South Dakota sº º 38,746
North Dakota * == 38,746
Hawaii * * 38,746
Rhode Island * * 38,746
Delaware * * *- 38,746
Question: For what reason does the Department's budget
proposal not include funding for RREA programs in 1989? Are not
forestry and woodland resource programs considered necessary by
the Department?
Answer: Forestry and woodland resource programs, as well as
other programs that deal with natural resources are important to
the Department. The Renewable Resources Extension Act
appropriations have assisted States in supporting these types of
programs in the Cooperative Extension System. Other sources of
non-earmarked funds could be available to support these efforts.
Question: Will efforts be made under the Extension Service's
Priority Initiatives to treat woodlands as under RREA?
Answer: The Priority Initiatives are designed to address
important issues facing the nation including those involving
woodland resources. We would anticipate that such forestry and
woodland resource issues would be addressed by states through the
Priority Initiatives. Efforts would be targeted at priority
issues in a manner that will support meritorious projects with
broad regional or national implications; funds will not be
specifically earmarked or targeted for forestry or woodland
efforts.
EXTENSION SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Question: What recent progress (1987) has been made on the
Integrated Reproductive Management System in Nebraska? Why does
the budget propose to eliminate this project? Would there be any
reason for continuing the project?
Answer: Integrated Reproductive Management has been renamed
by the livestock industry and is now known as Integrated Resource
Management. The natural evolution of this project has now focused
efforts on the assessment of total farm operation. The project
has recently achieved a level of developing solid producer data
bases, for long-term planning and agent training to extend the
program. It is expected that resources from State cooperators and
the private sector will assist in continuing this program.
Question: Please describe the Rural Enterprises Initiative
that Extension Service is conducting in Oklahoma and its specific
404
successes for farmers in that state? If this project were
terminated, what would be the impact on the state of Oklahoma?
Answer: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension and Rural Enterprises,
Inc., are jointly undertaking long-term economic development
projects such as: (1) Operating industrial incubator facilities,
through an alliance with Oklahoma's vocational education system;
(2) Evaluating innovations to be licensed as new products;
(3) Identifying with Cooperative Extension technologies that
improve the profitability of existing businesses and productivity
of local governments; (4) Providing financial assistance through
loan packaging; and (5) Assisting in contract procurement
assistance by referring entrepreneurs to the appropriate bid
assistance center.
Specific successes, in addition to incubator activities include
creation of 17 positions with the Great Body Co. and expansion of
that work force as rapidly as new people can be trained. Also new
products and process ideas have been made available to
entrepreneurs in Oklahoma.
We anticipate that the enterprise could still provide for these
developments with non federal funding.
Question: Two Technology Transfer Projects are funded in
Mississippi and Oklahoma that are slated for termination in fiscal
year 1989. What is the recent status of these projects; what
specific industries have they assisted; how would, and is it
necessary that, ongoing initiatives be continued?
Answer: Oklahoma Extension employs a technology agent that is
currently working with the aquaculture industry on filtration
technology and with the industry on hazardous waste alternatives
utilizing technologies like "in situ vitrification."
The Mississippi Food and Fiber Center has introduced new
technologies associated with value added processes and marketing
for small businesses and industries. Crop modeling with expert
systems is one of the newest management technologies relative to
production agriculture. The program also includes technology
transfer of microcomputer technology to small towns and rural
county governments.
In Mississippi the plan of work provides for the continuation of
three successful ongoing programs carried over from previous
years. These include introduction of new technologies associated
with value added processes and marketing for small businesses and
industries by the Food and Fiber Center, demonstrations of
microcomputer technology to small towns and rural county
governments by Community Development specialists, and the
evaluation of computer systems networks from national databases to
county Extension offices by the Computer Services Department.
Crop modeling with expert systems is one of the newest management
technologies relative to production agriculture. The COMAX-GOSSYM
System, a cotton growth simulation program developed by the
USDA-ARS Crop Simulation Lab at Mississippi State University, will
be pilot tested with a limited number of growers throughout the
405
cotton growing states. Computer Services, through Technology
Transfer and other funding sources, will conduct computer
hardware/software educational programs in Mississippi for growers,
agribusinesses, and MCES employees relative to COMAX-GOSSYM and
other crop modeling programs as they become available.
We anticipate that these projects would be continued from other
funding sources.
Question: How are these incorporated into the National
Priorities for Extension?
Answer: These specific projects are not proposed for funding
under the National Initiatives. Results from the projects will
contribute to focusing programs to meet the issue of technology
transfer within the national initiatives.
SPECIAL PROJECTS
Question: Has the Extension Service issued the pesticides
handbook as instructed in the fiscal year 1988 appropriations
legislation?
Answer: This handbook has not been issued, but we are working
with the wheat industry and our cooperators to assure its
appropriate and timely completion.
FARM SAFETY
Question: In 1986, about 1,700 people lost their lives and
170,000 were permanently disabled as a result of farm accidents.
These startling figures establish conclusively that farming is one
of the most hazardous occupations. Understanding this fact, why
has the Extension Service budget not included the $970,000 for
Farm Safety Programs that was appropriated in fiscal year 1988?
Answer: We have focused on funding for priority national
initiatives projects which are being developed with input from a
broad spectrum of extension, producer, and consumer interests.
Other non-earmarked sources of funds could be used to continue
farm safety efforts.
Question: Does the Extension Service have another program in
mind for assuring that farmers have access to Farm Safety
education and assistance?
Answer: The Federal portion provides only a small part of the
resources targeted for farm safety programs throughout the
nation. It is realistic to expect that these programs will
continue to provide the access needed for farm safety assistance.
1890 COLLEGES AND TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY
Question: The Explanatory Notes mention that some states are
providing 1890 institutions with upgraded facilities. What states
are these?
406
Answer: A portion of the administrative staffs of the 1890
Extension programs in Fort Valley State College in Georgia and
Prairie View A&M University in Texas have moved into new office
space within the past few years. In both cases, the Extension
staff shares offices and facilities with other programs of the
university.
Question: Without additional funds, what will the remaining
1890 institutions do to upgrade their facilities?
Answer: The 1890 programs are almost entirely funded from the
Federal appropriations and without specific funding for facilities
they will probably not be able to achieve upgrading of current
office, work or demonstration space.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Question: What is the purpose of the increase of $35,000
noted in the budget for the Extension Service for the District of
Columbia?
Answer: The D.C. Cooperative Extension Service, along with
the 1862 Colleges and 1890 Colleges, makes up the core of the
Cooperative Extension System. The $35,000 increase will allow the
D. C. Cooperative Extension Service to continue and to expand its
current programs, as the 1862 Colleges and the 1890 Colleges were
able to do with the increases they received in FY 1988.
Question: For what specific projects will these funds be used?
Answer: The D. C. Cooperative Extension Service is the only
unit in the national system that conducts Extension programs
strictly for the benefit of urban clientele groups. Rather then
funding any specific projects, these funds will be used for all of
D.C.'s programs, which are concentrated on the development of
necessary skills to help inner city low-income and needy residents
cope with daily life.
CONSERVATION PLANS
Question: Dr. Johnsrud, I understand that the Extension
Service and the Soil Conservation Service have recently signed a
Memorandum of Understanding outlining each Agency's role in
education and technical efforts under the Conservation Title of
the 1985 Farm Bill. Can you tell me -— under the Memorandum of
Understanding -- what education and technical assistance
activities will be the responsibility of the Extension Service?
Answer: The Cooperative Extension System (CES) responsibility
is to coordinate the information and education activities of the
Department. State Extension specialists in such disciplines as
Agronomy, Economics, Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, Range, Soils,
and Soil and Water Conservation will assist with both the
information and education effort, as well as serve on technical
assistance teams. As an example, Illinois Extension developed a
training package for national application in assisting farm owners
and operators to learn to develop components of their farm
conservation plans. By 1990, about 800,000 farmers will need to
407
have SCS-approved conservation plans for their highly erodible
land.
Question: Have you begun any of those educational programs
yet? Can you tell us what your timetable is for having these
education and information programs developed and in place?
Answer: Yes, Extension has been providing this type of
assistance. As part of our recent Memorandum of Understanding,
State Directors have been asked to evaluate and accelerate
programs. Additionally, the Memorandum encourages SCS at the
State level to provide resources for coordinated efforts with
Extension programs. These educational programs are being
developed, implemented and provided to our clientele. We expect
to have this program in place by December 1989.
Question: This type of work will obviously require funding.
Have you asked for funding for these activities, or do you
anticipate a transfer of funds from SCS to Extension for these
activities?
Answer: States have been asked to redirect funds from their
on-going programs to help with this effort. Some states have been
able to do this. The State Extension Directors and Administrators
of 1890 Institutions and Tuskegee Unviersity have been encouraged
and authorized to negotiate reimbursable agreements with SCS State
Conservationists to support more intensive education programs.
Question: How much have you or SCS requested for this work?
Do you think it will be sufficient?
Answer: Extension work in this area will be funded at this
time through ongoing programs.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
Question: I am quite concerned about water quality and the
effects of agricultural runoff. I have seen a report prepared by
the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges which you may be familiar with, as it proposes water
quality projects for the Cooperative State Research Service and
the Extension Service. They propose $25 million for grants to be
awarded competitively through CSRS for groundwater research. This
research would entail studies of sources of pollution and
prevention measures leading to information relative to technical
applications and water management.
The report further proposes a $15 million program for the
Extension Service to develop educational programs related to water
resources and the impact of agricultural operations. This
proposal seems to have taken some of the announced initiatives of
the Cooperative Extension Service and put them into a program.
First of all, are you aware of the proposal, and Secondly, do you
believe that it can be effectively put into place? Is there room
in the budget for such a program?
408
Answer: Yes, CSRS is aware of the proposal. The expertise,
experience, number of agricultural scientists, and facilities are
more than sufficient to effectively and efficiently carry out the
proposed program. Also, these scientists are dispersed throughout
the agricultural production areas of the United States, which
places them at locations where problems of soil and water
contamination are a concern, and where such problems must be
resolved. Hatch Act funds are available to fund this research.
In the Extension area, there are ongoing efforts to provide
information and educate clientele about the importance of
groundwater and surface water. Some states have already started
an action program. Moreover, projects would be eligible for
consideration under our priority initiative proposals.
Question: The proposal made by the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges only accounts for
groundwater research and education. Obviously, we have some
severe problems with surface water, as well. The Extension
Service has made water quality one of its top priorities, and I am
pleased to see this focus. While many states have implemented
regulations, I understand that there are currently no national
guidelines which would control agricultural runoff and thereby
help to reduce water pollution. This places a heavy burden on
educating farmers and ranchers on appropriate methods of
preventing contamination of water supplies.
Does the Department of Agriculture have a specific education
program in this area? Is there sufficient manpower and funding
within the Extension Service to meet this need? If not, what can
we do to ensure that all agricultural operations will come into
compliance?
Answer: Within USDA there is no specific education program on
water quality as readily identifiable as the IPM or Pesticide
Impact efforts. However, the Extension Service has identified
Water Quality as a National Priority Initiative, and the
Cooperative Extension System has responded in a positive and
vigorous way. For example, Extension works on reducing soil
erosion yields, providing significant benefits in terms of surface
water quality improvement. Currently, Extension is focusing
staffing and federal funds on this issue by providing national
leadership and coordination to the States. Our proposal to fund
development of priority initiatives in 1989 would support this
effort.
The Cooperative Extension System is involved in
education programs about the Conservation Reserve Program of the
Food Security Act. While these programs do not directly address
water quality issues, the protection of such erodible soils will
reduce sediment loads and their associated contaminants to surface
waters. Education is less onerous, less expensive, and more
equitable than regulation. We also believe the Cooperative
Extension System can help people to understand that it is in their
best interest to adopt reasonable practices to protect our water
YeSOU Y'CeS.
409
Question: The Administration is advocating $2 million for
Rural Revitalization through an initiative to develop an
information center at the National Agricultural Library. This
would provide a database for farmers and rural communities,
accessible through a toll free line, to acquire information on the
most advanced technologies and information available. Now, this
is a great idea, and I support it wholeheartedly. As a matter of
fact, I have been promoting this idea for the past three years,
and it is about time the Administration realized this need.
Interestingly enough, this center already exists. However, it has
been underfunded for the past two years and has not been supported
by the Administration. ATTRA, Appropriate Technology Transfer for
Rural Areas, has been in place in Memphis, Tennessee for two
years. The center has collected a database of current
technologies and practices for farmers, as well as information for
rural communities, all available through a toll free line which
was initiated last summer. The Rural Information Center which is
being proposed by the Extension Service and the National
Agricultural Library, already exists, yet the Extension Service
has failed to support ATTRA for two years. Now, I support
providing this money, but it seems to me that it could be best put
to use at ATTRA. Why has the Extension Service overlooked ATTRA,
and why should we duplicate efforts already underway in Memphis?
I see no reason why this center has to be placed in the Washington
area, do you?
Answer: Our $2 million increase request for rural
revitalization programs will encompass more than the operation of
a Rural Information Center with the National Agricultural
Library. A major portion of this request will be used to enable
individual States to establish the necessary expertise to address
this problem, in line with the Secretary of Agriculture's Rural
Regeneration Initiative. The Rural Information Center, which is
currently in operation, provides significant support to the
Secretary's program because of its comprehensive rural collection
on economic development, competitiveness and diversification
essential to State and local government officials. On the other
hand, ATTRA concentrates on low-input technologies, pest and weed
management and the like, and does not duplicate the focus of RIC.
*
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
Question: I was interested to learn that the Extension
Service is initiating an education campaign to reduce the
incidence of food-borne illnesses by teaching food service
personnel, food processors and consumers recommended food
handling, preparation, and processing practices. Can you provide
greater detail? Are you coordinating your important efforts with
private industry?
Answer: There are several types of educational programs for
food handlers on safe handling of fresh foods. These include
classes for retail employees, restaurant employees, cooks in child
care facilities, employees at food processing plants, etc.
Extension has emphasized programs for audiences with the greatest
410
need, such as small businesses, government sponsored programs and
industry groups.
Consumption of food eaten away from home is a major growth area in
our food system. In the future, Extension programs for food
handlers will concentrate on: &
1. Training of food handlers in safe handling practices
particularly in the public sector and private industries where
need is most critical and where resources are less
plentiful--child care centers, elderly programs, small food
processors and vendors, etc.
2. Increasing cooperation with other government
organizations such as local public health departments and
private concerns inthe development of educational strategies
that meet community needs.
---
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
FERS (FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
Question: Dr. Johnsrud, does your 1989 budget request include
funding to cover the retirement costs for the Extension/Federal
appointees (13,000) at land-grant universities throughout the
country? You will recall, we provided a supplemental last year
(1987) of $6,500,000 and also provided an increase in the regular
FY 1988 bill for this purpose. What is the amount that will be
required for FY 1989? Why is this not included in the budget?
Answer: Our latest estimate on how much the additional costs
associated with the FERS program for FY 1989 is between $6.0 and
$6.5 million. These funds not requested due to our desire to fund
the implementation of the National Priority Initiatives which are
being developed with broad-based participation of Extension
services and clientele.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Question: The budget reflects a request of $2 million for
rural revitalization programs; however, no funds are requested to
continue the 5 rural development centers (one of which is in MS).
I commend USDA for its increased attention to rural development as
a part of an effort to help rural areas diversify their economies,
but isn't this contradictory--on the one hand asking for $2
million for rural revitalization, but on the other, terminating
the funding for centers that are already established and whose
mission it is to provide assistance in the revitalization of rural
areas? Would you care to comment on this?
Answer: The $2 million request for increased rural
revitalization program will allow heavily impacted States to
respond to this problem in a more concentrated manner. This
approach will support the Secretary's Rural Regeneration
Initiative which will address the problem nationwide. With the
States being required to provide an equal amount a meaningful
program can be launched. Also, we believe that States would
finance the Rural Development Centers from their own resources.
411
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
FORMULA FUNDING VERSUS COMPETITIVE GRANTS
Question: The FY 1989 proposed budget causes concern for
research and Extension efforts in my home state and other states
throughout the nation. It reduces those funds that have allowed
each state to develop programs responsive to the needs of local
people. This "grass-roots" approach made these programs locally
useful to farmers and rural America. Maintaining funds at the
current level or decreasing them could result in the elimination
of these important programs because state budgets may not be able
to absorb the costs of total programs or the inflationary
increases on existing programs. In addition, the change in
funding from formula to competitive grants raises concerns about
the ability of small states and small programs to be competitive
on a national level. Issues that are very important to the
farmers of Idaho may not seem important from a national
perspective. What is the rationale for maintaining the current
level of funding for Hatch Act programs and reducing funds for
Smith-Lever formula programs? How can you assure me that smaller
states or smaller programs will not be ignored in the competitive
grants process?
Answer: The decreased level of funding for Smith-Lever
formula programs does not mean that Extension effort in this area
is reduced. The decrease of $13.1 million consists of two parts:
first, the Administration is not requesting the $4 million
provided by Congress in FY 1988 for increased FERS costs of state
Extension workers, and, second, the remaining $9.1 million is
real located into the earmarked effort requested to address the
Agricultural Competitiveness and Profitability National
Initiative. Eighty percent ($7.7 million) of this proposal will
be allocated back to the states under the Smith-Lever formula to
support this initiative. The states will not end up with any
significant reduction in formula program efforts.
WATER ISSUES
Question: Water quality and quantity has been identified
as the highest priority for research and Extension programs for
the last three years by the Joint Council on Agriculture. Water
quality is a major concern to those of us in the West. The
increasing concerns regarding pesticide contamination and the
increased competition for water will intensify the need for
development of reliable information to be used in policy
decisions. This information must also be delivered to potential
users of the information through Agricultural Extension Service
programs.
This year's budget request by the land-grant universities included
$25 million for research (CSRS) and $15 million for Extension.
The Administration's proposed budget for FY 1989 includes no
increase for CSRS or Extension for water quality, although $5
million is identified for ARS. What is the rationale for this
recommendation? Why not provide the additional $5 million for
land-grant or CSRS research instead of ARS2
412
Answer: Water quality has been identified as one of
Extension's National Initiatives. As such, some portion of the
$10 million proposal for Priority Initiative Projects may be used
for specific water quality issues, in addition to some of our
on-going efforts in this area.
AGRICULTURE PROFITABILITY VERSUS PRODUCTIVITY
Question: In the Administration's proposed budget, I noticed
that CSRS funding for agricultural productivity research has been
eliminated. At the same time, a new program for agriculture
profitability is proposed for Extension at a level of $10 million
dollars. If we eliminate agricultural productivity research, what
information will the Extension Service be disseminating to farmers
that will increase profits? By eliminating funding for CSRS
agricultural productivity, will we have adequate research
knowledge to justify an Extension program of this magnitude?
Answer: While we strongly support continued agricultural
productivity research, U.S. agriculture is faced with vast amounts
of data, information, and technology that are not now being
integrated into profitable systems for use on our nation's farms.
An important component of the new program for agricultural
competitiveness and profitability within the Extension Service is
the development of databases which will bring together the needed
information into an easily accessible and usable form. This
program will seek the cooperation of our nation's top expertise,
private and public, and involve all states in a coordinated effort
to make our best management decisions, utilizing production,
management, marketing, and policy information available to the
farmers and to those who help develop decision aids and management
systems for farmers.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KASTEN
Question: Dr. Johnsrud, as we approach the year 1990, when
the conservation compliance requirement of the 1985 farm bill
begins to take effect, it appears to me that there are widely
different levels of awareness of and support for conservation
compliance in different parts of the country.
Could you give us your assessment of where we stand overall in
making farmers aware of and helping them to comply with
conversation compliance? In which areas of the country do you
expect particular difficulties in this regard, and what is
Extension doing to overcome these difficulties?
Answer: Farmers across the nation are generally well informed
of the Conservation Reserve Program. However, they do not appear
to understand the implications of the Conservation Compliance
provision. We are concerned that they may not be making the best
use of the CRP to meet requirements of Conservation Compliance or
the Sodbuster and Swampbuster provisions. In the Great Plains,"
Corn Belt, and the South, where most of our highly erodible
cropland is located, farmers are better informed than in states
with lesser amounts of eroding cropland. In the Northeast it is
413
difficult to get the farmers to become concerned enough to find
out how they are affected. An exciting project has been developed
by the Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Illinois
in cooperation with SCS. They have produced a series of
informational and educational materials that will be used
nationwide to help farmers understand and identify their erosion
problems. The material is of such quality that some universities
and junior colleges plan to use it to teach a course in Soil and
Water Conservation. SCS has purchased copies to place in each
county office.
On March 20, 1988, a satellite program on the conservation
provisions of the Farm Bill was telecast for the Eastern Corn Belt
states. The Indiana Cooperative Extension Service took the
leadership for this with support from the SCS. This program will
be available to other States.
Also, the Conservation Provisions have been the main topic of the
series of winter sessions held by state Cooperative Extension
personnel. As an example, Oregon, as well as in several other
States, sessions were used as a workshop for county staff to
develop specific plans of action.
Across the board, the Extension System has redirected a major
amount of staff resources to accelerate education on provisions of
the Food Security Act. Efforts will continue to assure a team
effort within the states to reach all affected producers and
landowners.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD
Question: Please detail the Oregon Projects funded under the
Renewable Resources Act in the last three fiscal years. What
leads you to believe that similar projects do not warrant funding
in this coming fiscal year?
Answer: Oregon has focused RREA program activities in the
Northeastern portion of the state. People in this part of the
state are historically dependent on the use of the region's
diverse mix of natural resources: timber, range, wildlife, fish,
and water. “Use" has often taken the form of exploitation or, at
best, extensive management, and in many cases has been focused on
one or two resources--especially timber and range--with little
direct concern for the other resources. The Oregon Cooperative
Extension Service assembled an interdisciplinary team that has
worked cooperatively with county, state and Federal agencies and
organizations to make significant impacts. Workshops and training
events indicate remarkable growth in both numbers of clientele
participating and in demand for increasingly sophisticated kinds
of programs over the past three years. Initial efforts dealt with
integrated pest management and timber stand/forage improvement
efforts. In the first year there were approximately 600
participants and documented changes were made by 20 landowners on
200 acres. Last year, with expanded demonstration areas and
workshops, approximately l, 700 individuals participated in more
than 20 different programs. These programs addressed such diverse
83–470 O - 88 – 14
414
topics as: prescribed burning for timber, range and wildlife
benefits; watershed rehabilitation; precommercial and commercial
thinning with seeding of forage; recordkeeping for improved
management decisions and tax preparation; marketing of
recreational opportunities on wildland. Although depressed
markets for timber and livestock have limited large-scale
investments in improved management practices, agent surveys in the
six county area indicate that over 100 landowners have invested in
or implemented at least one multi-resource management or marketing
practice directly affecting a total of 2,000 acres with secondary
effects extending to an area at least 10 times as large. With
timber and livestock values moving upward, and with new-found
confidence in their ability to make use of new management
technologies and systems, we sense a growing optimism among
families in Eastern Oregon, including young entrepreneurs and
innovators. Other non-earmarked sources of funds could be used to
continue these efforts.
Question: The Rural Development Center at Oregon State
University, like the four other regional centers, is involved in a
number of valuable projects. Given the Administration's new rural
development initiative, why have you proposed elimination of the
Rural Development Center? Would the continuation of the Centers
not complement the new Rural Development Initiative?
Answer: We feel that our $2 million request for rural
revitalization, which will be matched by the States by an equal
amount will be more effective in advancing the Secretary's rural
regeneration initiative. Also, we believe that States would
finance the Rural Development Centers from their own resources.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator HARKIN. This ends today's hearing. The committee would
very much like to thank all those representatives from the Department.
The next hearing of this subcommittee will be held this Thursday,
March 3, at 10 a.m., in this same room. At that time the subcommittee
will hear from representatives of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Federal Grain Inspection Service, the Food
Safety and Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service.
The Subcommittee Stands in receSS.
Dr. KINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Dr. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I might remind the Staff that if anyone
wants to See a demonstration of this wheat quality machine, Dr. Norris
is here.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., Tuesday, March 1, the subcommittee was
recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 3..]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1989
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1988
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
- Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, Grassley, and Chiles.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF KENNETH GILLES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
MARKETING AND INSPECTION SERVICES -
ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
OPENING REMARKS
Senator BURDICK. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, the
subcommittee continues its hearings on the fiscal year 1989 budget for
the Department of Agriculture.
With us today we have Kenneth Gilles, Assistant Secretary for
Marketing and Inspection Services; James Glosser, Acting Adminis
trator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and Kirk
Miller, Administrator of the Federal Grain Inspection Service.
I would like to point out at this time our deep Sorrow of hearing of
the death of Donald Houston, who was most recently the Administrator
for APHIS, and prior to that, had been the Administrator of the Food
Safety and Inspection Service. He did an outstanding job in his posi-
tions, and I know that the Department will miss him, as we do.
Also with us are Lester Crawford, Administrator of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service; Patrick Boyle, Administrator of the Agricultural
Marketing Service; and Steve Dewhurst, Budget Officer for the
Department of Agriculture. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.
This year, I am pleased to note that the budget request for these
marketing and inspection agencies do not include proposals for in-
creased user fees. These proposals in the past were legislative in nature
and, therefore, not under the purview of the committee. I want to
thank you gentlemen for this change.
While three of the agencies before us today, FSIS, FGIS, and AMS,
(415)
416
are characterized by budget request increases, APHIS is proposing a
$35 million decrease in its budget.
While I will leave the explanation of those budgets to the ad-
ministrators of the respective agencies, I would note my concern about
Some of the cuts proposed for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
Of primary concern to me is the drastic reduction in the Animal
Damage Control Program. Again, the administration proposes reducing
this program by almost one-half.
The Animal Damage Control Program is a highly visible program out
there, and the benefits are very direct to farmers and ranchers; they see
them; they realize them, and they will miss them if they are not there.
This program has been successful, and we have taken it a long way
since the transfer from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Agriculture. I am very concerned by this proposed reduc-
tion. Other reductions under APHIS for pest control programs such as
the Grasshopper Program, the Boll Weevil Program, the Leafy Spurge
Program, and the Pseudorabies Program are also of special concern to
me. These programs are also of direct benefit to farmers and ranchers,
and there is considerable congressional support for them.
Before proceeding, I would like to remind the witnesses that their
Statements will be made a part of the record in full. I ask you to sum-
marize them in 5 minutes So that we can proceed and give Senators a
chance to ask questions on items of Specific concern to them.
With that, I would like to welcome you again. I look forward to your
testimony and the discussion of your budget.
I would like, first of all, to call on an old friend, a good old North
Dakotan who got his early training in the proper place, Dr. Gilles.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH GILLES
Dr. GILLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure for my
colleagues and me to be here and to appear before your committee un-
der the leadership of the senior Senator from North Dakota. We are
pleased to present the programs and the fiscal budget for the year 1989.
In keeping with your comments, I will try to make my comments quite
brief and merely to introduce the agency administrators who each have
prepared statements that individually represent the budget proposals for
their respective agencies. To conserve the committee's time, we will
make our presentations brief and they will be augmented by a written
Statement for the file.
In general, the 1989 program level for the Marketing and Inspection
Service programs is estimated at $934 million. This is a decrease of $21
million from the 1988 budget. I expect the committee will be pleased,
as you have already noted, that there are no new user fees proposed
this year.
The Department does, however, propose Some termination and some
phaseout of programs which we feel are either no longer necessary or
could best be maintained by Sharing the burden with others who more
4.17
directly benefit from the services. In general, the funding for APHIS, or
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, would be reduced by
$34.5 million. Most of these changes would come from the reductions
in brucellosis, boll weevil, and in the Animal Damage Control Program.
The budget proposal recognizes that considerable federal investments
have been made in these areas, and the Department can now support
these activities with more limited federal involvement. Screwworm fund-
ing would be maintained at the same level as last year and the
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program would be increased to
strengthen the Department's inspection operations at airports.
An increase of $13.7 million is also proposed for the Food Safety
Inspection Service, primarily to expand the testing programs in the
meat and poultry products areas directed fundamentally at the chemical
and antibiotic residue problems.
Federal funding for the Federal Grain Inspection Service would be in-
creased a modest $1.2 million, primarily to enable the agency to imple-
ment the additional responsibilities that were created by the passage of
the Grain Quality Improvement Act. In the Agricultural Marketing
Service area, the users would continue to finance about 74 percent of
agency activities. The budget, however, does reflect a small increase in
funding for the market news program as well as decreases resulting
from the proposed elimination of certain programs, including the
Federal Seed Act, the wholesale marketing development program, and
the payments to states program. Mr. Chairman, with these very brief
opening comments, I would now like to call on the Administrators for
their presentation. The first will be Dr. James Glosser, who is the
Acting Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH A. GILLES
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you to
discuss the marketing and inspection programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the fiscal year 1989 budget proposals for these programs.
At this time, I would like to make Some general points about the budget proposals
for the marketing and inspection programs. Then, I will introduce to the committee the
agency administrators accompanying me today. The administrators have prepared State-
ments regarding the budget proposals for the Specific programs in each agency.
FISCAL YEAR 1989
The program level for marketing and inspection service programs is estimated at
$934 million, a decrease of $21 million from the 1988 level. I expect the committee
will be pleased to note there are no new user fee proposals offered in 1989. The
Department, however, continues to propose the termination or phaseout of certain
programs where federal involvement is no longer necessary, while maintaining or ex-
panding critical programs. Let me now Summarize Some highlights of the Department's
budget request in the marketing and inspection area:
• Funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would
be reduced by $34.5 million, with most of this change coming from
reductions in brucellosis, boll weevil, and animal damage control. The
budget proposal recognizes that considerable federal investments have been
made in these areas and the Department can now Support activities with
418
more limited federal involvement. Screwworm funding would be maintained
at last year's level. The agricultural quarantine inspection program would be
increased to strengthen the Department's airport inspection operations.
• An increase of $137 million is proposed for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), primarily for expanded testing of meat and poultry products
for chemical and antibiotic residues.
• Funding for the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) would be
increased by $1.2 million to enable continued implementation of the Grain
Quality Improvement Act
• In the AMS area, users would continue to finance about 74 percent of the
activities. The budget, however, reflects a small increase in funding for AMS
market news information efforts and a decrease of $3.6 million as a result
of the proposed elimination of certain appropriation financed programs,
including the Federal Seed Act, Wholesale Market Development, and
Payments to States programs.
• The Agency administrators present with me today have more specific
information on the fiscal year 1988 activities of the marketing and
inspection programs and further details on the fiscal year 1989 budget
proposal.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to review the budget for marketing and inspection
programs. I fully support the budget request and believe it is adequate to assure the
Department of Agriculture's successful accomplishment of program goals under my
jurisdiction.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. GLOSSER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LARRY B. SLAGLE, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
BILLY B. JOHNSON, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, VETERINARY
SERVICES
GERALD J. FICHTNER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL DAMAGE
CONTROL
DONALD F. HUSNIK, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PLANT
PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE
ROBERT L. BUCHANAN, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MAN-
AGEMENT AND BUDGET
TERRY L. MEDLEY, DIRECTOR, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL COORDINATION STAFF
WILLIAM S. WALLACE, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING
DIVISION
NANCY J. ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES
Dr. GLOSSER. Thank you, Dr. Gilles. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to
report to you on the fiscal year 1989 budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. First, however, I would like to extend, on be-
half of the Agency, my appreciation for your acknowledgment of the
loss of a beloved colleague and a magnificent manager of the Agency,
Dr. Donald Houston. I would like to introduce key agency staff mem-
bers with me today: the Acting Associate Administrator, Mr. Larry
Slagle; Dr. Billy Johnson, Acting Deputy Administrator for Veterinary
Services; Dr. Gerald Fichtner, Deputy Administrator for Animal
Damage Control; Mr. Donald Husnik, Acting Deputy Administrator for
Plant Protection and Quarantine; Mr. Robert Buchanan, Acting Deputy
Administrator for Management and Budget; Mr. Terry Medley,
Director of the Biotechnology and Environmental Coordination Staff.
Mr. William Wallace, Director of the Budget and Accounting Division;
and MS. Nancy Robinson, Director of Legislative and Public Affairs.
APHIS MISSION
Mr. Chairman, the APHIS mission is to protect our nation's plant
and animal resources from pests, diseases, and predation. The mission is
a challenging one, made tougher by millions of passengers arriving
from foreign countries each year; our efficient marketing system, which
could easily spread diseases very rapidly throughout our land; changing
technology, particularly in biotechnology; and greater demands on
government and industry resources. To meet the new challenges, we
must have an agency which emphasizes three essentials; good Science,
good management, and good people. Our goal is to make APHIS a
(419)
420
well-managed organization of highly qualified Scientists, using the latest
techniques to develop Sound regulatory and control programs. We can
be effective only if industry has confidence that APHIS is such an
agency.
SCIENTIFIC BASE
We have already begun taking steps to improve our Scientific base. In
the biotechnology area, we have brought on board microbiologists,
geneticists, and Statisticians to carry out our regulatory role. To help in
the pest and disease exclusion effort, we have installed x-ray machines,
placed detector dog teams, and developed computerized communication
systems. In the pest and disease detection area, we have created com-
puterized national data banks and have begun an animal health monitor-
ing system. Both detection projects involve a multidisciplinary scientific
approach to assessing pest and disease prevalence and the potential
economic impact.
In the brucellosis program, we are ready to implement a new testing
program which will speed the diagnosis of samples. This system, the
PCFIA or particle concentration fluorescent immuno assay system, is
the very latest technology. In the animal damage control program, we
have begun making improvements in the Denver Wildlife Research
Center and have hired scientists with special expertise in pesticide
registration support techniques. All of these are examples of our em-
phasis on making APHIS the recognized authority on animal and plant
health protection. We want APHIS to garner support and cooperation
because of our expertise, not just our regulatory powers.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET
Turning to the specifics of our fiscal year 1989 budget, we are request-
ing $294 million for salaries and expenses and $2.8 million for buildings
and facilities. We are requesting increases in Several high priority
programs, most notably, the agricultural quarantine inspection, animal
disease detection, biotechnology and veterinary diagnostics programs.
The agricultural quarantine inspection program is our major pest exclu-
sion effort. The other programs I have mentioned are central to our
goal of improving our Scientific base. We have also proposed decreases
to offset the costs of improving our highest priority activities. The most
significant Savings are proposed in animal damage control, where States
and localities can do more to carry out control activities on private
lands, and brucellosis, where continued progress makes Spending reduc-
tions possible. Also, we are proposing to end APHIS involvement in a
number of localized plant pest programs.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by thanking you for the Sup-
port of the committee over the years. We appreciate your confidence
and hope that the steps we are taking to improve APHIS will allow us
to meet the challenges ahead. I thank you for the time and would be
glad to answer any questions.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
[The statement and biographical sketches follow:
421
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES W. GLOSSER
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am very pleased to report to you on
the Fiscal Year (FY) 1989 budget for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). We have compiled a long list of achievements, of which we
are very proud, but there is still much to do and we plan to do it well. We
are taking steps to improve APHIS in order to meet the chal lenges ahead. I
would like to take some time today to report on both our accomplishments and
our plans. First, let me introduce our management team. With me are Mr.
Larry B. Slagle, the Acting Associate Administrator; the Deputy Administrator
for Animal Damage Control--Dr. Gerald J. Fichtner; the Acting Deputy
Administrators for Veterinary Services--Dr. Billy G. Johnson; for Plant
Protection and Quarantine--Mr. Donald F. Husnik; and for Management and
Budget--Mr. Robert L. Buchanan; the Director of the Budget and Accounting
Division--Mr. William S. Wallace; and the Director of the Biotechnology and
Environmental Coordination Staff--Mr. Terry L. Medley.
APHIS Mission
It could be said that a goal of the Department of Agriculture is to help keep
farm income high while at the same time keeping consumer prices low.
Sometimes it is hard for a program to work towards both parts of the goal.
But for APHIS the goal is consistent. Keeping plants and animals healthy, and
protecting them from animal predation, is the APHIS mission. This mission
helps keep farm production costs lower and in turn helps prevent price
increases at the grocery store.
While the APHIS mission is clear and consistent, its execution is far from
simple and is affected by many factors. The ease and magnitude of
international trade and travel threaten to bring exotic pests and diseases to
our country every day. Our efficient marketing system can also efficiently
spread disease and pest problems throughout the country in a matter of hours.
Many endemic pests and diseases force farmers and ranchers to use expensive
control measures, prompting requests for Federal involvement • Breakthroughs
resulting from the processes and products of biotechnology could change the
very basics of how we grow crops and breed animals, and consequently change
422
our pest and disease control techniques. Additionally, budget realities
discourage costly long-term programs. Clearly, success for APHIS in the
1990's will require more from APHIS than did the challenges of the past.
How do we meet the challenges of the 1990's? The answer is good science,
good people, and good management. When all three are in place success is
likely. I believe that we have a solid base to build upon in all three areas,
but we need to improve all three so that APHIS will enter the 1990's ready to
match the accomplishments of the past.
Accomplishments
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss some of our most recent
accomplishments, including those designed to adapt the Agency to changing
priorities and needs. Nowhere is the need for good science and good people
any more important than in our role of regulating products produced by
biotechnology. Traditional training in pest and disease control cannot
provide today's regulator the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively
work in this advancing field. Accordingly, we have established
multi-disciplinary staffs in plant and animal health, as well as a central
coordinating staff, to handle the APHIS biotechnology regulatory
responsibilities. We now have microbiologists, geneticists, and statisticians
on board to give us the scientific base we must have to carry out our
regulatory responsibilities in this highly technical field of science. We
have already seen a return on this investment, with the development of a
system to evaluate DNA probes. This system not only will prove valuable and
cost-effective, it will help further establish USDA credibility in the broad
field of biotechnology.
Pest and Disease Exclusion and Detection
Good management is using resources in a way that will save larger expenditures
later. For APHIS that means focusing on pest and disease exclusion and early
detection of their entry or spread. It also means making resource allocation
decisions based upon sound scientific data. We have made progress in doing
both. Specialized X-ray machines provide extra protection in our agricultural
423
quarantine inspection efforts at four high volume airports. A computer based
communications system allows inspectors at different ports to alert each other
to high risk cargoes • Our nationwide plant pest data service is accepting
from, and providing to , States a multitude of information which can be used to
identify emerging problems.
We have made similar progress on the animal health side. Our Laboratory
Operations Support System is now in place in 30 States. This system uses
computer technology to rapidly trace infected animals back to their herds of
origin, the vital first step in disease control. We are nearing completion of
the pilot phase of our National Animal Health Monitoring System. Working with
the States and industry, we are developing a statistically valid data base for
monitoring the spread and determining the significance of animal diseases.
This information will assist us and our cooperators in making program
decisions .
Developing New Techniques
Another area of accomplishment designed to meet current and future challenges
is the Agency's work on new pest and disease control techniques. Heightened
environmental concerns have made pesticide applications--a traditional pest
control technique--less available to us and more costly to maintain. While
continuing to use safe pesticides as an integral part of many programs, we are
exploring greater use of biological tools. A major thrust in our biological
control effort is the integrated pest management trial project to find
alternatives to chemicals for grasshopper control. That project will continue
this summer in North Dakota and Idaho. Other biocontrol initiatives have
already proven successful and have contributed to American agriculture. For
instance, our ongoing biological control program was honored last year, along
with the Agricultural Research Service, for the successful alfalfa weevil
effort which has reduced chemical control costs by $8 million annually. And,
we are nearing completion of a gypsy moth eradication program in Oregon which
relied solely on the biological agent Bacillus thuringiensis . Both the
biological control and the gypsy moth programs are examples of using good
424
science to achieve program goals which may not have been possible with
traditional tools.
Quick Response
Good management also is staying ahead of problems before they become more
difficult and costly to handle. An example is our Africanized bee effort.
Left unchecked, the Africanized bee would reach Texas in just a few years.
Although estimates vary, it is clear that living with this pest would be
costly to agriculture. We have entered into a cooperative effort with Mexico
in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to slow the bee's progress. The program is now
fully functional. During 1987 we also responded to several fruit fly
outbreaks in California and Florida. All of the outbreaks have been
eliminated or are under good control, thus avoiding a repeat of the costly
outbreaks of the early 1980's. Improved trapping systems were instrumental in
allowing a quick and effective response to the outbreaks. Our animal health
network responded in similar fashion to several Newcastle disease outbreaks.
Brucellosis and Screwworm
I mentioned earlier that long-term eradication programs are difficult to
initiate in times of a large budget deficit. While we acknowledge that fact,
it does not lessen our commitment to successfully complete programs such as
brucellos is and screwworm. Both programs have been highly successful and we
are determined to see them through as directed by the Congress. Brucello sis
progress continues on schedule, with the number of quarantined herds reduced
to 3, 160 at the end of FY 1987 from 3, 545 at the same time in FY 1986. Only
two States remain in Class C status. Our commitment is to move all the States
to Class A or better by FY 1991. We are very optimistic that we will achieve
this goal through continued industry and State cooperation.
The screwworm success story continued in FY 1987. We have pushed the
screwworm to the Mexican borders with Belize and Guatemala and have begun an
eradication program in Guatemala. Agreements have been initialed with Belize
and Honduras and are pending ratification in those countries before programs
can be initiated. Soon, we will be negotiating an agreement with El Salvador.
425
Every additional mile that the program advances southward adds protection for
the United States and benefits for the agricultural economies of Central
America. Perhaps most important, we are gaining this additional protection
within current funding levels. The scientific breakthrough that made this
possible--the sterile insect technique--has already been adapted to other
pests and serves as a standard for us to strive to equal in future efforts.
FY 1988 Plans
Another aspect of good management is fulfilling the direction of policy
makers. Accordingly, our funding and program plans are designed to carry out
the directives included in the FY 1988 appropriation. We will be reporting to
you on the progress of each of those directed activities.
Among the highest priorities for the Agency in FY 1988 are those involving the
Denver Wildlife Research Center of the animal damage control program including
bringing it into compliance with the standards for good laboratory practices
and the Animal Welfare Act. We need to find new tools to carry out our animal
damage control work and also maintain existing pesticide registrations for
those already in use . This requires a well-equipped facility and a staff with
the specific scientific expertise and skills necessary to do the work. During
FY 1988, we have begun the process of making both facility and staffing
improvements. These improvements further those very basic goals we have set--
good science, good people, and good management. We appreciate the direction
and support of the Congress in this effort.
A special initiative in animal health for FY 1988 is implementation of the
Particle Concentration Fluorescent Immuno Assay--PCFLA--testing system for
brucellosis. This high speed system involves scanning devices connected to a
computer which determines if a sample is positive, negative, or suspicious.
This will bring us in line with the very latest in testing technology, while
offering long-range cost savings that can benefit the entire program. The
system can be operated completely by technicians, freeing veterinarians and
laboratory specialists to do other work. We will use the system in the
426
highest incidence States, thus speeding up our efforts to quickly improve the
disease situation in those States •
One final endeavor I would like to mention is a management review now underway
in the Agency. A group of top Agency people is conducting a thorough review
of our organizational structure and our decisionmaking processes. Although we
believe that the Agency has performed well, we want to assure that we are
managing our resources, both personnel and dollars, in a manner that will
allow us to fulfill our mission both now and in the future. We will be
reviewing the group's report and making the necessary changes. We will be
glad to report to you as we proceed .
FY 1989 Budget
I would now like to turn to our FY 1989 budget. We are requesting
$294, 243,000 for the salaries and expenses appropriation and $2,847,000 for
the buildings and facilities appropriation. Our request for salaries and
expenses is $35,087,000 less than the FY 1988 appropriation and reflects a
number of significant changes in individual programs. First, I will discuss
the major increases .
Increases
We are requesting a $6,428,000 increase for our agricultural quarantine
inspection program. Earlier I spoke of the constant threat posed by
international travelers arriving in the United States. Thirty-four million
passengers arrived via airplane in FY 1987, 2 million more than in FY 1986 and
a 112 percent increase in just six years. To protect American agriculture we
have to respond accordingly. The requested increase will allow us to placa
more inspectors at high volume ports of entry and expand our use of X-ray
machines and detector dog teams. Both items were key recommendations of the
1985 Blue Ribbon Panel study of pest exclusion activities.
We are proposing increases of $538,000 for the pest detection program and
$1,958,000 for the animal disease detection program. Both increases will
enhance our capability to quickly detect emerging threats and also focus our
427
efforts on those most economically significant. Knowledge of pest conditions
in the United States allows APHIS to provide data in support of talks to
reduce montariff barriers based on quarantines. Specifically, we will direct
the funds to our Cooperative National Plant Pest Survey and Detection project
and the National Animal Health Monitoring System. Both the Plant Pest Survey
and Detection Project and the Animal Health Monitoring System rely heavily on
Federal-State-industry cooperation and communication. Enhancing that kind of
cooperation and communication is a top priority.
An important part of our pest exclusion strategy is maintaining an
international presence. By placing a small number of APHIS officials on-site
in other countries, we can inspect shipments bound for the United States
before they ever leave their country of origin, thus reducing the threat from
those imports. Also, our officials serve as liaisons to the agricultural
health protection officials of other countries. This helps create an
international network to better monitor and predict pest and disease movement,
as well as to facilitate negotiations for more reasonable quarantine
regulations for American exports. We are requesting an additional $416,000
for international plant health activities and $296,000 for animal health
activities. These additional funds will allow us to place more APHIS people
in foreign locations .
We are requesting $1,950, 000 to fund the third year of the Africanized bee
program in Mexico . This program was financed from contingency funds in
FY 1987 and FY 1988 because of the need to move quickly to address the
emerging threat. For the contingency fund, we are requesting an increase of
$500,000. Small-scale pest and disease outbreaks can be handled much more
efficiently through use of contingency funds than any other mechanism.
The last two requested increases involve once again our quest for better
science. For the veterinary diagnostics program, we are requesting an
increase of $1,504,000. We believe that our diagnostic capability must
continue to be the best in the world. The States and industry depend on
APHIS expertise to diagnose diseases. This is appropriate and necessary in
428
accomplishing our mission. We have had to redirect funds from other programs
in recent years to adequately support the diagnostic function. This prevents
good management of resources and postpones or even cancels important work.
The requested increase will put the program on a solid financial footing .
Lastly, we are requesting an additional $1 million for the biotechnology
program. As the number of permit requests for the field testing of
genetically engineered products increase we must be prepared to respond . If
we are not prepared to fulfill our role, the industry's development may be
hindered and we could even drive new technology development to other
countries. The increase will allow us to hire more scientists and regulatory
officials to assure the industry that we are ready to carry out our
responsibilities effectively and efficiently.
Decreases
The budget deficit requires all of us to take a hard look at our priorities
and to make some tough choices. In looking for savings, we tried to identify
logical places to reduce spending while minimizing the impact on the industry
and the people who count on us for help.
For the animal damage control program we are requesting a decrease of
$11,419,000 in appropriated funds. However, we hope to maintain the current
level of service by using existing authority to seek reimbursements from
States, local governments, and industry for actual control operations on State
and private lands. Some of these activities are already paid for by
cooperators and we believe it is appropriate to extend that policy to all such
operations. With the appropriated funds we will continue the current activity
level at the Denver Wildlife Research Center and in our technical assistance
efforts.
We propose to reduce brucellosis funding by $9,776,000, consistent with our
plan to phase down the Federal role in the program in anticipation of having
all States in Class A status or better by FY 1991. All the indicators point
to continued success at this funding level.
429
We are proposing a net decrease of $25,625,000 in several plant health
programs which have either achieved their goals or have reached a point where
further investment seems unwise. In biocontrol, we will have completed the
leafy spurge work directed by Congress in the FY 1988 Continuing Resolution.
Similarly, both the golden nematode and noxious weeds programs will have
substantially accomplished their original purpose. Increased expertise by
States will enable us to reduce the funding for the pink bollworm program and
our involvement in regulatory and survey activities. A downward trend in
grasshopper populations and the expected results of the integrated pest
management project allow us to reduce grasshopper funding . The lack of an
effective control tool makes continued funding of the imported fire ant work
impractical. Lastly, we are proposing to turn over the boll weevil programs
to the States and industry. With the Federal Government having developed the
technology and given these programs an initial boost, the primary
beneficiaries of the programs should now assume their full costs.
On the animal health side, we propose to reduce animal welfare funding by
$1,275,000, reflecting completion of the National Agricultural Library
database. A reduction in funding for poultry diseases reflects the completion
of a study on avian influenza. For pseudo rabies, we propose a decrease of
$1,400,000. Recently completed pilot projects have shown that area control is
possible.
Summary
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by thanking you and the Committee for
your support throughout the years. The goals I have alluded to--improving our
science, our people, and our management--are all designed to ensure a strong
animal and plant health inspection program that allows us to meet future
challenges in agricultural protection. I thank you for the time and would be
glad to answer any questions.
430
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
James W. Glosser
Dr. James W. Glosser is serving as Acting Administrator for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). He has been the Associate
Administrator since March 31, 1985. He was born in Helena, Montana, on
August 2, 1931. Dr. Glosser earned a Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine at
Washington State University in 1963, and a master’s degree in Public Health at
the University of Minnesota in 1971. His graduate studies included
epidemiology and veterinary microbiology from 1971 to 1976.
Upon earning his doctorate degree, Dr. Glosser worked in private practice of
veterinary medicine in Miles City, Montana. From 1966 to 1973, he served as a
Veterinary Epidemiologist with the U.S. Public Health Service Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. At various times, Dr. Glosser has served
on special projects for the National Cattlemen’s Association and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. From 1973 to 1983, he served as State
Veterinarian, State Public Health Weterinarian and in other capacities for the
State of Montana. Dr. Glosser began his career with APHIS in 1983 as
Assistant to the Administrator for APHIS.
Dr. Glosser currently resides in Alexandria, Virginia, with his wife Julie.
The Glossers have three grown children, two sons and a daughter.
Larry B. Slagle
Mr. Larry B. Slagle is currently serving as Acting Associate Administrator for
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). He has been the
Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget for APHIS since January 1978.
Mr. Slagle was born in Templeton, Pennsylvania, on December 17, 1934. He
earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Wabash College in
Crawfordsville, Indiana, in 1956 and he has completed course work at American
University for a master s degree in Public Administration.
Mr. Slagle served in the U.S. Army from 1957 to 1959. Following military
service, he worked for IBM’s Federal Systems Division in Washington and at the
Veterans Administration Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mr. Slagle began his U. S. Department of Agriculture career with the
Agricultural Research Service in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1962, as a
personnel specialist. In 1966, he transferred to Hyattsville, Maryland, and
served in various personnel and management positions until 1971. Between 1971
and 1976 he served as Director of APHIS Legislative and Special Assignments
Staff and as Assistant Deputy Administrator for Management. Mr. Slagle was
awarded the rank of Meritorious Executive by President Reagan in 1985. He
resides in Washington, DC.
Billy G. Johnson
Dr. Billy G. Johnson has been serving as Acting Deputy Administrator for the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) Weterinary Services (WS)
since January 26, 1988. Prior to serving in this position, Dr. Johnson has
been the Associate Deputy Administrator for VS since June 5, 1986. He was
born in San Saba, Texas, on June 30, 1935. Dr. Johnson earned a Doctorate
Degree in Veterinary Medicine from Texas A & M University in 1959.
Upon earning his doctorate degree, Dr. Johnson began his Federal career with
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), serving for a short time for the
Animal Disease Eradication Division in Arkansas before entering the Air Force .
for 2 years. After his departure from military service in 1962, Dr. Johnson
431
returned to ARS in Arkansas as a field veterinarian. From 1964 to 1967, he
assumed the duties of brucellosis epidemiologist. He then entered the ARS
Veterinary Administrative Development Program and upon completion in 1968, Dr.
Johnson served on the Emergency Diseases Staff in Hyattsville, Maryland for 3
years • From 1971 to 1973, he served as APHIS Assistant Veterinarian-in-Charge
in Washington State. He then served 1 year respectively as District
Veterinarian-in-Charge for California and Hawaii and Chief Staff Veterinarian
for the Import-Export Staff in Hyattsville, Maryland. From 1975 to 1980, he
was Chief Staff Veterinarian for the Brucellosis Eradication Program. In
1980, Dr. Johnson was the Senior Staff Veterinarian for the Cattle Diseases
Staff. In 1983, he was apppointed Director of the National Brucellosis
Eradication Program and was appointed Associate Deputy Administrator of VS in
1986.
Dr. Johnson currently resides in Glenn Dale, Maryland, with his wife Anita.
They have two grown children.
Gerald J. Fichtner
Dr. Gerald J. Fichtner was appointed Deputy Administrator for the Animal
Damage Control (ADC) program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) on March 30, 1987. He was born in Richmond, Michigan, on
January 28, 1938. Dr. Fichtner earned a Doctorate Degree in Veterinary
Medicine from Michigan State University in 1961.
Upon receiving his doctorate degree, Dr. Fichtner began his Federal career
at the U. S. Department of Agriculture with the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) as a Veterinary Medical Officer in Michigan and later served as a
Brucellosis Epidemiologist until 1967. During this period he completed
graduate coursework in epidemiology, serology, immunology, and pathology.
From 1967 to 1968, he was a participant in the ARST Veterinary Administrative
Development Program with as signments in Arizona and Georgia. Upon completion
of the program, he subsequently served 1-year assignments on the National
Swine Brucellosis and Hog Cholera Program Staffs in Hyattsville, Maryland. :
Dr. Fichtner served as Assistant Veterinarian-in-Charge in Sacramento,
California, during 1970 to 1971, with primary responsibility for directing
animal care and import-export activities. In 1971, he transferred to
Hyattsville, Maryland, where he served for 5 years as Chief Staff Veterinarian
on the Emergency Programs and Cattle Diseases Staff. Dr. Fichtner then served
as Assistant Regional Director of the Northern Region for Veterinary Services
(VS) until 1979, when he was promoted to the post of Regional Director. He
served as Director, Avian Influenza Eradication Program in Pennsylvania in
1983 and 1984. He subsequently was appointed Associate Deputy Administrator
for VS in 1985 and Assistant Deputy Administrator in 1986.
Dr. Fichtner is a member of the United States Animal Health Association, the
National Association of Federal Veterinarians, the Senior Executive
Association, and the National Capital Wildlife Society.
Dr. Fichtner currently resides in Annapolis, Maryland, with his wife Mary.
The Fichtners have five children.
Donald F. Husnik
Mr. Donald F. Husnik is serving as Acting Deputy Administrator for Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) programs of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). He has been the Associate Deputy Administrator
for PPQ since September 14, 1986. Mr. Husnik was born in Hugo, Minnesota on
December 30, 1940. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture from
the University of Minnesota in 1962.
432
After receiving his undergraduate degree, Mr. Husnik began his Federal career
with APHIS as a PPQ Officer in Detroit, Michigan, until 1969 when he served as
an Officer-in-Charge in Anchorage, Alaska. In 1974, he served as Assistant
District Director in San Francisco, California. He moved to Washington, D.C.,
in 1977 to serve as Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator for PPQ. In
1980, he was promoted to Regional Director, Southeastern Region, in Gulfport,
Mississippi. He moved back to Washington, D.C., in 1984 to serve as Assistant
Deputy Administrator for National Programs.
Mr. Husnik currently resides in Woodbridge, Virginia with his wife, Marilyn.
The Husniks have two children.
Robert L. Buchanan
Mr. Robert L. Buchanan is serving as Acting Deputy Administrator for
Management and Budget of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS). He has been the Associate Deputy Administrator for Management and
Budget since 1978. Mr. Buchanan was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on
September 3, 1940. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in business
administration from Pennsylvania State University in 1962.
Upon receiving his undergraduate degree, he began his Federal career at the
U. S. Forest Service in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, serving as an Accountant in
various financial management positions. Following his military service from
1964 to 1966, Mr. Buchanan returned to the Forest Service serving as Chief of
the Budget and Finance in the George Washington National Forest Supervisor’s
Office in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and later as a Systems Accountant and Budget
Analyst in Washington, DC. He transferred to the Agricultural Research -
Service in 1971 to serve as an Assistant to the Chief of the Budget Division
and subsequently to APHIS, when it was established in 1972, as Chief of the
Budget Planning Branch. From 1974 to 1975, Mr. Buchanan served as Chief of
the Marketing and Consumer Services Staff for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Office of Management and Finance. He returned to APHIS in 1975
to serve as the Director of the Budget Division until his appointment in 1978
as the Associate Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget.
Mr. Buchanan currently resides in Silver Spring, Maryland, with his wife
Patricia and their son and daughter.
Terry L. Medley
Mr. Terry L. Medley was selected Director of the Biotechnology and
Environmental Coordination Staff (BECS), of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), in December 1986. He was born in Union,
South Carolina, on September 12, 1951. Mr. Medley graduated from Amherst
College in 1974 and earned a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the
University of Virginia School of Law in 1977. He was elected to the Raven
Society for his scholastic achievement and service to the community.
Mr. Medley is a member of the Virginia Bar Association.
Upon graduation from law school, he began his Federal career as an Attorney
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture s (USDA) Office of the General
Counsel’s Regulatory Division. In 1982, he was promoted to Senior Attorney
and advisor for APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) programs. Since
the fall of 1984 he has been involved drafting Federal and Departmental
biotechnology statements and interpretation of APHIS’ statutory authority and
advice on environmental matters. As a member of an advisory committee, he
wrote portions of the legal and regulatory analysis prepared for the Second
Annual Brookings Conference on Biotechnology. The BECS, which Mr. Medley now
directs, is responsible for coordinating biotechnology regulatory activities
within USDA, for acting as liaison between USDA and other Federal agencies on
matters pertaining to biotechnology regulation, and ensuring that APHIS
programs are carried out in conformance with the provisions of applicable
environmental statutes. He is a member of the National Keystone Advisory
Board for Biotechnology, and frequently participates as a speaker in
biotechnology conferences held in the United States and abroad.
Mr. Medley currently resides in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife Gerre, and
their two children, a son and daughter.
FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF W. KIRK MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JOHN MARSHALL, DIRECTOR, FIELD MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ROBERT “E” SODERSTROM, DIRECTOR, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DIVISION
HARVEY WILEY, BRANCH CHIEF, FINANCIAL SERVICES
JIM BAIR, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT
INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES
Dr. GILLES. Next, we would like to call on Mr. Kirk Miller, the
Administrator of the Federal Grain Inspection Service.
Mr. MILLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Sub-
committee. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you the Federal
Grain Inspection Service budget for fiscal year 1989. I will submit our
complete written statement for the record and present a brief Summary
statement at this time. We have with us this morning Mr. John
Marshall, Director of the Federal Grain Inspection Service Field
Management Division; Mr. Robert Soderstrom, Director of the
Resource Management Division; Mr. Harvey Wiley, Branch Chief of
Financial Services; and Mr. Jim Bair, my Confidential Assistant.
FGIS 1989 BUDGET
FGIS is requesting $45.1 million for fiscal year 1989. Inspection and
weighing activities, which are supported by user fees, comprise $36.9
million of this total. The remaining $8.2 million is appropriated funds
for Standardization, compliance, international monitoring, Advisory
Committee activities, and implementation of new programs under the
Grain Quality Improvement Act of 1986. New programs under the
Grain Quality Improvement Act will cost approximately $1.2 million.
Except for these programs, no significant increase in operational costs
are planned.
In fiscal year 1987, operating revenues from user fees yielded a posi-
tive operating margin of $2.9 million. Because of this, FGIS repaid the
remaining $2 million balance of the $6 million which was appropriated
in fiscal year 1984 to recapitalize the revolving fund. FGIS directed
programs in fiscal year 1987 to improve the quality of grain through
specific initiatives. These initiatives included reviewing the procedures
for the detection and suppression of insect infestation; developing direc-
tives which deal with the safe, effective fumigation of rail cars, barges,
and ships carrying grain; revising the U.S. standards for wheat to re-
quire that dockage is certificated to the nearest 0.1 percent; establishing
(433)
434
improved procedures for detecting the presence of treated grain in bulk
grain marketed for human or animal consumption; and revising regula-
tions and the U.S. standards for corn and Sorghum to implement the
Grain Quality Improvement Act.
FGIS is aggressively pursuing actions to assure successful implementa-
tion of its Equal Employment Opportunity Program. Recruiting trips
are being made to minority organizations and historically black colleges
and universities. Job vacancy announcements are being Sent to trade as-
sociations, grain companies, universities, and colleges with high con-
centrations of potential black or Hispanic applicants. We have con-
tracted with a vocational Service organization which employs and trains
handicapped people. In addition, we have contracted with a minority
owned and operated firm to provide us with automated data processing
ServlCCS.
We have also established a field-based equal employment opportunity
working group designed to promote women, minority, and disabled
field employees. FGIS is committed to being a nondiscriminatory
employer. Items featured in the unabridged statement which may not
have been presented or expanded on in this brief opening include the
FGIS mission statement, safety and health programs, grain dust explo-
sion information, and Advisory Committee activities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary Statement. I will be glad
to answer any questions you or other members of the committee may
have.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
[The statement and biographical sketches follow:]
435
STATEMENT OF W. KIRK MILLER
We appreciate the opportunity to present to you the Federal Grain Inspection
Service's (FGIS) budget.
In addition to our specific budget request, this presentation includes
information about FGIS' mission, its program activities and supporting data.
Our total budget request for fiscal year 1989 is $45.1 million. Inspection
and weighing activities which are funded in total by user fees represent
$36.9 million of this total. The remaining $8.2 million is our appropriation
request. Appropriated dollars will support programs involving
standardization, compliance, international monitoring, Advisory Committee
activities, and implementation of new programs under provisions of the Grain
Quality Improvement Act (GQIA) of 1986. New programs under the Grain Quality
Improvement Act will cost approximately $1 million. These funds will be used
to carry out several compliance monitoring programs at 90 export elevators
and other elevators at interior locations. Except for these programs, no
significant increase in operation costs are planned.
The operating budget for inspection and weighing activities is funded by user
fees through a revolving fund. User fees constituted 81 percent of the total -
budget in fiscal year 1987. Operating revenues from user fees were $32.4
million; obligations were $29.5 million, yielding a positive operating margin
of $2.9 million. In fiscal year 1987, FGIS repaid the remaining $2 million
balance of the $6 million which was appropriated in fiscal year 1984 to
recapitalize the revolving fund.
The mission of FGIS is to provide for the establishment of official U.S.
standards for grain, to promote the uniform application of standards by
official inspection personnel, to provide for an official inspection system
for grain, to regulate the weighing and certification of grain shipped in
interstate or foreign commerce, and to carry out the delegated
responsibilities under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. These
436
activities are funded by a user fee cost recovery program. The inspection
and weighing activities, which are mandatory at export ports and permissive
in the domestic area, comprise the national "official" inspection system.
The official inspection system encompasses approximately 5,025 employees. Of
this total, 851 are FGIS employees and 4, 174 are personnel from agencies and
states designated and licensed by FGIS to provide inspection and weighing
services in accordance to regulations, law, and policy.
The 85.1 FGIS full- and part-time employees provide direct on-line inspection
and weighing of grain at 59 export elevators. Eight delegated states employ
approximately 2, 114 employees who provide mandatory official services at an
additional 30 export elevators. Under direct oversight, the remaining 2,060
provide permissive inspection and weighing services.
PROGRAM
In fiscal year 1987, FGIS inspected 94.9 million metric tons of grain. This
compares to 82.8 million metric tons in fiscal 1986. In spite of the
increased exports, we have continued to reduce operational costs where
possible. Our operational plans include numerous but reasonable objectives.
Among these are: (1) improving the quality of grain handling through the
development of new and less cumbersome standards, (2) improving timeliness
and accuracy in grading and weighing through new technology, and (3)
increasing productivity of administrative staffs through effective management
practices.
Impetus for FGIS programs and activities flows from our constituents and the
FGIS Advisory Committee recommendations. In fiscal year 1987, the Advisory
Committee addressed major issues such as: (1) implementation of the Grain
Quality Improvement Act of 1986, (2) uniform loading plans, (3) wheat protein
and classification, (4) deceptive practices, and (5) sorghum damage and odor.
FGIS directed programs in fiscal year 1987 to improve the quality of grain
through specific initiatives. These initiatives included: (1) reviewing the
437
procedures for the detection and suppression of insect infestation; (2)
developing directives which deal with the safe, effective fumigation of rail
cars, barges and ships carrying grain; (3) revising the U.S. standards for
wheat to require that dockage is certificated to the nearest 0.1 percent; (4)
establishing improved procedures for detecting the presence of treated grain
in bulk grain marketed for human or animal consumption; and (5) revising the
regulations and the U.S. standards for corn and sorghum to implement the
Grain Quality Improvement Act.
In 1985 and 1986 damage in soybeans presented merchandising problems. In
response, FGIS tightened its interpretation of soybean damage and as a result
buyer satisfaction was greatly increased.
Research and development activities involve contracts with research
institutes and universities, cooperative agreements through the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), and research conducted by ARS. FGIS plans to
continue to engage in and exploit opportunities for technology transfer where
possible.
Compliance reviews were expanded to determine whether any discrimination is
practiced in the delivery of USDA services. There were no allegations or
indications of discrimination in the delivery of FGIS services.
For the third year, FGIS has published crop quality reports for wheat, corn,
and soybeans exported from the United States. In calendar year 1986, these
reports were expanded to include domestic quality information.
The Agency is improving its productivity. Due to the increase in exports, a
significant number of inspections and reinspections are being accomplished.
The productivity improvement program has been very successful in field
locations. Also, in the administrative area, we have improved the monitoring
of research contracts, and we have streamlined delivery of personnel and
procurement services through better utilization of personnel and the
restructuring of operations. Other administrative areas such as financial
438
management and information management are also being rearranged to improve
productivity.
The Agency also initiated actions to improve management through the more
effective use of such tools as individual development plans, quality of work
life surveys, and training.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
FGIS is aggressively pursuing actions to assure successful implementation
of its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program. Recruiting trips are
being made to minority organizations and historically black colleges and
universities. Job vacancy announcements are being sent to trade
associations, grain companies, universities and colleges with high
concentrations of potential black or Hispanic applicants. Our
Standardization Division in Kansas City and Field Management Division in
Washington, D.C., are currently recruiting women and minorities for several
vacancies. We have contracted for wheat classification technical services
with a vocational service organization which employs and trains handicapped
people. In addition, we have contracted with a firm to provide us with
automated data processing services. This firm is owned by a woman, who also
is a minority. This is a small business "8a" company. We have established a
field-based EEO working group designed to promote women, minority, and
disabled field employees. FGIS is committed to being a nondiscriminatory
employer.
SAFETY
The Agency administers an effective safety and health program encompassing
the related functional areas of industrial safety, industrial hygiene,
employee health and wellness, employee assistance and counseling program,
traffic safety, and workers compensation. In the past year, special emphasis
programs including "Just Say No" (to drugs) and "Stop – Think Safety" were
implemented. We feel that special emphasis programs such as these have led
to the decline in the number of explosions, personal injuries, and deaths.
439
FGIS maintains a database which provides USDA with information on dust
explosions in grain handling facilities. Reports are received and compiled
through the cooperative efforts of universities, insurers, trade groups, FGIS
field office personnel, and a news clipping service.
During fiscal year 1987 there were 18 dust explosions in grain handling
facilities which were reported to FGIS. These caused 15 personal injuries.
There were no deaths. This compares to 24 explosions which caused 22
personal injuries and 6 deaths in fiscal year 1986. No Federal employees
were involved in these explosions.
SELECTED INITIATIVES
The Agency believes that its efforts in the past year have been responsive to
the challenge of improving grain quality. Examples of these efforts are as
follows: (1) damage determination in soybeans has been eightened, (2)
effective May 1, 1988, the level of insect infestation in grain will be more
accurately described, and (3) new regulations have been published prohibiting
the addition or recombination of dockage and foreign material to grain.
Because of this, we believe that public and foreign perceptions are showing
positive change.
User fees
User fee funding represents approximately 81 percent of the total FGIS
budget. Increased fees and exports generated positive user fee revenue in
fiscal year 1987. Because of this, the outlook for the fiscal year 1988
revolving fund is very positive.
Foreign Complaints
Several importing countries including the Soviet Union have complained about
insect infestation in U.S. wheat. Much of the problem has been caused by
inadequate storage and fumigation methods. Research now underway should
provide new and improved methods of detection and eradication. Presently,
the U.S. grain export and fumigation industries are cooperating with USDA in
440
testing a new shipboard fumigation technique which shows promise. Further,
FGIs plans to improve its method for detecting insects.
Wheat Protein Complaints
Complaints have been reduced to a minimum due to FGIS actions in 1987.
Changes include direct monitoring between the FGIS quality control and
inspection points and new national reference samples for standardizing the
equipment. Several procedural improvements were adopted and new equipment
calibrations were also implemented.
Research Activities
FGIS has committed resources to resolving the wheat classification issues, to
field test soybean oil and protein analysis by near infrared reflectance
(NIR) and to develop NIR calibrations for the determination of protein, oil,
starch, and moisture in corn, and protein in barley. FGIS is pursuing an
applied research program to adapt analytical technologies from other
industries such as immunoassay testing, digital imaging, and artificial
intelligence systems. Our objective is to use these technologies to bring
more objective testing methodologies to the official inspection system.
Quality Control Activities
FGIS has developed an improved, centralized Agency-wide quality control
program that encompasses all segments of the inspection system. This program
will be fully implemented by the end of fiscal year 1989.
CLOSING
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions you or other members of the committee may have.
441
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Harvey P. Wiley, Chief, Financial Services Branch
Federal Grain Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Wiley was born in Little Rock, Arkansas, on December 9, 1940. He
attended public schools there and received a B.S. Degree in Business
Administration from Philander Smith College of Little Rock in May 1967.
Prior to entering college, he served honorably in the U.S. Army from
1960 through 1963.
Mr. Wiley began his Federal Government career with the United States
Department Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) at Little
Rock, Arkansas, in May 1967.
He held various administrative positions with SCS in Missouri, Michigan,
and Kansas before transferring to the USDA Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), Peoria, Illinois, in May 1977. While serving as Regional Budget
and Fiscal Officer for ARS in Peoria, he completed a Masters Degree in
Business Administration from the University of Illinois in 1981.
In April 1984, he transferred to the Food and Drug Administration's
National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas, as a
Special Assistant in the Office of Management until coming to Federal
Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) in Washington, D.C., as a Budget Analyst
in September 1987. On February 14, 1988, he was promoted to his current
position as Chief of the Financial Services Branch, FGIS.
Mr. Wiley and his wife. Ruby have three adult children who reside away
from home. Mr. & Mrs. Wiley reside in Mitchellville, Maryland.
James A. Bair
Jim Bair has served as Confidential Assistant to the Administrator of the
Federal Grain Inspection Service since April of 1987. In that role, Mr. Bair
assists the Administrator in the establishment of Agency policies and
regulations. Additionally, he is responsible for Congressional and public
affairs.
From 1984 to 1987, Mr. Bair was Marketing Director for the Kansas Wheat
Commission in Manhattan, Kansas where he worked with foreign officials and
grain buyers promoting sales of U.S. wheat overseas.
Prior to that, he was Coordinator of Member Services for the Grain Elevator
and Processing Society (GEAPS) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He represented
that national grain industry association in issues pertaining to grain
quality, storage, handling and transportation.
Jim is a native of Arthur, Iowa where his family operates a corn and soybean
farm. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Iowa State University.
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF LESTER M. CRAwFORD, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RONALD J. PRUCHA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR -
JOSEPH A. POWERS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGEMENT -
WILLIAM L. WEST, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION
INTRODUCTION OF Associate
Dr. GILLES. Mr. Chairman, at this time, we would like to introduce
Dr. Lester Crawford, the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspec-
tion Service. - .
Dr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before this sub-
committee to discuss the budget of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service for fiscal year 1989. I would also like to introduce my colleague,
Dr. Ronald Prucha, who is Associate Administrator of our Agency. The
coming fiscal year holds many challenges for FSIS as we continue to
modernize meat and poultry inspection and redirect our program on a
more scientific basis.
We have a highly skilled technical and Scientific staff that manages a
number of activities, including the development and testing of new in-
spection procedures. As we redirect our efforts to address more effec-
tively the problems of chemical and microbiological contamination of
food, our scientific Staff grows in importance.
BUDGET REQUEST
Our budget request for fiscal year 1989 is progressive, with specific
program improvements targeted to our main goal to modernize and
redirect our inspection program. We have submitted a request for
$405.7 million for fiscal year 1989. The request allots $231.6 million for
slaughter inspection; $96.8 million for processing inspection; $10.5 mil-
lion for import and export inspection; $29.9 million for laboratory serv-
ices; and $36.9 million for grants to states. There is no proposal for user
fees associated with this budget request.
RESIDUE CONTROL
We are proposing funding for three major new initiatives that are
critical to our goals of modernizing and redirecting inspection on a
more scientific basis. The first of these specific programs is a strengthen-
ing of our residue control programs. To Strengthen our control system,
we will significantly increase the number of meat and poultry samples
tested for chemical residues. For fiscal year 1989, FSIS is proposing to
(442)
443
increase the sample size to detect violations for the 0.1-percent level for
six critical animal Species, chemical compound pairs. For slaughter in-
Spection, the program includes an online residue sampling system. The
System is made possible by the introduction of a quick screening
method. -
- INFORMATION SYSTEMS
We are seeking $1.8 million to improve FSIS systems for information
collection and presentation, our second major initiative. Improved in-
formation systems will allow FSIS to collect and present data in a man-
ner that will ease management of the inspection program.
TRAINING CENTER
The relocation of the FSIS training center to a university site is a
third major initiative. FSIS has been refocusing its inspector training
program from one that primarily teaches skills to one that augments
skills with the Scientific and technological background that will be re-
quired as the inspection program continues to change to a more scien-
tific, risk-based approach. This initiative would provide for the final
stage of the relocation of the training center from Ft. Worth to Texas
A&M University.
DISCRETIONARY INSPECTION SYSTEM
We are also pursuing a very important initiative for redirecting inspec-
tion to a risk-based program. This is the implementation of the discre-
tionary inspection System which is authorized under provisions of the
Processed Products Inspection Improvement Act. Under this act FSIS
has the opportunity to design federal inspection systems for meat
processing plants with varying levels of intensity related to a plant's
record of performance and type of operation. We are not rushing to
implement periodic inspection in a haphazard manner, but, rather, have
chosen development and testing in a series of steps leading to im-
plementation. FSIS will report to Congress, as required by law, on our
progress with program development. The report will include an assess-
ment of phase II testing before discretionary inspection is implemented.
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTROL
FSIS recently took a significant step by forming, in cooperation with
the Food and Drug Administration, a National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods. This committee will look at all foods
to see how processing methods can be adapted to reduce microbiologi-
cal contamination. We expect the committee to formulate good manu-
facturing practices that food processors can use in their operations. And
FSIS can use these guidelines to assess how well a plant is operating.
FSIS reinstituted a policy requiring that surfaces of automatic poultry
slaughter line equipment that contact chicken carcasses be sanitized be-
tween birds. This step was taken when it was found that sanitizing
equipment with 20 parts per million of chlorine dramatically reduced
bacteria such as salmonella. We expect to make similar changes involv-
ing critical control points in the slaughter operation when research
444
shows us a method that clearly improves a product’s microbiological
quality.
CONSUMER EDUCATION
To help consumers understand and practice proper procedures, we
distribute a number of informational materials and operate a tollfree
meat and poultry hotline. In its second year of operation, that hotline
received calls from Some 48,500 consumers.
CONTAMINATED POULTRY
We have noted concerns raised about the reprocessing of chickens
that are accidentally contaminated when Some of the contents of the
digestive tract Spill onto the carcass during removal of internal organs.
Under our statutory authority, FSIS has implemented a regulation that
permits plants to remove these birds from the slaughter line for clean-
ing. Studies published in 1975 by the Agricultural Research Service con-
cluded that effective internal washing methods could improve the
microbiological quality of contaminated poultry carcasses to basically
the same level as normally processed and inspected carcasses.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the op-
portunity to testify on the Agency's needs. I will be glad to answer
questions you or other members of the committee may have. Thank
you very much.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
[The statement and biographical sketch follow:]
445
STATEMENT OF DR. LESTER M. CRAWFORD
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the
budget of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for fiscal year
1989.
The coming fiscal year holds many chal lenges for FSIS, as we continue to
modernize meat and poultry inspection and redirect our program on a more
scientific basis. In May 1987, the National Academy of Sciences released a
study requested by FSIS of poultry inspection issues. The Academy concluded
that our approach to poultry inspection should be broader, more flexible ,
and more scientific. The study recommended that our inspection program
incorporate risk assessment and identify and monitor critical control
points. It was suggested that a range of educational programs be provided
for people who raise poultry and for those who handle raw broilers in
slaughterhouses, at retail , and during food preparation in the home or in
commercial establishments. Risks from microbiological and chemical
contamination were identified as the most important public health hazards
associated with poultry. We have planned several major initiatives to
redirect inspection so that it responds more fully to these two persistent
a reas of concern.
To support the field force, we have a highly skilled technical and
scientific staff that manages a number of activities, including the
development and testing of new inspection procedures. As we redirect our
efforts to more effectively address the problems of chemical and
microbiological contamination of food, our scientific staff grows in
importance. In fiscal year 1987, we analyzed almost 394,000 samples for
residues and adulterants. This number includes 222,000 rapid on-site test
samples collected under the "Swab Test on Premises" (STOP) and "Calf
Antibiotic Swab Test" (CAST) programs.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET
Our budget request for fiscal year 1989 is progressive, with specific
program improvements targeted to our main goal to modernize and redirect our
inspection program.
83-470 O – 88 – 15
446
We have submitted a request for $405.7 million for fiscal year 1989. The
request allots $231.6 million for slaughter inspection, $96.8 million for
processing inspection, $10.5 million for import and export inspection,
$29.9 million for laboratory services, and $36.9 million for grants to
States.
Our budget request represents an increase of about $13.7 million over the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1988. There is no proposal for user fees
associated with this budget request. Of this proposed increase, $10.3 million
will be used for the Federal employee pay increase and to cover the rising
Costs of goods and Services procured by the Agency. We will be able to
provide uninterrupted service to the industry, assure proper supervision of
the in-plant work force, and provide for several major program initiatives
with this budget funding level.
Stronger Residue Control Programs
We are proposing funding for three major new initiatives that are critical
to our goals of modernizing and redirecting inspection on a more
scientific basis. The first of these specific programs is a strengthening
of our residue control programs, for which we are seeking $7.5 million.
The National Academy of Sciences (RAS) report recommended risk-based
inspection to better handle microbiological and chemical risks in poultry.
Congressional oversight hearings have focused on the need to make the
program more productive and efficient while responding fully to such health
threats. The NAS report and Congressional committees have agreed with the
general direction of the Agency's residue program while recommending
increases in the rate of sampling and testing.
To strengthen our control system, we will significantly increase the number
of meat and poultry samples tested for chemical residues. At present, the
FSIS monitoring program is designed to ensure, with 95 percent statistical
confidence , that a given chemical residue will be detected in at least one
sample if it is present in one percent or more of the national population of
a bird or animal species. The numbers represented by one percent are quite
447
large; for instance, one percent of the swine slaughtered in fiscal year
1987 is Over three quarters of a million; in the case of cattle, over a
third of a million; and in the case of broiler chickens, over 49 million.
The risk to public health justifies increasing the sampling rate to detect
problems occurring in as little as one tenth of one percent of a bird or
animal species. For fiscal year 1989, FSIS is proposing to increase the
Sample size to detect violations for the 0.1 percent level for six critical
animal species-chemical compound pairs. Results for each chemical compound
will be evaluated to determine whether expanded testing should be continued on
those six compounds, or if additional compounds should be added to the testing
program. The increase in sampling will require a substantial increase in the
resources dedicated to the monitoring program.
For slaughter inspection, the program includes an on-line residue sampling
system under which swine entering slaughter establishments will be sampled
for residues of sulfa drugs, such as sulfamethazine. The system is made
possible by the introduction of a quick screening method, Sulfa on Site, that
in-plant inspectors can use. However, under the new system, additional
inspectors will be needed to collect and run tests on the greatly increased
numbers of samples.
Improved Information Systems
We are seeking $1.8 million to improve FSIS systems for information collection
and presentation, our second major initiative. With the development of more
scientific methods of food inspection, replacement of the inspector's judgment
by objective data is possible in many instances. Improved information systems
will allow FSIS to collect and present data in a manner that will ease
management of the inspection program. Improvements are for slaughter and
processing inspection information systems and for the import information
System.
At all levels of the Agency, from plants through area and regional offices
to headquarters, FSIS will strengthen the management information systems
448
that are essential to day-to-day operation of the program. A comprehensive
study of the Agency's information needs will be completed in fiscal year
1989; the study will provide a blueprint for integrating and supplementing
existing systems. The Agency will also complete installation of a workforce
assignment system that began in fiscal year 1988. With the system, area
supervisors will be able to fill in a quick and economical way the inspector
assignment vacancies that are created daily by employee sick and annual leave
U. S.6.
It was suggested in reports of the Office of Inspector General and the
General Accounting Office and in 1987 Congressional oversight hearings that
the Agency should rapidly implement its plan to make the import program
fully risk-based. The budget request would allow FSIS to implement a
risk-based import prografil. The complexity of monitoring in a risk-based
manner the systems and plants of several dozen exporting countries, as well as
shipments passing through official import establishments at ports of entry,
requires the assistance of modern information systems. Residue,
microbiological , and processing information would be included in the data
available to the automated system that is used in the on-line scheduling of
import inspections. In addition to improving Agency management and review,
the system would provide a continuing oversight of import inspection.
Relocation of Training Center to University Site
The relocation of the FSIS training center to a university site is a
third major initiative, for which our budget request is $989,000. FSIS has
been refocusing its inspector training program from one that primarily
teaches skills to one that augments skills with the scientific and
technological background that will be required as the inspection program
Continues to change to a more Scientific , risk-based approach. As part of
this effort, the Agency is relocating its training center to a university
site where academic and scientific expertise and facilities will be more
readily available.
This initiative would provide for the final stage of the relocation of the
training center from Ft. Worth to Texas A & M University, the use of
University professors to supplement the Agency's training staff, and the
449
provision of new course materials and teaching equipment. The University's
College of Veterinary Medicine and the Food Science department, in particular,
would play a major role in training FSIS personnel. Current FSIS instructors
would become adjunct faculty members.
The training center prepares veterinarians, food technologists, and
inspectors for inspection and supervisory responsibilities. Some 400
veterinarians and 1,200 inspectors and food technologists are trained
annually. The center also trains state inspection personnel and foreign
country nationals in meat and poultry inspection.
Food technologists are a recent addition to the inspection force, and with
completion of a second training class the number of food technologists in
the Agency rose to 30. A third class began training in November 1987. The
27-week food technologist training course includes a combination of
classroom and on-the-job training. Classroom training includes Scientific
areas such as mathematical statistics, food science, microbiology, and other
disciplines.
As a partial offset to rising program costs, the Agency is accomplishing
program economics in fiscal year 1989 that will reduce costs by over $7
million. Of this amount, $2.4 million will be realized from completion of ADP
projects, and $4.7 million from savings resulting from discretionary
inspection related reductions in the inspection staff.
Discretionary Inspection
A very important initiative for redirecting inspection to a risk-based
program is implementation of the discretionary inspection system.
Under provisions of the Processed Products Inspection Improvement Act of
1986, FSIS has the opportunity to design Federal inspection Systems for
meat processing plants with varying levels of inspection intensity related to
a plant's record of performance and type of operation. These systems, known
as discretionary inspection, provide for periodic , rather than continuous,
inspection at Some plants. The law does not affect the requirement for
continuous Federal inspection of slaughter plants.
450
We recognize that there has been a tendency in some plants to use government
inspectors for quality control functions that should be performed by plant
personnel. For this or other reasons, plant management may prefer
traditional inspection to disc retionary inspection. However, we feel that
discretionary inspection is an integral part of our regulatory reponsibility
to determine the appropriate level of inspection for each plant. Thus,
plants are not entitled to demand or refuse periodic inspection and there is
no formal administrative appeal process.
In 1987, FS IS began pilot tests of discretionary inspection. Phase I of the
pilot, which ran from April to June, was carried out in 14 plants in
Tennessee. During phase I, the Agency tested the screening process for
Selecting plants for periodic inspection and tested reducing inspector
visits to twice weekly. Screening of plants for phase II of the pilot began
in October 1987 and the test is scheduled to run through April 1988. This
phase involves further testing of the screening instruments, testing
inspection monitoring plans, and randomly scheduling inspector visits.
Forty-eight plants in Chicago, Illinois, were selected to operate under
periodic inspection during phase II testing. To prepare for the test, FSIS
consulted with the National Joint Council in late January. Training in the
phase II test system was held for managers and area office support staff.
In addition, all pool inspectors who will be involved in the testing were
trained for a week, with representatives from the National Joint Council
attending.
The implementation of periodic inspection represents for this Agency the
opportunity for the most significant change in direction this Program has
ever experienced. Likewise, the changes necessary to implement a program
Such as this cannot be taken lightly by an Agency with an 80-year history of
regulatory precedent. We are not rushing to implement periodic inspection
in a haphazard manner, but rather have chosen development and testing in a
Series of steps leading to implementation. Our regulations covering
processing inspection have evolved over decades of experience and center on
451
the requirements for daily plant visitations. Issuance of modified Federal
regulations through rulemaking procedures has proven to be a formidable
task. When final regulations are published later this year, we expect to
begin national implementation.
FSIS will report to Congress as required by law on our progress with program
development, as we did in November 1987 in the Annual Report to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate. And we will issue an
assessment report on phase II testing before discretionary inspection is
implemented .
Microbiological Control
USDA recently took a significant step by forming , in cooperation with the
Food and Drug Administration, a National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods. The committee is chaired by Dr. Kenneth
A. Gilles, Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Services, USDA; the
vice-chairman is Dr. Frank E. Young, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, FDA.
The Selection of committee members was announced just a few weeks ago. They
are representatives from Federal and State food regulatory agencies, the
food industry, and academia. They will look at all foods to see how
processing methods can be adapted to reduce microbiological contamination.
We expect the committee to formulate good manufacturing practices that food
processors can use in their operations. And FSIS can use these guidelines
to assess how well a plant is operating. The committee's first meeting is
tentatively planned for the early part of April 1988.
Early this year, FSIS reinstituted a policy requiring that surfaces of
automatic poultry slaughter line equipment that contact chicken carcasses be
Sanitized between each bird. This action was taken when research Studies by
the Agricultural Research Service resolved the question of the effectiveness
of the practice. It was found that sanitizing equipment with 20 ppm of
chlorine dramatically reduced bacteria, such as Salmonella. We expect to
make such changes involving critical control points in the slaughter
452
operation when research shows us a method that clearly improves a product's
microbiological quality.
In the 1987 report on poultry inspection, the National Academy of Sciences
confirmed the importance of consumer education and recommended that poultry
products be labeled at retail to tell consumers how to handle and cook
poultry to prevent diseases originating from microbial contaminants. In
response, FSIS has provided specific "safe food handling" or "safe food
care" label i ng statements that poultry processors can use on labels of
poultry products. The statements give instructions on how to thaw poultry,
tell the minimum internal temperature a product must reach after cooking,
and give other safe food information. Variations of the statements may be
submitted to our Standards and Labeling Division for review.
FSIS has been conducting an extensive consumer education program on food
safety. To help consumers understand and practice proper procedures, we
distribute a number of informational materials and operate a toll free meat
and poultry hotline. In its second year, the hotline served more than
48,500 consumers in 1987-- far more than the 20,000 callers served the
previous year. We recently developed a food service training program, that
includes a 30-minute videotape, "Food Safety Is No Mystery," and an
accompanying training manual that food service managers can use to educate
staffs in the most critical food safety areas.
FSIS continues microbiological monitoring programs for raw meat and poultry,
randomly sampling and testing for Salmonell a , a strain of E. coli bacteria,
and Listeria monocytogenes. This strain of Listeria caused deaths from
contaminated cole slaw in 1981 and Mexican-style soft cheese in 1985.
ficrobiological monitoring programs show trends for food products and can
serve to alert the Agency to potential public health problems.
We have also begun monitoring for Listeria in ready-to-eat products, using
a new test. Although no cases of listeriosis (a nationally reportable
disease since 1985) have been associated with the consumption of meat or
453
poultry, it is clear that Listeria can be found in raw and ready-to-eat meat
and poultry products. Listeriosis is a rare disease, but its severe
consequences warrant that preventive action be taken throughout the food
industry.
FSIS has approved an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test used by
the laboratory of the Lundy Packing Company plant in Clinton, North
Carolina, to detect trichina in pork. Pork tested at the plant can carry a
"Certified Pork" label that includes the explanation "Trichina Tested." In
the future, we may see more Such pathogen-tested products.
The Agricultural Research Service continues to conduct basic research for
FSIS needs. Live poultry research focuses on chemical or biological
treatments such as competitive exclusion to eliminate or reduce the level S
of Salmonell a bacteria in the intestines of the birds, so they reach
slaughter with lower levels of bacteria and are less able to contaminate
other bird S. Research will continue on this and other projects, which could
lead to less microbial contamination at stages of slaughtering and
processing operations.
The HACCP Concept in Inspection
We have taken a significant step towards reducing microbial contamination
with Our new pilot test of a poultry inspection system that uses the
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept. This concept
was recommended to us by the National Academy of Sciences in its 1987 study
of poultry inspection. HACCP is similar to the quality control concept but
is much broader in effect because it focuses not only on visible defects
such as bruises and feathers but also on invisible microbiological hazards.
We will help the pilot poultry slaughter plant in Puerto Rico develop a plan
of Operation that manages risks by using HACCP principles. With this
approach , we hope to make significant progress towards our number one
priority of reducing microbial contamination.
454
Before introducing the pilot program at the plant, we took a number of
microbial samples to give us some baseline data on contamination. We will
conduct similar testing when the HACCP system is implemented to document any
impact the new procedures have on microbiological contamination. We will
also conduct specific studies during our pilot testing to see if we can
reduce contamination at key points in the plant operation.
We are committing many of our resources to this project So that it can be
completed as soon as possible. Additional testing will also be necessary in
other plants to see if such a system is workable in differing environments.
Throughout pilot testing, we will rely on a panel of outside consultants
from academia to review, critique, and offer suggestions at each stage.
Once the project is completed and assessed, we hope that other companies
will embrace HACCP concepts and apply them to their own operations.
Running concurrently with the HACCP project will be further testing of
the Third Generation inspection system, in which the plant has
responsibility to sort normal from abnormal carcasses with USDA monitoring.
We will use inspectors rather than plant employees at the inspection
Stations until our HACCP pilot project produces a plant HACCP system that we
can have confidence in. At that point, we will Substitute plant employees
for the inspectors, leaving one inspection station with an inspector whose
performance will serve as the standard against which the plant sorters can
be judged. Our ultimate goal is to merge the two pilot projects into one
system. In further testing, a plant will do bird-by-bird inspection without
the presence of USDA inspectors on the inspection lines. For this test, we
will have to reinspect each bird using USDA inspectors because the present
law does not allow such a system. We hope the result of our testing will be
a slaughter inspection system that offers improved microbiological quality
of product.
Prevention and Testing for Residues
Recently, attention was focused on a study conducted by the National Center
for Toxicological Research of the Food and Drug Administration, which
455
tentatively determined that the drug sulfamethazine causes tumors in the
thyroid glands of mice. In response, we have begun an intensified program
to prevent and eliminate violative sulfamethazine residues in Swine.
Sulfamethazine is a sulfa drug used to treat respiratory diseases in pigs ;
it is also routinely used in subtherapeutic doses in feed to promote faster
growth from the same amount of feed and to improve weight gain.
During the past decade, various FSIS efforts have significantly reduced the
percentage of violative levels of sulfamethazine in swine. However, the
percentage has remained high at an average of 5 percent in recent years.
As part of the intensified program, FSIS has developed a procedure for an
in-plant rapid test for residues of sulfamethazine, called the
"Sulfa-On-Site" (SOS) test. Details of the planned S0S testing program will
be announced in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. We will also
encourage use of the SOS test on the farm for pre-testing live hogs before
they are marketed. We are continuing to develop new methods that will
facilitate the operation of our sulfamethazine testing program.
During February 1988, USDA issued a proposal to expand the identification of
all swine in interstate commerce. The proposed system will use resources of
FSIS and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to establish a
nationwide identification and traceback system. This will make it easier to
trace the source of diseased animals or those with drug or chemical residues.
The system will enhance our capacity to ensure the safety of the food Supply,
and will also provide advantages for animal health. One particular benefit
will be the improved ability of FSIS to control the persistent problem of
sulfa residues in swine. Support for swine identification has been broad, and
includes members of the Congress, as well as consumer, Scientific , and
industry organizations.
In addition to the SCS Test, FSIS conducts the "Swab Test on Premises"
(STOP) to detect antibiotic residues in animal tissues within 24 hours.
STOP has been used to test dairy cows since 1979 and was expanded to all
456
species in 1982. Responding to the problem of violative drug residues in
young veal calves, in January 1987 FSIS increased testing up to 100 percent
of young calves in certain plants with the "Calf Antibiotic and Sulfa Test"
(CAST). We are evaluating the effectiveness of the new testing pattern
before adopting or modifying the interim regulation on CAST testing.
To track residue violations nationwide, we have developed a computerized
Residue Violations Information System. FSIS can quickly and easily record
all residue violations, identify repeat violators, and follow the progress
of enforcement actions. The system links FSIS headquarters and field
offices with FDA offices so both agencies can share information and
coordinate enforcement activities. Other agencies with responsibilities for
animal drugs, such as the Packers and Stockyards Administration, also have
access to the information.
FSIS has agreements on control ling residues in product with 11
firms--including 34 plants that produce about 5 billion pounds of poultry,
beef, and pork per year. We are now preparing a regulation on verified
production control (WPC) that should encourage even greater industry
participation. Under a WPC program, a firm controls production and tests
products to prevent residues, while FSIS verifies that the controls are
followed. In this way problems that could lead to contamination are
identified and corrected early in production.
Reprocessing of Poultry
We have noted concerns raised about the reprocessing of chickens that are
accidentally contaminated when some of the contents of the digestive tract
Spill onto the carcass during removal of the internal organs. Under our
statutory authority, FSIS has implemented a regulation that permits plants
to remove these birds from the slaughter line for cleaning. If a
Contaminant comes in contact with a cut surface of the bird, however, it
Cannot be removed by Washing or vacuuming--the usual methods--but must be
trimmed away. The regulation on reprocessing of poultry, implemented in
1978, is supported by scientific research.
457
Findings from studies published in 1975 by the Agricultural Research Service ,
but still relevant today, were published in the Journal of Food Science.
Concerning reprocessing , the ARS researchers concluded that effective internal
Washing methods could improve the microbiological quality of contaminated
poultry carcasses to basically the same level as normally processed and
inspected carcasses. The study compared microbiological levels of birds that
were inspected and passed , contaminated birds, and contaminated birds washed
internally with a spray Washing device. The microbiological levels of the
contaminated and washed birds were shown to be about the same as the
uncontaminated control birds.
The authors predicted that more efficient internal Washing devices, as
compared to the experimental prototype, would improve the microbiological
quality of contaminated birds so as to make them microbiologically
indistinguishable from passed birds. Such highly efficient commercial
washers have been developed and are now in use in the broiler industry.
In 1984, FSIS Studies of new carcass washing equipment collected
microbiological data on both reprocessed and non-reprocessed broiler
carcasses. These studies confirmed the conclusions of the 1975 ARS study.
Because scientific research validates our regulation, we have decided to
continue using poultry reprocessing procedures. We expect to receive
recommendations from the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological
Criteria for Foods concerning this practice and other matters related to
microbiological quality.
Plants wishing to reprocess contaminated carcasses must submit, in writing ,
complete details of their procedures to FSIS for approval. When a plant has
an approved off-line reprocessing program , the USDA Inspector-in-Charge
monitors the procedure and Samples the reprocessed carcasses. If the system
is not operating properly, FSIS will condemn product, and if condemnations
become excessive, FSIS approval of the plant procedure can be withdrawn.
458
Fish Inspection
Issues concerning fish inspection, including possible mandatory Federal
inspection, are being reviewed by the Department of Commerce.
FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration are cooperating with the
Department of Commerce in the preparation of its study on the matter.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the Agency's needs. I will be glad to answer questions you or
other members of the Committee may have.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ronal d Prucha
Associate Administrator
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Dr. Ronal d Prucha was appointed Associate Administrator of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service on October 25, 1987, succeeding Lester Crawford, who
was named FSIS Administrator.
Dr. Prucha, a veterinarian, previously served as the Agency's Deputy
Administrator for Inspection Operations for five years. He began his career
with USDA in 1962, and worked in the Department's inspection program in
Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, California, and Washington, D.C.
Before joining USDA he was associated with a small animal veterinary
practice in Clevel and, Ohio and was a veterinary supervisor for the City of
Cleveland's Department of Health. He also served with the U.S. Army
Veterinary Corps.
Dr. Prucha holds a B.S. degree in animal science and a doctorate in
veterinary medicine from Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
STATEMENT OF J. PATRICK BOYLE, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
WILLIAM T. MANLEY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MARKETING
PROGRAMS
LINDA. P. MASSARO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANAGEMENT
JOSPEH A. ROEDER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES
Dr. GILLES. Mr. Chairman, the final presentor this morning will be
Mr. Patrick Boyle, the Administrator of the Agriculture Marketing
Service.
Mr. BoyLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to discuss the programs of the Agricultural Marketing Service
and our fiscal year 1989 budget proposal. I, too, would first like to intro-
duce my colleagues from AMS who are here this morning: Dr. William
Manley, Deputy Administrator for Marketing Programs; Linda Massaro,
Deputy Administrator for Management; and Joseph Roeder, Director of
the Agency's Financial Management Division.
This year marks the Agricultural Marketing Service's 75th year of
Service to American agriculture. In 1913, with an appropriation of
$50,000, Congress created the Office of Markets, our parent agency
within USDA. Today, AMS services are authorized by nearly three
dozen statutes and affect a wide variety of our nation's agricultural com-
modities. I know that you are familiar with the range of our programs;
however, I would like to highlight, briefly, a few of our activities during
the past year.
Last summer, our market news program, which is AMS's largest ap-
propriated account, responded to the dramatic increase in duty-free im-
ports of fruits and vegetables from Caribbean nations by opening an of-
fice in Miami, FL. This office, which is jointly financed by the Agency
for International Development, the Florida Department of Agriculture,
and AMS, was established to provide accurate price and supply informa-
tion to domestic producers and wholesalers and to facilitate the expand-
ing trade under the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
A few 1987 developments in our commodity grading and inspection
programs are noteworthy. For example, last year AMS inspected over
210 million pounds of imported tobacco for prohibited pesticide
residues. The majority of the inspected tobacco met acceptable toler-
ance levels. However, approximately 400,000 pounds, or about 0.2 per-
(459)
460
cent of all imported tobacco did exceed our tolerance requirement and
had to be either reexported or destroyed.
In cooperation with the cotton industry, last year AMS implemented
a new fee system for our cotton classing program. Cotton fees are now
based on a more accurate formula, which includes such variable factors
as estimated crop size, inflation, and carryover balances. This new fee
structure was the result of a law passed by Congress last August and en-
sures the financial Stability of our cotton classing program.
In our Agency's beef grading program, AMS responded to requests
by consumers, health, and industry organizations' and changed the offi-
cial name of the “Good” beef grade to “Select.” The change, which be-
came effective last November, is intended to provide a more positive
image for this grade of beef among calorie-conscious consumers and to
provide the beef industry with a new opportunity to market leaner cuts
of meat. In 1987, AMS began collecting assessments to finance the ad-
vertising and promotion of honey, the eighth Such research and promo-
tion program administered by the Agency. To date, we have collected
over $1.6 million in assessments on honey.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Turning now, Mr. Chairman, to our fiscal year 1989 budget proposal,
I would like to note that it is unlike previous budget submissions in
that it does not contain requests for additional user fees. Currently, as
Assistant Secretary Gilles mentioned, AMS programs are 74 percent
user fee funded. For fiscal year 1989, we are requesting $33.1 million
for our Marketing Services account and $11.1 million from section 32
for administering our commodity procurement and our marketing
agreements and orders programs. The overall appropriated funding
level reflects an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year 1989 level.
Specifically, we are proposing an increase of $1.4 million to fund the fis-
cal year 1988 Salary increase and to offset higher operating costs.
Included in our request is $700,000 to develop and maintain a com-
puter data base to enhance the value and efficiency of our market news
activities. We are also proposing a decrease of $1.8 million resulting
from the elimination of the payments to states program, the wholesale
market development program, and the Federal Seed Act. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes this Summary of my formal presentation, and
I, too, would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement and biographical sketch follow:
461
STATEMENT OF J. PATRICK BOYLE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the programs of
the Agricultural Marketing Service and to present our FY 1989 Budget
request. Let me first introduce my colleagues: William T. Manley,
Deputy Administrator for Marketing Programs; Linda P. Massaro,
Deputy Administrator for Management; and Joseph A. Roeder, Director
of the Financial Management Division.
AMS ' 75th ANNIVERSARY
l988 marks the Agricultural Marketing Service's 75th year ºf
service to American Agriculture. In l913, Congress created the
Office of Markets--our parent agency--within USDA and appropriated
$50,000 "to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United
States, useful information on subjects concerned with the marketing
and distribution of farm products. . . " Today, AMS services are
provided through a variety of programs and are authorized by 31
statutes. Our primary legislative acts are: the Agricultural
Marketing Act of l946 which authorizes standardization, grading and
market news programs; the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937 which authorizes marketing agreements and orders programs;
several commodity-specific Research and Promotion Acts; Section 32
of the Act of l935 which authorizes commodity procurement
activities: and the Egg Products Inspection Act.
I know the members of the Committee are familiar with our
programs; however, I would like to take this opportunity to mention
a few of our accomplishments of the past year.
FY 1987 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As you may be aware, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act has resulted in the dramatic increase in duty-free imports of
fruits and vegetables into South Florida ports. As the Caribbean
462
initiative gained momentum and imports surged, USDA and the Agency
for International Development constantly received inquiries from
growers and shippers in the Caribbean area for U.S. market
information on their crops. At that time, price and volume
information on these imported commodities was scarce and
fragmented. To fill that need, the Miami Market News office, which
is jointly financed by the Agency for International Development, the
Florida Department of Agriculture, and AMS, was established to
provide price and supply information. This is our first bilingual
office and this service has facilitated trade and helps fulfill the
Caribbean initiatives.
Also, in the Market News area, we have been improving the
present system of reporting egg prices. A drie-day symposium on egg
pricing was conducted cooperatively by AMS and the Economic Rese: r ch
Service on September 2, 1987. Symposium participants from indust..: 37,
government, and the academic community discussed how best to gatſºer
shell egg prices for use by the industry and AMS Market News.
Participants exchanged views on keeping pace with changes in the egg
industry and explored ways to improve the present system of
reporting prices. As a result of these suggestions, the egg
industry has appointed committees to work with USDA to refine pr; ce
reporting.
We have improved our commodity donation programs, through R.
Departmental task force established by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Schools, which receive the majority of the surplugs commodities ºff
buys each year, have requested, and AMS has implemented, improvements
such as providing smaller packs of commodities to permiut easier
handling and storage, further processing of certain commodities
before they are delivered, a lower salt and faſt conteºt in some
commodities, a greater variety of commodities to meet the changiºg
preferences of school children, and changes in commodity deliyºry
schedules to permit a more ºfficient use of State distribution,
systems.
In our tobacco inspection program, AMS inspected over 2].0
million pounds of imported tobacco for prohibited pesticide
463
residues. While the majority of the inspected tobacco met residue
tolerances, approximately 400 thousand pounds, or . 2 percent of all
imported tobacco tested, did not meet tolerance requirements. We
recently increased the intensity of pesticide testing on imported
tobacco to gain greater assurance that residues do not go undetected.
In 1987, AMS, in cooperation with the cotton industry,
implemented an entirely new fee system for cotton classing. Cotton
fees are now based on a more complicated formula and includes such
factors as estimated crop size, inflation and carryover balances.
This new fee structure assures financial stability of the program by
permitting the fee to be responsive to changes in costs and
production levels.
At the request of AMS, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
is now evaluating light spotted cotton grades versus white cotton
grades. This study was requested by growers because of the
increasing percentage of light spotted cotton produced in the United
States in recent years. Light spotted grades are of a lower quality
than white grades and, therefore, reduce producer returns. The study
will determine the reason for this occurrence and whether a
sufficient difference in processing efficiency and quality exists to
justify the difference between the two grade ranges.
In February 1988, the Department announced the creation of a
National Advisory Committee on Cotton Marketing which will review and
evaluate all aspects of the cotton marketing system and recommend
ways of improving its efficiency. The issues which the committee may
consider include the impact of high volume instrument (HVI) classing
on the price support loan structure, the establishment of spot
quotations in the absence of quotations committees, and an
examination of possible changes in light spotted vs. white cotton
grade standards using the ARS study data.
We are also continuing the conversion of cotton classing from
a manual operation to an HVI system. During the l887 season,
automated classing accounted for approximately 40 percent of all
cotton classed. The HVI equipment has made available additional
fiber quality information to producers and users, allowing
464
manufacturers to match more closely the desired weaving qualities to
the cotton purchased. As an adjunct to the continuing automation of
the classing process, AMS recently provided classing data
electronically on each bale to interested producers and ginners. The
innovation not only completed the elimination of manual accounting
for cotton bales, but enabled these producers to market their crops
two to five days earlier and reduced the cotton classing costs by
7-l'O cents per bale.
The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) program
has fully implemented the new statutory trust legislation. This
program assures payment to fresh fruit and vegetable sellers in the
event of a buyer's delinquent payment or financial insolvency. Since
its inception in 1985, trust notice filings have increased from a
projected 5,000 per year to over 40,000 filings in 1987. In 1987,
about $200 million in claims filed with AMS under the PACA trust
provision were paid to fruit and vegetable sellers. The total amount
of trust claims in fiscal years l986 and 1987 is almost $350
million. Keeping pace with industry filings under PACA has been a
financial burden.
To meet industry service needs, we are submitting legislation
to amend the Act to increase the annual license fee ceiling. The
license fee currently charged is the maximum allowable by law.
Because we anticipate that workload and the cost of the PACA program
will continue to rise, we will require an increase in the ceiling to
enable the program to remain financially solvent.
In our research and promotion programs, we initiated
assessments on domestic and imported honey in February 1987, as
required in an order issued under the Honey Research, Promotion, and
Consumer Information Act. The purpose of the order is to finance the
advertising and promotion of honey to promote its use domestically
and internationally. Approximately $1.6 million in assessments on
imported and domestic honey was collected in 1987.
Fiscal year l987 marks the first full year of operation for
the Beef Promotion and Research Order and the Pork Promotion,
Research, and Consumer Information Order programs. Approximately $70
465 -- T.
million in assessments was collected under the Beef program and
approximately $26 million under the Pork program to finance and
conduct advertising and promotion programs for beef, beef products,
and pork. We will conduct industry-wide referendums on these
programs to ascertain whether these research and promotion efforts
should be continued. The beef referendum is scheduled for May 10,
l988. The pork referendum will be held between September 1988 and
February 1989.
In November 1987, AMS responded to requests by consumers,
health, and industry organizations, and changed the official name of
the "Good" beef grade to "Select." The change will provide a more
positive image for this grade of beef and will help calorie-conscious
consumers choose leaner cuts of meat.
These are but a representative sample of the accomplishments
we have achieved in 1987. We are proud of our accomplishments.
Before I present our FY 1989 budget proposal, I would like to
point out a few of the changes and improvements we are planning for
FY 1988 .
NEW STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation of FY 1987 contained three
provisions affecting AMS programs and regulatory responsibilities.
The first involves the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA)
program, which provides "patent-like" protection on new
seed-reproduced varieties of plants. This program has historically
been funded from user fees. However, the collected fees were
returned to Treasury and an appropriation was required to finance
AMS' cost of administering this program. As a result of the Budget
Reconciliation Act, the collected fees are retained by AMS, thus
reducing our need for appropriated funds. However, until the current
backlog of applications received while the program was appropriation
funded are processed, we will continue to request appropriated funds.
466
The second provision amended the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937 to permit USDA to impose civil penalties of up
to $1,000 per violation on any handler who violates a marketing order
provision other than provisions providing for assessments. The
amendment is expected to deter marketing order violations by
simplifying and accelerating the penalty process.
g Finally, under the Budget Reconciliation Act, AMS will
continue to collect assessments from dairy producers on behalf of the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). During FY 1987, we collected for
the CCC approximately $71.7 million in assessments from dairy farmers
to offset the government cost of the dairy termination program.
Since 1983, we have collected more than $2.2 billion for various USDA
dairy programs on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation at an
administrative cost of approximately one-tenth of one per cent of the
total assessments collected.
BUDGET PROPOSAL
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address the specifics of our
FY 1989 budget proposal. Our proposal this year is a departure from
recent budget submissions which proposed user fee funding for many of
AMS' programs.
We propose an increase in funding for our Market News program
for the creation and maintenance of a data base of market news
information. The data base will make it possible for AMs and other
users of market news information throughout the world to access
current, as well as historical, market information. These changes
will allow greater selectivity in accessing market news data, provide
the data necessary to perform trend analyses, provide easier
processing of data into useful market information, and improve the
timeliness and efficiency of market news reporting. The result will
be a fully integrated system providing users with direct access to
all market news data, which will significantly enhance its value and
efficiency.
467
We are also requesting funds in appropriated programs for
increased operating expenses, such as travel and cooperative
agreement costs, so we may continue to provide our current level of
service.
And finally, we propose the elimination of the Wholesale
Market Development, Federal Seed Act, and Payments to States
Programs. State and local governments have the capabilities to
continue these activities. For both the Wholesale Market Development
and Federal Seed programs we have retained $l. 7 million for fiscal
year l989 to finance program close- out costs.
In total, our fiscal year l989 budget request for Marketing
Services is $33. l million. In addition, $ll. l million would be
required from Section 32 for Commodity Procurement administrative
expenses and to administer our Marketing Agreements and Orders
program. The overall appropriated funding level for fiscal year lo 89
reflects an increase of $0.2 million from the fiscal year 1988 level.
The specifics of the proposal include:
sºme º An increase of $1.4 million to fund the FY 1988 pay
cost increase and offset increased operating costs, and
$0.7 million to develop a computer data base to enhance
market news activities.
tº gº A decrease of $0.9 million for the elimination of the
Payments to States Program.
tº sº. A net decrease of $0.6 million for the elimination of
the Wholesale Market Development Program.
tº º and a net decrease of $0.3 million for the elimination
of the Federal Seed Act program.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would be glad to answer any
questions regarding our program activities or proposed budget.
468
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Linda P. Massaro
on September 8, 1987, Linda P. Massaro became the AMS Deputy
Administrator for Management. She previously served as the Assistant
head of the Manpower Control Branch at U. S. Marine headquarters.
prior to that she was a senior management analyst with the U.S. Navy
and a structural engineer at the David W. Taylor Naval Research and
Development Center. • tº e
Ms. Massaro is a graduate of the University of Richmond and
received her Masters in Management from the George Washington e
University. she also received a year of post graduate instruction at
the National Defense University. -
PROPOSED BUDGET REDUCTIONS FOR APHIS
Senator BURDICK. Thank you. That completes your testimony?
Dr. GILLES. That completes our presentation, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. OK. I think I will call upon Dr. James Glosser,
first. Your testimony, Dr. Glosser, presents us with quite a problem. In
your Statement, you would like to decrease the animal damage control
program by $11.4 million, or to reduce brucellosis by $9,776,000, a
decrease of $25.6 million in the plant health program, and elimination
of the grasshopper program, and also the Boll Weevil Program. On the
animal health side you propose to reduce animal welfare funding by
$1,275,000, or pseudorabies decrease by $1.4 million. Those are substan-
tial items, and I understand the budget problems very much. But these
are very hefty cuts, and I know that in my state of North Dakota, they
are not in a position to assume the funding of these programs; they
don't have the budget.
You might reply by saying, We don't have it, either, in the federal
government. But the point is, these seem to be very extreme cuts, and
for the states to take over this whole activity would be almost im-
possible. What do you suggest we do about it?
Dr. GLOSSER. Mr. Chairman, the budget we have presented contains
reductions and increases which focus on the true federal role in the
wide variety of programs. To use an illustration in the brucellosis
program, the proposed reduction is consistent with a steady decrease in
the incidence of brucellosis, based on a very aggressive campaign
against the final stages of the disease. It is consistent with a 5-year
phase-down plan, whereby all states will be in class A status or better
by the end of fiscal year 1990. This particular reduction was anticipated
well in the program and should not result in a resurgence of brucellosis.
If I may comment on the animal damage control program, we recog-
nize that it is an extremely vital program, not only to the Agency, but
to all of American agriculture. The budget proposal is an attempt, on
our part, to focus on the federal role by assuming the primary
responsibility to provide the technical expertise, advice, support, and
methods development activity necessary to contain or address animal
depredation.
469
We have focused our moneys to address critical needs such as those
at the Denver Wildlife Research Center. The center will be seeking al-
ternative methods to the use of current procedures and will provide
data for continued registration of pesticides used in the existing
programs.
The boll weevil program in the Southeast is a prime example of in-
dustry, States, and the federal government working together. The
eradication phase has been completed in North Carolina and South
Carolina. The initiatives and the methods development work we have
completed have demonstrated the appropriate techniques to the States
and the industry. They can now take responsibility for eradication in
the remaining States.
GRASSHOPPERS
Senator BURDICK. I don't know anything about the boll weevil. I
know something about grasshoppers. Are you going to tell me you have
eliminated them?
Dr. GLOSSER. No, sir; the funding requested for fiscal year 1989 gives
APHIS the ability to provide technical assistance to other agencies, on
public lands particularly. Based on recent biological Surveys, egg counts
are down and we do not forecast a significant year for grasshoppers.
The biology of the grasshopper infestation is a cyclical one that runs in
5- to 6-year periods. We are now in a downward cycle.
I think that the funding we have proposed for an integrated pest
management project, is going to, in the long term, allow us to address
the problem of grasshoppers in the West with far better technical and
control Strategies.
Senator BURDICK. What bothers me is that in these various areas we
have discussed, you have been making gains. You testified to that.
Dr. GLOSSER. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDICK. Should we just abandon those gains?
Dr. GLOSSER. No, sir; we do not intend to abandon them. I hope that
our testimony and the written Statements that we have entered for the
record demonstrate our resolve to make Sure that the technical methods
are available to assure that there is no backsliding or slippage in any of
these programs. Certainly, it is our role to bring in new technologies to
assure that we can address older problems in a much more efficient
manner in the future. Working with states and with the support of the
industries that we serve, we think we can deliver those types of
products or techniques to address the problems.
Senator BURDICK. How are you going to develop those techniques?
You are denying the money. Where is it coming from? You have to
have Studies.
Dr. GLOSSER. We have the moneyS.
Senator BURDICK. You have to be in the field.
Dr. GLOSSER. The IPM project, sir, in the grasshopper program, is
budgeted for this year and will continue on. It is a 3-year project. We
are finished with the first year and are into the Second.
470
Senator BURDICK. On the IPM project, you are appropriating $3 mil-
lion, and now you have asked for $2 million. So even the programs that
you haven’t eliminated you have cut Severely.
Dr. GLOSSER. Based on our work plan, we will be able to keep the
commitments and follow the directives of Congress to complete the
IPM project at the requested funding level.
EXPERIMENTAL USE PERMIT
Senator BURDICK. Dr. Gilles, last year you forwarded an application
for an experimental use permit to the Environmental Protection Agency
to test the chemical CPT on blackbird roost sites. At the time, you
asked EPA to expedite review of the application so that the field evalua-
tion of this project could begin as soon as possible. What is the status
of that application?
Dr. GILLES. It is currently under review at the present time, Mr.
Chairman. Progress is being made. And we are collaborating with EPA
in this review.
Senator BURDICK. Do you expect approval and, if So, when?
Dr. GILLES. It Seems to be on track.
Dr. GLOSSER. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Senator BURDICK. Let's let you answer. Since you are familiar with
the subject, I will address the question to you.
Dr. GLOSSER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have made contact with our col-
leagues in the EPA. They have begun the review process for the
experimental use permit. We have asserted that we would be ready for
technical briefings on any questions that they would have So that we
could augment the total and thorough review of the application. I can't
give you a timeframe from EPA, but we are certainly aware of the need
to have that experimental use permit so that we can do our field
Studies.
Senator BURDICK. If and when you get the approval, how many field
Sites do you intend to test?
Dr. GLOSSER. That has not been addressed. It will be based on Some
of the criteria that EPA will put to us, and we are prepared, through
our Denver Wildlife Research Center, to respond quickly to the types
of sites that would expedite the development or the evaluation of that
product.
BLACKBIRD PILOT PROJECT
Senator BURDICK. In the meantime, do you intend to continue the
blackbird pilot project which you have been conducting for the last 3
years in North and South Dakota?
Dr. GLOSSER. Yes, Sir; we do.
LEAFY SPURGE
Senator BURDICK. We provided $1.5 million for a leafy spurge project
in fiscal year 1988. What progress has been made on this project to
date?
471
Dr. GLOSSER. The moneys have been expended in collaboration with
the North Dakota State University. We are working out a biological con-
trol technique, and we feel that the project is on track and the tech-
niques will be developed for use by the states.
Senator BURDICK. How will the project be funded in the future?
Dr. GLOSSER. Our role is to develop the techniques, and provide the
technical direction and Support of these programs. The operational
moneys are not included in the fiscal year 1989 budget.
Senator BURDICK. Where is the operational money coming from?
Dr. GLOSSER. It could come out of our biological control funds or mis-
cellaneous plant and pest funds.
Senator BURDICK. For the State of North Dakota?
Dr. GLOSSER. Yes, sir; this year's direction of funds is on track. We
are providing funds for the development of biological control methods
for leafy spurge.
Senator BURDICK. I am sure you are familiar with the plant.
Dr. GLOSSER. Very much So.
Senator BURDICK. It is a very insidious plant.
Dr. GLOSSER. Indeed, it is, sir.
Senator BURDICK. I don't see how we can afford to let up on our
programs. Do you think the states can handle it?
Dr. GLOSSER. We certainly hope that they can. -
Senator BURDICK. I know that you hope, but do you think that they
will?
Dr. GLOSSER. I think they have to. Sir.
Senator BURDICK. Well, our Governor tells us we have no extra
money. We will have to look at that one very carefully.
Dr. GLOSSER. It is our problem, as well, Senator. We are certainly
aware of that.
GRAIN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Senator BURDICK. I am aware of that one, too. Mr. Miller, I believe
you are next. FGIS has implemented a final rule for implementing the
Grain Quality Improvement Act of 1986. You all should have some ex-
perience with administration of that act. Are you finding that domestic
elevators and export elevators are complying with the act?
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, so far our experience is rather limited in
dealing with the new Grain Quality Improvement Act regulations. The
final rules were adopted last Summer. They went into effect June 30 as
they related to the interior market system, and they went into effect for
the export elevators on January 1, 1988. So far, we have experienced no
problems on the part of the trade to comply with these rules, nor have
we experienced any major violations of the new rules as they were
implemented.
Senator BURDICK. How many violations have you identified?
Mr. MILLER. We have identified none up to this point, sir.
Senator BURDICK. None?
Mr. MILLER. None, at this point.
472
COMPLAINTS BY GRAIN IMPORTERS
Senator BURDICK. Has the new act served to reduce complaints by
grain importers?
Mr. MILLER. That is a difficult question for us to evaluate. Our com-
plaints are down from 59 during last year to 11, so far, for this year. It
is difficult to ascertain the reason why that reduction occurred. We
think that possibly because of the lower price of the grain that is being
traded in the international community right now, that this may be a
major reason why there are fewer complaints. There is less economic
value attached to the grain, and there is less incentive for some of the
overseas buyers to complain.
Senator BURDICK. At least at this moment, there are less complaints?
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
WHEAT CLASSIFICATION
Senator BURDICK. FGIS has been looking into the problem of wheat
classification. Last year, you reported that a wheat classification working
group was due to report to you in July 1987. Did you receive the
report, and what did it show?
Mr. MILLER. Sir, we have not received a final report. The wheat clas-
sification group continues their efforts. We are presently in the midst of
evaluating three single-kernel testing and analyzing instruments at our
technical center in Kansas City, and we are also analyzing bulk sample
methodologies.
We expect that in the course of this year, we will have analyzed
about 20,000 samples on these new instruments, and we hope that by
this fall, we will be able to announce a new methodology for classifying
wheat. We are working on this effort in conjunction with the producer
groups, flour millers, merchandisers, the Agricultural Research Service
and others in government to try to arrive at a Solution to this difficult
problem.
Senator BURDICK. It shouldn't be very difficult to identify Northern
Spring from North Dakota. It is the high-quality stuff. [Laughter.]
Mr. MILLER. I can't argue with that, sir. [Laughter.]
Senator BURDICK. But you are working on wheat classification right
now?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, Sir.
INSPECTION PROGRAM INTEGRITY
Senator BURDICK. Dr. Crawford, you are going to get the next ques-
tion. You have been in the forefront of many changes resulting from im-
proved testing and inspection techniques in the detection of microbial
containment in the chemical residues that were not even contemplated
50 years ago. I commend you for your ability to lead FSIS in this new
age of protection of our meat and poultry products.
Recently you defended the increase in FSIS whistle blower com-
plaints as indicative of the very effective ethics in the meat training ses-
sions that are now characteristically working for you. Will you please ex-
473
plain to the committee how FSIS intends to respond to complaints, and
how you encourage integrity of the Inspection Program?
Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes; we have a number of ways that is done. There is
the opportunity for employees, at any level, to call the Office of
Inspector General with a complaint about fraud, waste, and abuse
within the federal government. They may or may not leave their name.
It can be anonymous, or they can give their name. If they leave their
name, and this is followed up by the Office of Inspector General, a
report is made to the Associate Administrator for final disposition.
There is a record kept of all this, and individuals are given the results
after investigation of their complaint. I also reported in the address that
you referred to that this system has been effective. Fraud, waste, and
abuse have been exposed, and we have responded to those exposures.
Employees who feel that they have been disadvantaged in their profes-
sional development in one way or another may also file a grievance,
which is handled through administrative channels, again, leading to my
office and the Associate Administrator, and these are processed, and
final disposition is made as Soon as possible.
Each year, there are a number of grievances filed which are handled
as quickly and as fairly as possible. We sometimes find for the
employee; we sometimes find for the agency. It depends on the cir-
cumstances. Ours is not a perfect personnel system, although I must say
that the pattern of these grievances over the years has led to Some im-
provements that are noteworthy.
Finally, employees who are members of the union that represents
meat and poultry inspectors may file complaints through that union,
and the union may seek the various Sanctions that are available to it un-
der the bargaining agreement between me, that is, the Administrator,
and the union. Employees who are not members of the union have ac-
ceSS, in general, to two other organizations: the National Association of
Federal Veterinarians on the one hand, and on the other hand, an
Association of Supervisory Officials. We also take these very seriously
and meet on a regular basis with the three organizations, and I might
add, Senator, a variety of other organizations relative to these kinds of
things. We have a large work force, and we are trying to make the sys-
tem as nearly perfect as possible. However, in order to Service the needs
of all employees, we have to keep these various channels open and
functioning, and I intended to State that unequivocally in the address
that you referred to.
FISH INSPECTION
Senator BURDICK. In recent years, there has been a great deal of dis-
cussion about expanding federal food inspections to include fish. I am
pleased that you are working on an interagency Study on this topic.
When do you expect to complete this study?
Dr. CRAWFORD. The study is slated to be completed later this fiscal
year. The Commerce Department, the Food and Drug Administration,
and the Food Safety and Inspection Service have been involved in that
study. The logistics of fish inspection are onerous, indeed, and it has
474
taken Some time and a great deal of research in order to address this
question correctly. We have been aided and abetted considerably by the
fact that a number of other countries have fish inspection at this time.
At least one country is generally considered to be a model system.
We have learned from that, I might say, that two other agencies of
government, the Commerce Department and the Food and Drug
Administration have, like we, had fundamental contacts with inspec-
tional systems in other countries over the years, and if, in fact, legisla-
tive authority is granted for the imposition of fish inspection in this
country, we will largely, I think, use other countries that have been in
this regulatory business for a number of years as models.
SALMONELLA CONTROL
Senator BURDICK. The discussion about the presence of salmonella in
the processing of poultry was included in the release of a recent ARS
study challenging the efficacy of the washing of carcasses. In your state-
ment, Dr. Crawford, you mentioned that an earlier 1975 study is still
considered viable, despite the ARS study released last year. Please
reconcile for the Committee whether internal rinsing is effective in
eliminating contamination.
Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes, Senator; that is a question of considerable con-
troversy. Let me explain the agency's position. With the passage of the
Poultry Products Inspection Act in the late 1960's, there was the
statutory authority granted to the agency to allow reprocessing of car-
casses that had been contaminated with filth; if in the opinion of the
agency and of the Department this could be accomplished with no com-
promise of public health concerns. Reprocessing was also authorized if
it could be accomplished in Such a way that the microbiological quality
of each carcass that was reprocessed would be similar to, or Superior to,
those carcasses that did not have to be reprocessed.
Following an Agricultural Research Service study in 1975, which
showed that reprocessing was consistent with the highest goals of public
health and product wholesomeness, the agency, in 1978, elected to al-
low reprocessing in certain poultry plants. The plants were required to
submit to the Administrator a quality control program which the agency
would approve or reject. If approved, the plan would allow the
reprocessing of these carcasses. A number of plants have taken ad-
vantage of that opportunity, and So we now have, as a routine matter,
reprocessing of poultry carcasses throughout the United States in FSIS-
inspected plants. The Study you referred to was a later study by the
Agricultural Research Service, conducted in the laboratories at the
University of Georgia.
They called into question the adherence of germs to the skin of chick-
ens, specifically, Salmonella. This was a time study in which the re-
searchers concluded that it is very, very difficult, indeed, to cleanse the
poultry skin of Salmonella organisms. It had previously been assumed
that disinfection methods and sterilization through the use of acetic
acid, or perhaps Some other approved products, might reverse the ad-
475
herence of these germs to the skin. This now has been called Seriously
into question by that study.
I think the study did not say that reprocessing was not possible, but
it did say that we have a new factor, and that for Some unknown
physiological reasons, these organisms cling tenaciously to the skin of
poultry. We are following up on that study with a project now that is
being conducted in a large poultry plant in Puerto Rico. We are doing
a study of what is called hazard analysis critical control points. We are
trying to find where in the slaughter operation the carcasses are becom-
ing cross-contaminated.
We are trying then to introduce methods on a research basis that
would prevent that, and if not prevent it, at least introduce some
methodology to cleanse, purify, or Sterilize the carcasses once they pass
that point, and then finally, to see whether or not reprocessing is still vi-
able as we believed it to be in the late Seventies, when this was allowed.
The 1975 Study, as far as we are concerned, has not been refuted in the
Scientific literature. However, it has been called into question by the
very study that you mention.
SUNFLOWER SEED OIL PURCHASES
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Boyle, what is the status of the mandated pur-
chases of sunflower seed oil through Section 32 for export promotion?
Mr. BOYLE. That matter is being handled jointly by FAS and ASCS.
ASCS is responsible for making the purchase required by the
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act of 1988. FAS is responsible for the administration of the export
aspects of the program. AMS involvement in this effort primarily has
been to set aside the requested amount of section 32 funds to enable
ASCS to make the purchase.
Senator BURDICK. When do you expect that these purchases will be
completed? -
Mr. BOYLE. Since I am not privy to the status of that effort within
ASCS, I can't comment definitively. I know generally, however, that
they are working with FAS to complete that purchase.
EMERGENCY SURPLUS REMOVAL
Senator BURDICK. Between fiscal years 1987 and 1988, the cost of
emergency surplus removal increased from just over $12 million to $27
million. What was the reason for this increase?
Mr. BOYLE. The increases that you refer to, Mr. Chairman, are the
result of our expenditure of funds from the contingency fund under the
surplus removal program authorized by Section 32. Each year, we use
approximately $350 million for the FNS National School Lunch
Program. Approximately $225 million held in a contingency fund is also
available each year on an as-needed basis to purchase Surplus com-
modities, stabilize market conditions, and increase producer returns.
The increase to which you refer is the result of an increase in emer-
gency purchases from the contingency fund. I would be happy to
476
/
provide you with a list of the specific commodities that we purchased
last year for fiscal years 1987 and 1988.
[The information follows:]
Emergency Purchases—Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988
Fiscal year 1987
Cherries…~~~~~ $9,500,000
Fies....…~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2,000,000
Blackberries.…. 400,000
Total.…~~~~~~~~…~~~~ 11,900,000
Fiscal year 1988”.
Applesauce.….…. 4,000,000
Sliced apples.….. . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * & e º sº e º º ºs e g º e º e º is gº e º sº. 4,000,000
Dried date products.....................…............................................................... 3,000,000
Walnuts.…. … 4,000,000
Prunes…~~~~~~~~~~~…~~~~ 12,00,000
Total.…~~~~~~~~…~~~~ 27,000,000
* As of February 18, 1988.
Senator BURDICK. Why is it that the budget is not recommending any
funds for emergency surplus removal in fiscal year 1989?
Mr. BOYLE. Since these are emergency purchases, we are really not in
a position to Speculate as to how much we will need during any fiscal
year. As emergencies arise we dip into that fund during the course of
the fiscal year. At the start of each fiscal year, we replenish the contin-
gency fund to the total $225 million.
DISASTER RELIEF PURCHASES
Senator BURDICK. In fiscal year 1988, $6 million was provided for dis-
aster relief purchases. Yet, no funding was made available in fiscal year
1987. Does the budget request include funds for disaster relief in fiscal
year 1989? What commodities were these funds used to purchase, and
for what purposes?
Mr. BoyLE. The fiscal year 1989 request does not project the use of
funds for disaster relief. However, should such emergencies arise,
money would be available within the contingency fund to provide relief
as authorized by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The $6 million expend-
iture for disaster relief assistance to which you referred is required un-
der the Compact of Free Association for the Republic of the Marshall
Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. The Compact requires
the continuation of disaster assistance to the Marshall Islands and
Micronesia pursuant to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. Under the
Disaster Relief Act the Secretary must provide food assistance to vic-
tims of major disasters, including, if necessary, the purchase of foods
with section 32 funds. The Isle of Truk, for example, has received about
$6 million of disaster assistance, primarily rice, to help them during a
recent major disaster. There is also another island in the Pacific called
Ebeye that has received 205,000 dollars' worth of disaster relief assist-
ance under these authorities.
477
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley.
Senator GRASSLEY. Yes.
Senator BURDICK. You may proceed.
GRAIN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My Staff has
told me that you have already asked about Some things dealing with
grain quality. I don't want to repeat what you went through, but I do
have a couple of points I would like to ask Mr. Miller.
First of all, I would like to applaud your efforts to implement the
Grain Quality Improvement Act of 1986. Thank you very much. We all
know that a quality product is very important in helping us enhance
our current trade imbalance and winning back Some of our lost
markets. This act called for a feasibility Study of adjusting payment
Schedules for grain to include premiums for high-quality grain. I am
aware that you Sought comments last Spring regarding the possibility of
implementing a Schedule based on quality. As a result of this request
for comment, have any steps been taken to implement a program of
premiums for high-quality grain?
Mr. MiLLER. Thank you very much for the compliment, Senator
Grassley. The proposal to provide a premium for an optimum grade of
grain as provided in the Grain Quality Improvement Act was assigned
to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service to study and
implement. They did publish the proposal, requested and obtained com-
ments and filed a report with the respective authorizing committees in
support of the concept.
I am not current as to what their plans are for adopting or im-
plementing Some type of a followup proposal to put that into effect.
Senator GRASSLEY. I think what you are telling me is I have got to
ask them when they come before us.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct, Sir.
Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I am Sorry. You had some mention in your
statement about $1 million allocated for new programs under that 1986
act. You said that the money was targeted toward compliance monitor-
ing at export elevators. Could you explain how you are enforcing the
Grain Quality Improvement Act, if an exporter is determined that he is
not going to be in compliance?
Mr. MILLER. We have personnel stationed at all the export elevators,
as you are aware. As a part of their regular responsibilities, they are as-
signed the task of roaming through the facility at least once during
every shift to observe that all the seals are in place on the diverter
samplers and that all of the operating procedures are being followed in
the house. Each one of the export elevators has special equipment con-
trols that have interlocks over which we have access and control. We
constantly monitor these control panels during the loading of export ves-
sels, and we feel that the current System provides us with adequate con-
trols over the export loading.
83–470 O – 88 – 16
478
PSEUDORABIES
Senator GRASSLEY. Dr. Glosser, I made Some comments to Secretary
Lyng about how appreciative I was of the $1 million for pseudorabies,
and I also made a comment about how I hope to maintain the present
level of funding. I am not asking your comment on our attempts on
that. But I would be interested in your comments regarding the future
pseudorabies eradication plan and, specifically, does this plan have your
full support?
Dr. GLOSSER. Thank you, Senator Grassley. The pseudorabies eradica-
tion plan that has been put together over the last 6 or 7 years is,
indeed, a very unique approach in that it was industry driven; it
originated from the grassroots, and we have long said in the federal role
of a coordinator, we will take responsibility and leadership for national
uniformity. The plan that has been engendered and has gone through
review after review at local, regional, and industry levels, is a very
Sound one, technically and Scientifically. We think it is one that cer-
tainly has the technical requirements that earmark it for success.
Coupled with the industry’s desire and Support, we think that it is an
excellent eradication plan.
Senator GRASSLEY. OK. But then the bottom line is, does it have your
full support?
Dr. GLOSSER. It has our Support in taking the coordination role, yes,
SIT.
Senator GRASSLEY. Does it have your full support in the end that it
Seeks? º
Dr. GLOSSER. Yes, sir; it does.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MICROBIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Senator GRASSLEY. Dr. Crawford, I support the Food Safety and
Inspection Service's efforts in forming a National Advisory Committee
on Microbiological Criteria for Food. This committee appears to strike
a balance between protecting the consumers, the utilization of available
sciences, and the interest of agriculture, which are prime to my state.
You mentioned meetings of this committee are scheduled for April of
this year. Of course, I realize this is a very time-consuming task, but I
am interested to know when you expect this committee to produce a
final report with recommendations.
Dr. CRAWFORD. The committee is meeting, as you mentioned, Senator
Grassley, April 4 and 5. That will be an organizational meeting, and we
will Set, among other things, its annual agenda.
Senator GRASSLEY. I think I am going to have to quit, because we
have got a second set of bells. They don’t wait for us any more like
they used to. [Laughter.]
Senator BURDICK. We will be in recess for 10 minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley.
Senator GRASSLEY. Would you take up where we left off?
479
Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes, Senator. I will not ask you to restate the ques-
tion. I will try to proceed. The Microbiological Criteria Committee,
which, as you mentioned, has now been formed and appointed by the
Secretary of Agriculture, is having its first meeting on April 4 and 5 un-
der the leadership of Dr. Gilles, to my right. The committee is a joint
committee between the Food and Drug Administration and USDA.
They will look into the whole range of these questions about bacterial
contamination of food.
The first meeting will be organizational; it will focus on what the
committee's work plan will be over the year; how often it will need to
meet; and will Set Some realistic goals in terms of its output. The com-
mittee does not have Sunset language built into its appointment, and so
we think it will be dealing with many of these questions over a period
of years. However, we will Set an annual plan for the committee, and
the short answer to your question is, there will be a report annually,
and we expect that the questions that are of particular significance here
and now in terms of public health questions, will be addressed and
reported on this fiscal year. In other words, by next November, we
should have a report.
IMPORT INSPECTION
Senator GRASSLEY. My last question, then, will be to you, Dr.
Crawford, again. This is on this importation of meat coming into the
country. Some of us in Congress think this meat ought to be kept out
because of the residues that we do not allow in this country, yet are in
the foreign meat imported into the United States. Can you explain to
me the risk-based import program that your Service has? It is my under-
Standing it is now in the process of being implemented.
How long is it going to be before we are going to be able to stop
agricultural products from being imported into the country which do
not meet the Standards Set forth for our domestic producers?
Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes; I would be pleased to go into that. We are, as a
result of Some internal investigations, engaging in dialog with the
Congress, and also as a result of a National Academy of Sciences
report, we are streamlining and modernizing our import inspection sys-
tem to focus on true risk, primarily bacterial risk or microbiological risk
and also chemical residue risk.
We also are moving toward inspection at the port of entry and away
from allowing imported meat products to travel on a land bridge within
the United States. In other words, our inspection, or reinspection, as we
call it, is to be done at the port of entry, and we want to either accept
or reject that product based on that.
In order to do that, we have had to have Some facilities constructed,
and we have had to do some training within the inspection force, and
we have had to establish these risks. We require of a country wishing to
export to the United States, that its inspectional System and its residue
control system and other public health aspects be the same as in the
United States, or at least equal to. In order to do that, a country has to
apply, as you know, and then we have to go and deal with the country
480
and certify that yes, the country is eligible to apply for exporting to the
United States. When that is accomplished, then they may nominate
plants, which we also inspect, and if a plant is deemed eligible, then ex-
porters can actually begin.
As you know, we have more countries approved than we do countries
that actually are exporting because of this. One of the main parameters
that we deal with is, are they able to control chemical residues, which is
your specific question. Once we are able to assert that they are, that
they do it domestically and they will do it in those plants that are ex-
porting into the United States, then we reinspect, and we also take new
samples when they arrive here.
We have a statistical plan, which is published, that will enable us to
be sure that they are doing what they should be in the country of
origin, and if and when they are not and residues do sneak through,
then we begin a series of Sanctions which can include enhanced
reinspection; it can include examination of each and every container;
eventual abrogation of our agreement with them. In other words, we
can cut them off from exportation. That has been done in the past.
Senator GRASSLEY. I think you have been very thorough in your ex-
planation, but the bottom line of my question is, you are on Some kind
of a timetable. At what point are we going to be able to keep this meat
from coming into the country? What sort of prognostication or what is
the timetable or what is the date out there in the future when we know
that your work is actually going to be keeping Some of this product
from coming into the country?
Dr. CRAWFORD. The risk-based inspection program that you men-
tioned is scheduled for implementation in 1989. At the present time,
though, we are interdicting samples of products that are contaminated
when they come in. We have had a recent event involving Some
Australian meat which had residues in it last Summer, and we had to
deal with that government in terms of an enhanced inspectional
program on their part which was very costly, and then we enhanced our
reinspection. So we are doing that even as we go along.
Senator GRASSLEY. Do you have enough statutory authority and fund-
ing to get this new program underway?
Dr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir; we do.
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Chiles.
MARKET NEWS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Senator CHILES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boyle, I understand that the Agricultural Marketing Service
recently completed a cooperative agreement with the University of
Florida to study the feasibility of computerizing the market news
program of AMS. What conclusions did that study make?
Mr. Boyle. We have had a number of cooperative agreements over
the years with the University of Florida involving our market news
program. Our most recent contact with the university that you men-
481
tioned involved a request that the university take a look at a data base
that they had developed to supply market news data for Florida-
produced fruits and vegetables to see whether or not that system would
be applicable nationwide to all the commodities for which we provide
market news data.
Senator CHILES. What were your conclusions for plans for computeriz-
ing market news?
Mr. BOYLE. We have concluded that the movement toward a com-
puterized data base makes a great deal of sense for our market news
program. Indeed, to take the first steps to implement this program, we
have requested an additional $650,000 in the fiscal year 1989 budget.
Senator CHILES. Were you basically pleased with the work done by
the University of Florida?
Mr. BOYLE. We were Satisfied. We believe that it did indicate that the
market news data base is feasible. Our program people who administer
the market news program believe that the data base would be beneficial
to the users of our market news System. To make this System available
we are beginning the process to go out competitively and seek
proposals to develop an AMS market news data base.
Senator CHILES. That is what I want to talk to you about, because I
am Sure that you were pleased with the Study. For that reason, I under-
Stand you notified the university in December 1987 that you plan to
enter into a cooperative agreement with the university to develop a data
base for the entire market news data base network. Certainly, they had
demonstrated their expertise with market news.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that a copy of that letter be made
a part of the record in my questioning at this time.
Senator BURDICK. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letter follows:]
LETTER FROM BRUCE E. LEDERER, MARKETING SPECIALIST
DECEMBER 24, 1987.
JOHN VANSICKLE,
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
McCarty Hall, Gainesville, FL
DEAR JOHN: This is to notify you that the Agricultural Marketing Service of the
USDA plans a Cooperative Agreement with the University of Florida to obtain the
services of you and Tom Stevens to participate in the development of a data base for
our market news network. We hope to accomplish this shortly.
Sincerely,
BRUCE E. LEDERER, Marketing Specialist.
HONORING THE MARKET NEWS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Senator CHILES. That letter Sent to the university by Mr. Bruce
Lederer of your staff notified them of AMS’ intent to enter into
another cooperative agreement, and in light of that, I want to know
why it is that we are hearing that AMS does not plan to honor that
agreement?
Mr. BoyLE. The letter to which you refer is both premature and
regrettable. After that letter was sent in late December, the internal deci-
482
sion on whether or not to proceed with a data base and if so, how to
legally proceed with the effort has been discussed at length. It has come
to our attention that as we move from the Florida data base feasibility
study, which we initiated under a cooperative agreement, to actually
beginning what will be a $650,000 procurement of goods and services to
implement this data base proposal, that the appropriate way for us to
proceed under federal procurement laws is to go out publicly and Seek
competitive bids to provide us with that service.
Senator CHILES. I like competitive bidding. That is something we all
talk about, but it seems to me that we do have an agreement here.
AMS doesn't usually enter into legal agreements and then not honor
them, do they?
Mr. BOYLE. No, Sir; we do not. However, in this case I do not believe
that a cooperative agreement was actually agreed upon by AMS policy
officials. Subsequent correspondence between the university and the
agency clearly indicate that the university itself did not view the
December letter as a final decision. I would be happy to share some of
that correspondence with you.
[The information follows:]
483
LETTER FROM JOHN J. VANSICKLE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
- February 8, 1988
J. Patrick Boyle, Administrator
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
South Building
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Mr. Boyle:
I would like to provide you some important facts before you make your final decision
concerning the market news project I have proposed with USDA, AMS. It is my strong belief
that a careful and objective review of our background and qualifications will indicate that our
team is far and above the most suitable and economically viable to direct and conduct this
project. I know you have received conflicting views concerning this project, primarily from
your IRMD Staff (i.e., Mary Ellen Condon) and Bruce Lederer. From the experiences we have
accumulated over the past 2 years of close interaction with your agency, it is our sincere
belief that their motives in this project are not so much related to its approval or eventual
success as they are based on a longstanding bureaucratic rivalry that exists between your
management and commodity divisions.
I think it is important to realize how this project was initiated and some of its history.
I began working with market news in 1983. I developed a program to help disseminate fruit
and vegetable market data collected by the WinterPark, Florida office to agricultural extension
offices and growers throughout Florida. The USDA Science and Education Administration
funded this work through a project with the University of Florida. Shortly thereafter Jim
Toomey (then with your MRD staff) and I wrote project that was funded by AMS in 1984 to
develop a computerized market news service for the produce industry in Florida. We have
successfully developed two viable market news databases to provide a text-oriented data
retrieval system for AMS. reports. One database is available exclusively to our agricultural
research and extension personnel while the other is available to private industry. Rutgers
University and the University of Minnesota have begun using our data and many of our
programs to develop market ini ormation systems in their own states. These programs helped
me to win the Southern Agricultural Economics Association (with more than 1,100 members)
Distinguished Professional Contributions Award and the American Agricultural Economics
Association (with more than 3,000 members) Award for Professional Excellence in 1987. These
awards confirmed the recognition of my peers that the progress we were making was of great
value to the agricultural industry and to your market news service.
A major problem we encountered in the course of these two projects was the
difficulty in selectively retrieving and processing the data contained in market news reports.
We found from our encounters with both private information users in the industry and AMS
market reporters themselves that this was a serious limitatic n to the usefulness and efficiency
of AMS market news services. In August, 1986 we proposed a research project to develop a
sophisticated computerized database for AMS market news reports. We proposed doing this
first for the Fruit and Vegetable Division as a prototype, and if that program proved
successful, then for the other commodity divisions. AMS responded by funding a feasibility
study for creating such a database for all commodity divisions. The rationale was that this
would allow us to evaluate the operating practices of all AMS market news branches and this
would then facilitate the concurrent development of a system most beneficial to all divisions.
In the course of this study we visited more than 20 market news branch and field
offices located throughout the United States and have spent over 150 hours in discussions and
consultation with AMS clerical personnel, market news reporters and market news branch
chiefs. The remaining efforts spent over a 16 month period included assembling a complete
library cf AMS market news reports on electronic media, analyzing data collection and
processing forms collected from the 20 various reporting offices, consulting with computer
equipment manufacturers and database specialists, doing general research, and reviewing and
editing the manuscripts. We made three formal presentations to the functional committee.
The only concerns expressed about the project prior to the final presentation were by IRMD
and related to legal rannifications of public access to government datatases and contractual
issues with regard to EDI and Martin-Marietta.
We completed the feasibility study in November, 1987 with a recommendation that
AMS develop a centralized electronic database market information system. We included an
initial proposal discussing the intentions of our project at that time. Following the final
484
presentation Mr. Lederer expressed complete satisfaction with the quality of our work. The
functional committee subsequently met and despite doubts expressed by Ms. Condon as to our
qualifications to develop and implement the project, endorsed our recommendation, and
encouraged its rapid implementation. In response to Ms. Condon's comments at that meeting,
Mr. Lederer noted that we had included costs in the proposed budget for database consulting
and programming services. He suggested a seminar be held for the functional committee by a
database specialist. On December 24, 1987, we received a notice from Mr. Lederer that "the
Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA plans a Cooperative Agreement with the
University of Florida to obtain the services of you (i.e., me) and Tom Stevens to participate
in the development of a database for our Market News network."
Bruce Lederer selected a consultant, Mr. Gorman, without consulting us. Our impression
of the purpose of his first visit (December 16, 1987) was to talk to the branch chiefs in
general terms about databases. His initial seminar turned out to be a sales promotion for his
company, Whitemarsh Information Systems Corp. Mr. Lederer strongly pressed us to accept
Mr. Gorman as project consultant. We expressed reservations concerning Mr. Gorman for
several reasons. First Mr. Gorman was the only individual Mr. Lederer had interviewed with
respect to this role. We felt it was more prudent to interview at least 3 or 4 recommended
individuals before making a selection. Second, one of Mr. Gorman's references, Mr. Patrick J.
Rice of Peoria Engineering Corp, indicated that Mr. Gorman has personality characteristics
which might create problems for us. He told us, and I quote, "he could be described as a buil
in a china shop". Also, Mr. Gorman's only formal training consists of a degree in education.
Finally, Mr. Gorman openly admitted at his seminar that significant portions of the materiai
he was presenting were in fact not his own and had been plagiarized from other authors.
We proceeded to conduct a search for database consulting services in early January and
interviewed 4 different individuals. The candidates were evaluated on their merits with
respect to the project. We felt Dr.'s Stanley Su and Herman Lam were eminently qualified to
serve this role and they agreed to do so. Dr. Su has kindly donated over 18 hours of his
time to date in consultation with us and to travel to Washington to make a presentation to
the functional committee (January 22, 1988) which you attended. At this meeting numerous
questions and criticisms where presented to myself and Dr. Su. I feel we more than
adequately addressed those concerns at that point in time.
The credentials of Mr. Lederer's consultant should be considered inferior compared to the
staff of people we have in Florida, including me, a winner of 4 national awards in the last 8
years (2 of those directly due to my work in market news), and Stanley Su, the Director of
the Datº base Research and Development Center at the University of Florida. Dr. Su is world
renowned for his work in developing databases.
Some of your staff have kept presenting a moving target of criticism to prevent us from
participating in this project. While we were under the impression that we could begin the
project, Mary Ellen Condon and Bruce Lederer were carefully making negative comments about
our proposal that have confused you (and Ms. Masaro) and made it difficult for you to make a
decision. Most of the questions they have raised have only been brought up while we were
not in attendance. -
I am most amazed by this recent criticism from Mr. Lederer. I think it is interesting that
just prior to these comments he expressed to me a desire to share authorship on the
documentation of the feasibility study. My response was to politely remind him that he had
not contributed anything more than editorial comments in its composition and that he should
have indicated his interest in this regard earlier in the study.
During our numerous interviews with market news personnel it became apparent to us
that there have been many issues on which the commodity and management divisions have
been at odds. I don't propose to completely understand why this is so, but I do feel that it
has in the past and is now working to the detriment of AMS as a whole. It is important to
note that the commodity branch chiefs and their organizations are the people who will be
providing the bulk of the cooperative effort in this project and stand benefit the most from
it. These are the very same individuals who have supported and encouraged us to pursue this
project all along and who continue to do so. -
The bottom line with respect to this project is that nobody can be more qualified to
successfully implement this project than we are. We have worked with market news longer and
accomplished more in this area than anybody outside your market news commodity branches.
The market news branch chiefs have supported us on this project because of the quality of
work we have done in the past. It would be a shame to let someone who has worked out an
485
agreement with a Washington consultant and another from IRMD who has alienated the
commodity market news branch chiefs for prior lack of accountability, to alter our course.
I believe we should initiate negotiations to begin this project immediately. I have not
Seen a counter proposal from AMS concerning our proposal. If there are coſicerns, let's work
those out and Start on Solid ground. I know we have the best and most efficient talent for
this kind of work. I hope you recognize this and embark AMS on a path to give them the
greatest improvement in market news reporting ever. A decision to go with us will assure
that. A different decision leaves many doubts about the future of this program.
Respectfully,
sº- ~. N s.S.). &
John J. VanSickle
Associate Professor
OPINIONS ON COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Senator CHILES. I don't know about that correspondence, but I do
know a little bit about procurement, and I think you have, under basic
procurement, I think you have entered into or signaled your intent to
enter into that agreement.
Do you have a legal opinion from your general counsel that says that
you need to go out and competitively bid on this?
Mr. Boyle. I have received opinions from both procurement and
cooperative agreement experts on this effort. This is not really, Senator,
a policy matter to be resolved. It is a question of legal interpretation of
how federal contracting and cooperative agreements should be used in
different circumstances.
Senator CHILES. Legal interpretation usually gets your legal counsel to
make that interpretation, do you not?
Mr. BOYLE. The general counsel has indicated to us that there is a
problem.
Senator CHILES. Do you have an opinion from your legal counsel that
said you needed to go do this on a competitive basis?
Mr. BOYLE. We do not have a written opinion to that effect, Senator.
Senator CHILES. Have you submitted in writing a request to your
legal counsel as to whether you needed to have a competitive bid?
Mr. Boyle. As a followup to the verbal comments that were received
from both the general counsel's office and our procurement offices
within the Department, we have submitted to our general counsel a re-
quest for a more formal opinion.
Senator CHILES. You have Submitted that in writing?
Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir; we have.
Senator CHILES. Would you give me copies of that correspondence? I
would like to See that.
Mr. BOYLE. I would be pleased to provide that information.
[The information follows:]
Initially, AMS handled the legal question of contracting for the data base by request-
ing clearance from USDA's Office of General Counsel on a proposed response to a let-
ter regarding this matter. During this internal correspondence review, the Office of the
486
General Counsel concurred that the development of a market news data base con-
templates a procurement relationship and that a contract is the appropriate legal instru-
ment.
To further clarify the issues, AMS wrote to the Office of General Counsel and for-
mally requested a written legal opinion on whether a contract or cooperative agreement
was appropriate for this procurement action.
[Both the agency's request and the general counsel's response follow:
487
REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION REGARDING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE VERSUS
- PROCUREMENT
MART 3 1988
W 0: J. Michael Kelly
Associate General Counsel
Legislation, Litigation, Research & Operations
Office of General Counsel cy P
Fron: L. P. Massaro - - 777&AAa2a-
Deputy Administrator, Management
Subject: Request for a Legal Opinion Regarding
Federal Assistance versus Procurement
Under the provisions of Section 203 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), the Agricultural Marketing Service
administers a Market News program whose mission is to collect, analyze,
and disseminate information on the supply, inventory, price, movement, and
related market information for numerous agricultural commodities. The
dissemination of this perishable market information is currently
accomo lished through radio, television, newspapers, tape recorded
aessages, teletype, and printed and ºn 1 led reports.
With the ever increasing utilization of computers and electronic
transmission of data by the agricultural industry. AMS has been attempting
to upgrade its methods of dissemination of market news data. We are
currently utilizing a satel lite based system for the rapid electronic
transmission of market news data between market news field Offices and
headquarters. However, this more rapid transmission in itself has not
completely resolved our concerns for ſmoroving the efficiency of our
dissemination methods. -
As a result of these concerns, the agency, in fiscal year 1986, entered
into a cooperative agreement with the University of Florida to study the
feasibility of develop ing a more efficient and complete market reporting
system. The results of this cooperative effort described the operations
and procedures of each of the segments of the market pews service,
identified common elements, and defined their overall objectives and
information requirements. In addition, an alternative information
dissemination system that would effectively satisfy these requirements was
a ) so ident if ied - namely a database system that would encompass all AMS
market news data in the same format and be accessible by computer. AMS
would like to pursue such a system, however, we are concerned with what
legal instrument - Cooperative agreement or procurement comtract - should
be utilized to implement the proposed database system. The follow tag
ps ragraons provide information in greater detail regarding agency actions
leading up to this point.
The University of Florida was awarded the sum of $30,000.00 in September
1986, under AMS Cooperative Agreement No. 12-25-A-3140 for the purpose of
conducting an analysis of the AMS market news system with a view toward
increased use of computers for data manipulation, including the
possibility of the creation of a database. Several alternatives were to
be explored and described in report form, including estiaated costs for
the implementation of each alternative. The cooperative agreement was to
be effective September 1, 1986, and to be concluded with the submission of
final reports in May 1987. It was later amended to provide $5,000.00 in
additional funding and to extead the term of the aqreement for an
488
additional 7 sonths. The authority for the cooperative agreement used to
fund this study is contained in Section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627, which authorizes assistance in the
conduct of studies designed to bring about a more efficient marketing
$ystem.
The results of the funded project, as presented to AMS, supported a view
that the development and imp legentation of a nationwide AMS Barket fiews
database, available not only to all AMS market news off ſces, but to
certain classes of public and industry users as well, would indeed achieve
increased efficiency in the marketing system. AMS Ranagement decided to
pursue the matter further.
In November 1987, a proposal was received froa the University of Florida
for a project to develop and implement such a system. The proposal
outlined a schedule for such a system containing a database of all AMS
aarket aews information to be implemented at the University, operated by
thea, and accessible to the public. Discussions at that point centered
around a follow-on cooperative agreesent with the University to assist
them in their effort to dissesſ nate agricultural market news.
However, as discussions progressed internally in AMS and with the
University, concern began to surface in AMS regarding the control and data
security involved in such an arrangement, and thinking evolved to the
position that such a systes must be impleteented at AMS Headquarters in
Washington, control led by AMS, with restricted public access. Due to this
evolution in overall intent - from assisting the University in their
efforts to implement their market news database system to an AMS owned and
operated system - much debate has occurred regarding the aethod, or type
of documeat, to be used to achieve isp leſsentation. The University is
request i ng &n a $$ istance document be used to award the project
non-competitively. Numerous AOP vendors have been a lerted to the
potential award and have made numerous inquiries regarding submission of
bids or proposals for the contract. Congressional inquiries have also
been received.
Please examine the attached proposal in regard to the authorities
contained in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621 -1527
and the guidance contained in the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act, and give us your op in inn as to what type of relationship - assistance
or procureſdent - is nost 30 propriate.
489
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION REGARDING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
VERSUS PROCUREMENT
** MAR 1988
TO : L. P. Massa ro
Deputy Administrator, Management
Agricultural Marketing Service

FROM : Kenneth E. Cohen
Assistant General Collnsel
Research and Operations Division
SUBJECT: Request for Legal Opinion Regarding Federal
Assistance versus Procurement
This is in response to your memorandum of March 3, 1988, in
which you request a legal opinion concerning the most
appropriate instrument for use in documenting an arrangement
between the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and a
non-Federal entity for the development of a computerized data
base for market news data . . For the reasons set for th below, it
is my opinion that a contract is the appropriate instrument for
U. S 6 e -
You advise that AMS administers a market news program under the
provisions of section 203 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of l946 (7 U. S. C. l 622 (g)), which provides:
The Secretary of Agriculture is directed and
authorized:
* † ºr ſº ºr
g) To collect and disseminate marketing
information, including adequate outlook
information on a market-area basis, for the
purpose of anticipating and meeting
consumer requirements, aiding in the
maintenance of farm income, and bringing
about a balance between production and
utilization of agricultural products.
The dissemination of information under this program currently
is carried out through a variety of means, including radio,
television, newspaper, tape recorded messages, teletype, and
printed and mailed reports. AMS desires to expand or upgrade
its methods of dissemination by developing a computerized
reporting system. For that reason, AMS and the University of
Florida entered into a cooperative agreement on September 18,
l 986.
According to the terms of the agreement, the purpose of the
a greement was to conduct a "study to aid in the development of
a more efficient and complete USDA market reporting system. "
The study was divided into two phases. These included
analyzing the current system and determining alternative
490
systems. AMS provided $35,000 under the agreement, as amended,
for the cooperator's costs of conducting the study.
The study, which was conducted under the guidance of principal
investigator John J. Van Sickle, resulted in the identification
of a data base system that would encompass all AMS market news
data in the same format, and that would be accessible by
computer by all AMS market news offices, as well as certa in
public and industry users. Consequently, AMS decided to pursue
the matter .
In November 1987, the University of Florida submitted a
proposal to AMS for funding for a project, entitled
"Development of a Computer Market News Information System. "
The proposal referred to the earlier study and noted that the
results "determined a need for developing a computerized market
information system within AMS. " The general objectives of the
proposal were identified as being the improvement of the
services offered to market news users by AMS and the
improvement of the operational efficiency of AMS market news.
The specific objectives were identified as the development of a
reporting format, the development of a computerized data base,
and the implementation of a computerized data base system. The
projected length of the project was three years and the
rojected total cost to AMS was estimated to be approximately
492, 200. The University proposed that it would absorb costs
in the amount of $315,450 in the form of unreimbursed overhead
and the salary of the project coordinator. You advise that the
proposal contemplated that the system would be located at , and
would be operated by, the University of Florida.
By letter, dated December 24, 1987, Bruce E. Lederer, Marketing
Specialist, AMS, notified John Van Sickle, the proposed
principal investigator for the project, that "USDA plans a
cooperative agreement with the University of Florida to obtain
the services of you and Tom Stevens to participate in the
development of a data base for our Market News network."
Subsequently, AMS determined that the system should be located
at AMS facilities in Washington and that it should be operated
by AMS. These decisions were based on concerns about contro
and data security.
In the light of the for egoing, you now request my opinion as to
whether a transaction providing for the implementation of the
system would constitute an assistance relationship or whether
it would constitute an acquisition relationship.
The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of l 977,
31 U.S. C. 6301-6308, requires Federal agencies to examine their
transactions and to distinguish Federal assistance
relationships from Federal procurement relationships. Each
transaction must be analyzed to determine its principal
purpose. Under the criteria set out in the Act, a procurement
relationship exists, and a contract must be used, when the
principal purpose of a transaction between a Federal agency and
a State, a local government, or other recipient is to acquire
property or services for the direct benefit or use of the
Federal government. 31 U. S. C. 63.03.
491
On the other hand, an assistance relationship exists, and a
grant or cooperative agreement must be used, when the principal
purpose of the transaction is to transfer a thing of value to
the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or
stimulation authorized by a law of the United States.
31 U. S. C. 6,304 and 6.305. A cooperative agreement instead of a
grant should be used to document an assistance relationship
when substantial involvement is expected between the agency and
the recipient when carrying out the contemplated activity.
According to the Comptroller General, the "key question is
this : Is the principal purpose to serve the immediate needs of
the federal government, or is it to provide assistance to a
non-federal entity in serving a public purpose?" The Honorable
Jack Brooks, Chairman, Legislation and National Security
Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of
Representatives, Comptroller General Decision B-22 7084. 5,
October 15, 1987, 67 Comp. Gen. , . See Council on
Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality --
Cooperative Agreement with National Academy of Sciences,
Comptroller General Decision B-21881 6, June 2, 1986, 65 Comp.
Gen. W . Civic Action Institute, 6l Comp. Gen.
637 (1982). If the principal purpose is the provision of
assistance, there must be some affirmative legislative
authorization giving an agency the power to donate Government
funds to assist non-Government entities to accomplish their own
purposes. Council on Environmental Quality, supra.
In the present situation, AMS administers a market news
program, consisting of the dissemination of marketing
information. It conducts the program through a variety of
means, but it wants to expand or update its methods. To that
end, it intends to utilize the services of a non-Federal party
to develop a data base for the AMS Market News network and to
implement a computerized system that will be operated by AMS.
Clearly, the services of the non-Federal party are being sought
for the direct benefit or use of the Federal government in the
sense that AMS will use the services to carry out its program
responsibility of disseminating marketing information.
Assuming that the provisions of section 203 of the Agricultural
Marketing Act of l 946 (7 U. S. C. l 622) authorize AMS to provide
or donate Federal funds to a non-Federal recipient to support
or stimulate the recipient's activities in disseminating
marketing news, there appears to be no intention of entering
into such a transaction at the present time.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the proposed transaction
would fall into the category of a procurement relationship and
that a procurement contract would be the appropriate instrument
for use in documenting the transaction. The award and
administ ration of the contract, of course, would be subject to
the Federal acquisition laws and regulations.
492
LEGAL OBLIGATION TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Senator CHILES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to ask
these questions.
Have you asked your legal counsel whether you have another legal
obligation as set forth by the December letter?
Mr. BoyLE. I have not raised that question with the legal counsel. I
have raised it with the University of Florida, in conversations with
them, and the exchange of correspondence between the agency and the
university subsequent to that December letter clearly indicates that the
university knew that the final decision on entering into the cooperative
agreement had not been made. Indeed, the authority to enter into that
cooperative agreement is one that is reserved at levels much higher
within the agency.
Senator CHILES. Well, you know, you all are a big, powerful agency,
and you have agreements that come today and tomorrow and I am sure
you can always say, “Fellows, you know, you are not going to take
this.” But Still, you want to operate your agency in a way that complies.
You say it is regrettable the letter was sent. If that letter triggers some
legal obligations, I would hope that the Department would be ready to
honor those obligations regardless of whether you can get the
University of Florida to let you off the hook or not.
Mr. BoyLE. We will surely honor our legal obligations.
Senator CHILES. Thank you. I want to pursue it further, Mr.
Chairman. I would like to have copies of the correspondence that you
have.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator BURDICK. This ends today's hearing. Additional questions will
be submitted to you from the following Senators: Senators Burdick,
Leahy, Johnston, Cochran, Kasten, Hatfield, McClure, and Harkin.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were sub-
mitted for response for the record:]
493
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
LEAFY SPURGE
Question: We provided $1.5 million for a leafy spurge pilot
project in Fiscal Year 1988. What progress have you made on this
project to date?
Answer: The main emphasis at this time is on the
establishment of biological control agents effective against leafy
spurge. Toward that end, APHIS is establishing agreements with
North Dakota State University (NDSU) and other State and Federal
cooperators to conduct field evaluation of new biological agents.
APHIS has an agreement with the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) to work with the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control (CIBC) to do foreign exploration for new biological
control organisms against leafy spurge. Four such insect species
are now available for further field release. The Department
recently finalized plans with scientists in Yugoslavia to ship
large numbers of these insects to the United States for field
release and to begin laboratory rearing cultures.
APHIS and ARS will screen an estimated 6 to 10 additional
insects and plant pathogens from world-wide sources for secondary
pests and diseases. Since there are endangered plant species that
could be threatened by these organisms, APHIS plans to supply
native plants from the endangered species list to the CIBC
laboratory in Delmont, Switzerland, for the initial screening .
This will greatly expedite the arrival of potential biocontrol
agents to the U. S. for release against leafy spurge. Part of the
ARS quarantine facility in Albany, California, has been
reactivated to aid in this screening. Equipment and personnel
have also been increased at the biocontrol laboratories in
Mission, Texas, and Bozeman, Montana, to complement the work done
in California. Additionally, APHIS, ARS, and NDSU will work
cooperatively to begin mass production of those biocontrol agents
cleared for release in the United States.
The ground work has also begun for the economic evaluation of
leafy spurge and its control options. Funding has also been put
into aerial mapping of leafy spurge infestations.
Question: The limited integrated pest management program for
leafy spurge is at least a five-year program to explore long-term
environmental acceptable solutions to controlling leafy spurge.
What would the costs associated with this program be in years 2-5?
Answer: We anticipate that the costs will be about
$1 million per year.
Question: As you know, the leafy spurge costs considerable
amounts of money to the agricultural industry and the Nation. In
Montana, an estimated $1.4 million is lost from forage production,
and $2.5 million for chemical control. Losses in North Dakota are
estimated to be $7 million through reduced forage and beef
494
production. What are the estimated losses on a National level by
State?
Answer: The estimated losses on a national level are not yet
available although some information has been received from
the five States of Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
Wyoming. This data indicates that the costs of herbicides and
their application are about $35 million. However, these estimates
may be too low. Damages to the native wildlife population due to
leafy spurge infestation reducing the available food sources is
not yet known. An economic evaluation is being conducted as part
of the Integrated Pest Management project and this information
should be available by the end of calendar year 1988.
BOLL WEEVIL
Question: How have you allocated the $12,079,000 for Fiscal
Year 1988 among the High Plains control program and the Southeast
and Southwest eradication programs?
Answer: In Fiscal Year 1988, the boll weevil availability of
$12,079,000 was allocated as follows:
High Plains Control $684,000
Southeast Eradication 8,881,000
Southwest Eradication 2, 514,000
Total Available $12,079,000
Question: The budget proposes to cutback almost all of the
funding for these programs. How can you expect cooperators to pay
the entire cost of the eradication programs, when it has not been
done under the eradication programs to date?
Answer: Recent studies have clearly defined the economic
benefits to growers following weevil eradication. These studies
indicate that it would be to the growers' advantage to continue
the eradication program, even without Federal assistance. In a
relatively short period of time growers will recoup their
eradication costs through increased cotton yields, increased
cotton quality, and reduced pesticide costs.
In the Southeast the original program goal has been achieved .
The program eradicated the boll weevil to the buffer zone on the
South Carolina-Georgia border. APHIS has contributed much of the
equipment, technology, and expertise necessary to successfully
complete the Southeast program. The cooperators should now be
able to assume responsibility for completing the eradication
effort.
In the Southwest the program will have made substantial
progress in eliminating boll weevil from the eradication area by
the end of FY 1988. Program cooperators now have the necessary
equipment, technology, and expertise to complete the eradication
program and maintain an adequate buffer zone and monitor
eradication areas against reinfestation.
495
Question: What would be the cost of continuing the
eradication programs in the Southeast and Southwest and the
control program in the High Plains?
Answer: For Fiscal Year 1989, the total funding needed to
continue the current level of APHIS participation in the boll
weevil programs would be approximately $9,677,000. Based on
current cotton acreages these funds would be divided among the
following programs:
High Plains Control $722,000
Southeast Eradication 5,785,000
Southwest Eradication 3, 170,000
Total Available $9,677,000
MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY
Question: The budget proposal does not request an increase
for the Mediterranean fruit fly project. What is the status of
the CAPMED project?
Answer: APHIS continues to support the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which has taken the lead
role in coordinating this project. A project document covering
the initial, 2-year preparatory phase of the CAPMED project was
prepared in April 1987. Major activities under the preparatory
phase would include collection of baseline technical data,
training of field personnel, establishment of a regional
quarantine system, construction of a sterile fly rearing facility
in Honduras, and partial construction of two other sterile fly
rearing facilities. The estimated cost of the preparatory phase
is $31 million and it is part of the overall 8-year $350 million
CAPMED proposal.
In addition, discussions are continuing with the U. S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), FAO, and other
organizations in regard to environmental, economic, and funding
aspects of the project .
Question: Has any work been done on this proposal?
Answer: As directed by the Congress, APHIS has continued to
support the CAPMED initiative. The Agency has been active in
discussions with international organizations including FAO, the
U. S. Agency for International Development, the countries of
Central America and Panama, and potential do nor countries and
organizations, on all aspects of this proposed project •
Preliminary planning activities have or are currently addressing
environmental, economic, technical, social, and funding aspects of
CAPMED. During FY 1987, a Medfly distribution survey for El
Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama was
completed by FAO, and a project document covering the initial
phase of CAPMED was produced.
496
Question: Have environmental assessments for the CAPMED
project been conducted?
Answer: An environmental assessment for the proposed CAPMED
project has not yet been carried out. APHIS is working closely
with USAID to develop an acceptable approach for assessing the
environmental impact of the project.
Question: Does the budget request contemplate moving the
border further south in Guatemala, or is the proposal simply to
maintain the current barrier?
Answer: The goal of the Medfly program in Guatemala, known
as the Moscamed program, is to eradicate the Medfly from that
country. To accomplish this, the barrier zone must be moved
progressively southward from its current location about 50
kilometers inside Guatemala from the Mexico border. An
environmental assessment is currently being carried out for the
Moscamed program and, in accordance with the direction of the
Congress, the barrier zone is not being expanded until this
assessment has been completed and reviewed by the appropriate
Congressional committees. The requested funding contemplates
southward movement of the barrier after this review.
Question: What is the cost to APHIS of maintaining the
Medfly barrier at the Mexico-Guatemala border?
Answer: The annual cost to APHIS of maintaining the Medfly
barrier effort is approximately $6.6 million. This does not
include domestic surveillance activities in citrus producing
regions of the United States, methods development activities, and
program direction and support costs.
AFRICANIZED HONEY BEE
Question: The budget contains a request of $1,950,000 for
the Africanized honey bee program. What is the goal of this
program?
Answer: The goal of the Africanized Honey Bee (AHB) program
is to control the northward migration of the AHB and prevent its
establishment in the United States. USDA is cooperating with
Mexico to maintain a "bee regulated zone" near the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec in Mexico.
Under the program, which is jointly funded, Mexico is
responsible for performing educational and training activities,
establishing and maintaining a taxonomic laboratory, enforcing
quarantine regulations, and conducting field activities. USDA
provides technical equipment and assistance, and coordinates
research activities.
Question: What guarantees do we have that the program will
keep the bees out of the United States?
Answer: Because the control program was initiated only 6
497
month ago, it is still too early to assess the effectiveness of
the overall program. However, APHIS believes that the program has
a high probability of successfully preventing the northward
migration of the AHB for at least 5 to 10 years. At a minimum,
the zone would provide time for researchers to develop new
management technologies, genetic variations, and other
methodologies that would minimize the impact of the AHB should it
ever reach the United States. The bee regulated zone also
protects nearly 50 percent of the beekeeping industry in Mexico,
and allows that country to concentrate research and extension
activities in the infested areas south of the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec in Mexico.
Question: What are the 10 ng-term costs -- for the next 10
years -- of carrying out this program?
Answer: We estimate that the overall program will cost
$3.9 million in FY 1989, and that approximately $3.6 million will
be required annually for FY 1990 and beyond. These cost estimates
include related Agricultural Research Service (ARS) activities.
Under the cooperative agreement with Mexico, the USDA and the
Government of Mexico jointly fund the program. Program costs are
shared equally for all activities in the "bee regulated zone."
Either party may contribute other funds or equipment for joint
activities outside of the bee regulated zone.
Question: What direction will the program take over that
period of time?
Answer: Under the program, APHIS and the Government of
Mexico will maintain a "bee regulated zone" using a number of
complementary AHB control strategies such as pheromone baited
traps, certification of managed European honey bee colonies, and
use of hives with simulated queenlessness to attract and kill AHB
SW3 ITIn S a
Question: A recent article in the New York Times, suggested
that these bees would pose a minor public health threat but a
potentially significant threat to agriculture.
In your view, what is the magnitude of the threat posed by
the migration of the Africanized honey bee to the United States --
both in terms of public health and agricultural losses?
Answer: We believe that the AHB would have serious negative
impacts on the U. S. beekeeping industry, the production of crops
dependent upon bee pollination, and honey production. Crops which
directly benefit from European honey bee pollination are valued at
approximately $20 billion per year. The European honey bee also
produces honey which is valued at $200 million annually, 40
percent of which is produced from hives managed by 250,000 amateur
beekeepers. It is estimated that honey production would initially
drop by approximately 80 percent or $120 million. Crop
pollination would be reduced by more than 5 percent or $1.2
billion per year. A decline in the number of amateur beekeepers
could also be expected.
498
From a public health standpoint, APHIS believes that the
potential for increased stinging incidents exists in regions of
the United States where the AHB could become established .
However, we are not in a position to assess the seriousness of the
effect on public health.
WARROA MITE
Question: The Warroa mite has received considerable
attention in the news recently because it has been found in this
country in at least 11 States. If left unchecked, the mite
invasion could cause serious economic damage to the honey industry
and the many fruit and vegetable crops that rely on bees for
pollination. What is your assessment of the magnitude of this
problem?
Answer: The Varro a mite is considered to be the worst pest
affecting the domesticated honey bee. The mite could cause
serious economic damage if allowed to become established in the
United States. We are currently beginning a national detection
survey in cooperation with the States to determine the magnitude
of the Varro a mite infestation.
Question: How many States is it in and what will the
consequences be?
Answer: The Warro a mite has been detected in 12 States:
Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, Maine, Michigan,
Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and
Washington. The States, the honey bee industry, and the Federal
Government are working together to minimize consequences of the
Varroa mite infestations on agriculture. So far, five of these
States have depopulated all of the honey bee colonies known to be
infested within their borders. The Agricultural Research Service
has developed and recommended a chemical treatment to control
Varro a mite. APHIS is establishing a quarantine to restrict the
movement of honey bees and equipment from infested States. We
will continue to work with the honey bee industry and affected
State governments to surmount the Varro a mite infestations quickly
and avoid excessive losses.
Question: Have you developed a Federal quarantine plan for
dealing with this problem? If so, please describe your Agency's
proposed plan.
Answer: We are developing a Federal quarantine plan for
Varroa mite which we hope will be in effect by late March. The
quarantine will cover only those States known to be infested with
Varroa mite and will restrict the interstate movement of honey
bees and associated equipment that could spread the mite. The
regulations will be primarily enforced by the States with
oversight by APHIS.
Question: Have you requested funds to carry out such a plan,
either as a line item or using contingency funds?
499
Answer: We are examining various funding sources to cover
the national detection survey for Varro a mite. The Federal share
of the cost of promulgating interstate movement regulations and
assisting the States with enforcement efforts will be absorbed
within available appropriated funds.
Question: Do you agree that a Federal quarantine plan to
deal with this dangerous pest is necessary and of high priority?
Answer: We do agree that a Federal quarantine plan is
necessary to deal with the Varro a mite and we are pursuing that
goal aggressively. Regulations should be in place by late March.
Question: What type of resources would be necessary to carry
out such a program?
Answer: We estimate the cost of carrying out the Varro a mite
quarantine will be between $150–$300 thousand. Funding will
include State cooperative agreements and personnel costs.
Treatment will be provided by beekeepers and will be supervised by
APHIS personnel. The cost of the Federal quarantine will be
contingent upon the results of the national detection survey.
Costs could increase if more infested States are found and placed
under quarantine . Likewise, costs could decrease if the survey
indicates that all Varro a mite infestations have been eliminated
within a State. At that time, the Federal quarantine in that
State could be lifted and interstate movement of honey bees and
equipment could continue .
GRASSHOPPER
Question: I am particularly concerned about the grasshopper
program being carried out by APHIS as it is contained in the
Fiscal Year 1989 request. You propose reducing the funds
available from $10.7 million to $3.3 million. You claim to
realize the extent of damage that grasshoppers cause and the loss
inflicted upon agriculture and, yet, you continually propose to
underfund the program. Your budget states that no funds will be
provided for control activities in Fiscal Year 1989 and that the
Integrated Pest Management program will be performed at a reduced
level. The Integrated Pest Management program proposal is
designed to come up with new methods for controlling the
grasshopper, including the use of biocontrol, so that we can
finally get this problem in hand; however, until we come up with
those methods, we cannot eliminate our control work. What are
your projections at this time for the need for grasshopper control
for fiscal year 1988?
Answer: Estimates of grasshopper infestations for a given
year are subject to wide variation due to the influence of spring
weather conditions. APHIS tentatively estimates that in FY 1988
approximately 2.8 million acres will require treatment in 17
Western States .
500
Question: Do you have any reason to expect that there would
be no control needed in Fiscal Year 1989?
Answer: There will likely be a need for some control work in
FY 1989. Any infestations on Federal lands will be handled
through the reimbursement mechanism with the Department of the
Interior or with funds carried over in the no-year control fund.
Further, the intensive control measures of recent years have
resulted in large reductions in grasshopper populations. This
should reduce the level of control needed and will enable States
and ranchers to assume a greater share of the costs that do
3 T 3 Se e
Question: We are now in the second year of the IPM project
being carried out in Idaho and North Dakota. What progress can
you report to date from this project?
Answer: Integrated Pest Management project field activities
were initiated in the spring of 1987 to coincide with the spring
grasshopper hatch. Activities included testing improved survey
methodologies and data analysis techniques to better predict the
need for and timing of treatment; development of methodologies for
integrating biological and chemical control methods with range
management practices; and assessing environmental impacts.
The project was only carried out at one of the two
demonstration sites -- McKenzie County, North Dakota -- due to low
grasshopper populations at the Idaho demonstration site located in
the Bureau of Land Management's Boise, Idaho, district.
Question: What level of funding does your budget request for
Fiscal Year 1989 for the IPM project?
Answer: The IPM project would have a funding level of
approximately $2.1 million in FY 1989.
PSEUDORABIES
Question: How is APHIS using the $2.4 million appropriated
for pseudorabies control in Fiscal Year 1988?
Answer: During FY 1988 pseudorabies activities will reflect
a transition from the five-State pilot project to cleanup programs
in additional States following the principles of the approved
Pseudorabies Uniform Methods and Rules (UM&R). Specific
activities we plan to undertake include the following:
-- maintain progress achieved in pseudorabies control efforts
undertaken through cooperative agreements in pilot project
areas, and expand efforts to additional qualifying States as
resources permit; w
-- continue to evaluate new vaccines and tests designed to
distinguish between serologic response to vaccination and
pseudorabies field virus infection. Considerable interaction
with the Pseudorabies Technical Advisory Committee is
anticipated;
501
-- continue to work with the United States Animal Health
Association and the swine industry to finalize a National
Pseudorabies Uniform Methods and Rules (UM&R);
-- amend Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as appropriate, to
support the final United States Animal Health Association and
APHIS approved Pseudorabies UM&R;
-- provide support for studies to identify procedures for cleanup
of large herds and feral (wild) swine populations;
-- select candidates for graduate studies in swine diseases, in
addition to two trainees selected previously;
-- conduct one training program for personnel who will be involved
in pseudorabies field activities;
-- evaluate and encourage the development of swine identification
systems which will effectively support surveillance based on
serum collection at slaughter establishments;
-- complete development and begin implementation of a national
pseudorabies reporting system.
Question: How many States are involved in the program?
Answer: Nineteen States are currently receiving Federal
funds in support of local pseudorabies control/eradication
programs.
Question: What are the results expected this year?
Answer: A national reporting system enabling monitoring and
evaluation of State programs will become operable. Also, within
the cooperating States, increased control and eradication
activities such as improved surveillance, together with more rapid
diagnosis and quarantine of infected premises and initiation of
herd cleanup plans, are expected to initially result in the
identification of increased numbers of infected herds. After this
initial identification period, the incidence of reports on
infected herds is expected to decrease as control and eradication
activities are implemented .
Question: In order to maintain and carry out the program on
a national level, what would the funding requirements be for
Fiscal Year 1989 and the next five years?
Answer: APHIS is proposing that the States and industry
fund the program. The National Pork Producers Council estimates
the total funding requirements for a nationwide program in Fiscal
Years 1989 through 1994 to be as follows:
Fiscal Years: 1989 1990 I-991 1992 1993 1994
($ millions) 8.0 14.6 21.8 27.3 36. 3 27.3
Question: What control methods are being used?
Answer: The control methods being used are as follows:
502
-- surveillance of swine populations, especially sows and boars at
markets, slaughter establishments, and on farms;
-- cleanup of infected herds by depopulation, segregation, and/or
disinfection of premises;
-- enforcement of quarantines to restrict movement of infected
swine, thereby protecting no ninfected premises;
-- enforcement of laws and regulations designed to prevent the
movement of infected animals;
-- conduct of a public information campaign to promote awareness
of the disease and effective methods of control.
REDIRECTION OF FUNDS
Question: Please provide for the Committee all of the funds
redirected in 1986 and 1987, including the amount redirected, the
programs from which the money came, and the programs to which the
money was directed.
Answer: The FY 1986 redirections were as follows:
Amount
Redirected
Plant Protection and Quarantine
Agricultural quarantine inspection +$3,300,000
Imported fire ant –2, 225,000
Miscellaneous plant pests –475,000
Pink bollworm –600,000
O
Veterinary Services. -
Animal health compliance and enforcement +$1,000,000
Brucello sis -1,950,000
Miscellaneous animal diseases –500,000
Pseudorabies –550,000
Animal welfare +1, 200,000
Sub to tal –800,000
Animal Damage Control Sub total +800,000
Total $ O
The FY 1987 redirections were as follows:
Amount
Redirected
Plant Protection and Quarantine
Agricultural quarantine inspection +$2,500,000
Imported fire ant –2, 392,000
Mediterranean fruit fly +607, 000
Miscellaneous plant pests –240,000
Pink bollworm –475,000
Sub to tal
$ O
• 503
Veterinary Services
Animal health compliance and enforcement +$1,200,000
Brucello sis –2, 788,000
Foot-and-mouth disease +488,000
Veterinary biologics –500,000
Veterinary diagnostics +1,600,000
Sub to tal $ O
Total $ O
Question: Do you anticipate any redirections for Fiscal Year
1988?
Answer: Yes, we do anticipate making some redirections for
fiscal year 1988.
Question: If so, what are they?
Answer: We have not yet determined specific needs or sources
for redirections.
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
Question: For 1988, Congress appropriated $24,419,000 for
the Animal Damage Control program. This figure was derived by
taking the base program and adding to that the Congressional
directives contained in the Continuing Resolution. The base
program figure that was used was provided by your Agency. Now, it
has come to my attention that you have redirected money from the
Predator Control program, predominantly in the Western States, to
other research programs. Some people are saying that the decrease
in the Predator Control program comes as a result of funding the
Congressional Directives. I hope that your Agency is not
perpetuating that myth. Are you?
Answer: APHIS appreciates the support of the Congress and
very definitely acknowledges that Congress has provided full
funding for all Congressional directives. The predator control
program in the Western States received less funds in FY 1988 than
in FY 1987 because the Agency made an internal decision to devote
additional funds to a number of other program areas. There is a
need in the other program areas to correct certain deficiencies
that threaten USDA's ability to operate the Animal Damage Control
program.
Question: Given the fact that you only requested a little
over $12 million for Fiscal Year 1988, and Congress provided over
twice that amount, why are you taking funds out of the predator
control program?
Answer: Reductions in the level of traditional predator
control activities were necessary so that APHIS could meet the
program's most critical needs. Principal among these areas are
upgrading the Denver Wildlife Research Center; creating a pool
504
of supervisory personnel; and purchasing new field equipment and
vehicles. Among the Federal responsibilities in animal damage
control are development and maintenance of pesticide registrations
and the provision of practical technology to the nation's
agricultural producers. In order to fulfill this responsibility,
improvements in the Denver facility are critical. To begin
correcting existing deficiencies, we are implementing a
modernization plan which includes purchasing equipment, renovating
the structure, and hiring or reassigning technical personnel to
meet pesticide registration and research and development needs.
The Agency has also taken steps to ensure that a pool of
qualified, highly trained supervisors be available in the future.
Animal Damage Control field operations require the use of
specialized equipment and supplies such as vehicles, traps, and
snares. Inventories have not been restocked in the last few years
and aging vehicles are in frequent need of repair. We have begun
to improve these inventories. APHIS is carefully reviewing the
Animal Damage Control funding situation so as to minimize any
adverse impact on program operations. We believe our approach is
forward-looking and necessary for the long-term effectiveness of
the program.
Question: If you saw a need for increased research funds,
why didn't you request them in your budget for Fiscal Year 1988?
Answer: The program had just recently been transferred from
the Fish and Wildlife Service when we developed our Fiscal Year
1988 budget. After a careful analysis of our research program,
and an audit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it
became apparent that steps had to be taken to bring the program
into compliance with the Good Laboratory Practices of EPA's
and with the Animal Welfare Act.
Question: It seems to me that the Agency should not be
redirecting funds that Congress intended to be spent on a
continuing levels as in past years.
What can you do to bring the predator control program back up
to the funding level in order to maintain the Fiscal Year 1987
program?
Answer: In FY 1988, APHIS must begin upgrading the Denver
Wildlife Research Center and purchasing new field equipment and
vehicles to support field operations. Failure to meet these high
priority needs would cause the loss of the basic tools necessary
for predator control. Past neglect of these needs has compounded
their effect and they must be addressed so that the program is
conducted on a sound basis, both technically and legally.
Therefore, the Agency will not be able to maintain the FY 1987
funding level for the predator control program while funds are
used for these needs .
Question: For Fiscal Years 1987, 1988, and under Fiscal Year
1989 budget, please provide the following information:
The amount of money spent on blackbird control;
505
Answer: In FY 1987, we spent $484, 290 on blackbird programs
in the Eastern Region and $754, 213 in the Western Region. In FY
1988, we plan to spend approximately $579,000 in the Eastern
Region and approximately $638,000 in the Western Region. Funding
in FY 1989 should remain at about the same level.
Question: The amount of money spent on blackbird research;
Answer: Animal Damage Control spent $1.2 million on
blackbird research in Fiscal Year 1987, and plans to spend
approximately $1.4 million in Fiscal Year 1988 and approximately
the same amount in Fiscal Year 1989. All research work is
conducted through our Denver Wildlife Research Center and
cooperators .
Question: The amount of money spent for predator control, by
type of predator;
Answer: In FY 1987, we spent $332,950 on predator control in
the Eastern Region and $10,541,000 in the Western Region. In FY
1988, we plan to spend approximately $355,000 in the Eastern
Region and $10,069,000 in the Western Region for this activity.
In FY 1989, predator control operations should remain at
approximately the current level, assuming cooperators cover the
cost of control programs on non-Federal land. We do not maintain
predator control funding information by type of predator.
Question: The amount of money spent on other types of
research, indicating the specific research involved;
Answer: In addition to blackbird research, the Denver
Wildlife Research Center conducts studies on animal damage
problems caused by other species of birds, predators, and
non-predatory mammals. These activities include research
associated with: mountain beaver damage in the Pacific Northwest
forests; deer damage in the Northeast ; cormorant damage to
aquaculture and other problems in the Delta States; rat damage
control in Hawaii; and taste aversion research. We also develop
data which support the continued maintenance of currently
registered pesticides for controlling predator damage to livestock
and rodent damage to a variety of crops. In addition, we are
conducting studies aimed at developing new control tools and
improving and expanding uses of existing control tools such as
repellants, attractants, and toxicants for controlling bird and
mammal damage. In Fiscal Year 1987, we spent $3.7 million on
these activities. We plan to spend $3.6 million in Fiscal Year
1988, and approximately the same amount in Fiscal Year 1989.
Question: The amount of money spent for each of the
congressional directives contained in the House, Senate, and
Conference Reports for Fiscal Year 1988. Please break these
amounts down for the Eastern and Western regions •
Answer: The information follows:
506
Directive Total Amount Western Region Eastern Region
Guarding dog $200,000 $155,000 $45,000
programs
Blackbird pilot 200,000 200,000 O
project in
flyway
High priority 489,000 301,000 188,000
equipment
Grackle control 300,000 300,000 O
in Texas
Beaver damage 100,000 O 100,000
in Wisconsin
Sapline damage 40,000 O 40,000
in Vermont
Predator control 100,000 100,000 O
in Montana
$1,429,000 $1,056,000 $373,000
Other Congressionally directed projects are conducted through
the Denver Wildlife Research Center and cooperators. They include
taste aversion, rat control in Hawaii, grackle/blackbird/starling
research, mountain beaver research in Washington State, deer
damage research in the northeast, nuisance animal research in the
delta states, and upgrading the Denver Wildlife Research Center to
comply with Good Laboratory Practices of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Animal Welfare Act. The ADC
Environmental Impact Statement will be funded from a headquarters
aCCO unt e
Question: Please also provide an allocation of Animal Damage
Control funds for each State for Fiscal Years 1987, 1988, and
under the budget of Fiscal Year 1989.
Answer: The information follows:
FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989
Alabama - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $46,945 $46,000 $38,000
Alaska - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 84, 509 45,000 14,000
Arizona - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 436,342 400,000 135,000
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222,322 229,000 178,000
California. . . . . . . . . . . 1, 293, 181 1, 125,000 340,000
Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 504, 277 5,497,000 4,305,000
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 22, 237 22,000 18,000
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,495 24,000 20,000
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205,603 203,000 165,000
507
Georgia • - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hawaii - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Idaho - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,
Illinois - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Indiana - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Iowa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kansas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kentucky - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Louisiana - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maine - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,
Massachusetts . . . . . . . .
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . .
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Montana - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Hampshire . . . . . . . .
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . .
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . 1,
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North Carolina . . . . . . .
North Dakota . . . . . . . . .
Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oklahoma - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oregon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . .
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . .
South Carolina. . . . . . .
South Dakota . . . . . . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . .
Texas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,
Utah - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,
Vermont • - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Virginia • . . . . . . . . . . . .
Washington . . . . . . . . . . .
Washington, DC. . . . . . .
West Virginia . . . . . . . .
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wyoming - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To tal $22,
Question:
Western predator control?
Answer:
FY 1987
69, 817
66, 298
059,425
109,472
140, 586
23,963
311, 106
336,530
184,091
64, 046
274,205
22, 237
85,973
469,314
96,911
53, 169
725,450
234, 361
574,950
55,072
65, 670
020, 111
88,037
70,701
477,666
357,927
351, 112
864,054
129,422
18, 766
60,538
363, 145
160, 148
214,968
148, 371
44, 102
71, 793
563,798
547, 225
65,059
144,039
825,824
449,363
FY 1988
69,000
270,000
1,016,000
108,000
139,000
24,000
300,000
331,000
192,000
67,000
2, 253,000
22,000
80,000
461,000
334,000
52,000
813,000
230,000
530,000
54,000
65,000
937,000
87,000
70,000
469,000
352,000
354,000
850, 000
256,000
19,000
62,000
327,000
161,000
2,035,000
1,029,000
84,000
75,000
579,000
555,000
64,000
241,000
812,000
$24,419,000
FY 1989
56,000
207,000
597,000
88,000
113,000
20,000
26,000
270,000
171,000
52,000
838,000
18,000
77,000
326,000
287,000
42,000
198,000
30,000
426,000
44,000
53,000
312,000
71,000
65,000
155,000
288,000
249,000
249,000
209,000
15,000
48,000
20,000
160,000
213,000
608,000
68,000
58,000
206,000
276,000
53,000
197,000
328,000
$13,000,000
What kind of research is being done that will help
The current program emphasizes maintenance of
pesticide registrations and improvement of existing predator
control tools used by animal damage control specialists and
ranchers.
Substantial effort is devoted to improving the
efficiency and utility of the M-44 sodium cyanide ejector, to
supplying data required by the Environmental Protection Agency to
508
maintain the Federal registration of the livestock protection
collar, and to developing effective baiting techniques control.
Field work on multiple stimulus coyote frightening devices has
been completed and the Animal Damage Control program has
advertised the availability of this technology to potential
manufacturers. Additional work is underway to develop improved
coyote attractants for use with control devices, to develop test
standards and improve designs for coyote snares, and to evaluate
the effectiveness of winter aerial hunting in remote mountainous
grazing areas for reducing spring and summer coyote predation on
sheep.
Question: What is the progress on compound 1080 single dose
baits?
Answer: Several actions, including rehabilitation of the
Denver Wildlife research Center chemistry laboratories and hiring
staff for chemical registration research, are underway to enable
studies to proceed that would support registration of 1080 and
other toxicants. These studies would involve field trials that
would require Experimental Use Permits from the Environmental
Protection Agency. In addition, we are examining way to increase
the 1ikelihood that coyotes will take 1080 baits and reduce
bait-take by birds and other nontarget wildlife. Research
indicates that compound 1080 single dose baits have the potential
to become an important addition to currently available control
tools.
Question: Do you have any estimate of the impact of EPA's
endangered species labeling program on ADC2
Answer: The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
regulations would require additional data gathering and analysis
to ensure continued registration of control tools which could
impact endangered species. USDA is reviewing the proposed rules
with the Environmental Protection Agency in hopes of developing a
revised proposal which would meet the needs of both USDA and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Question: Have you selected members of your advisory
committee? When will they meet?
Answer: We have approved a final list of candidates for the
advisory committee which is now pending Departmental approval.
Letters of appointment are currently being prepared and we have
tried to ensure that the committee members represent the broadest
possible cross-section of those groups with an interest in the
Animal Damage Control program. The first meeting of this advisory
committee will be near the end of the fiscal year.
Question: What is the APHIS position on reintroduction of
wolves?
Answer: APHIS does not have a position on the reintroduction
of wolves; however, we are concerned that reintroduced wolves may
not stay within their anticipated range, and could present a
threat to livestock.
509
Question: Do you have statistics on the amount of damage
caused by blackbirds to the various crops? Please provide these
statistics to the committee .
Answer: Yes, . we do. Nationwide, blackbirds and starlings
cause annual losses of approximately $80 million by feeding on
agricultural crops and livestock feed. Blackbirds also cause
significant economic damage to rice and sunflower crops. In North
Dakota alone, blackbirds cause an estimated $6.5 million in damage
to that State's sunflower crop.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN
PSEUDORABIES
Question: I see that the budget request for Pseudorabies
program has been cut from $2.4 million to only $1 million. Could
you provide the detailed reasons for this reduction?
Answer: The success of the pilot projects has been
instrumental in gaining State and producer enthusiasm for a
nationwide eradication program. Because area control is possible
and because of the need to reduce Federal spending, we are
proposing that the States and industry provide most of the funding
for this program.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHNSTON
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
Question: Since the Animal Damage Control program was
transferred from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the Department
of Agriculture in 1986, funding has steadily declined for the ADC
budget in Louisiana . I am seriously concerned about this trend
and the impact it is having on efforts I helped get underway in
1979 to strengthen the ADC program designed to mitigate the
millions of dollars of damage caused to agriculture, particularly
the production of rice and crawfish, in Louisiana as well as to
the increased possibility that dangerous collisions between
aircraft and wildlife could occur near airports if efforts
underway to control this danger are decreased.
In FY 1985, when the ADC program was still under the
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the total budget
for Louisiana was $187,000. In FY 1986, the first year of USDA
jurisdiction, the Louisiana allocation was initially set at
$215,000; however, this amount was never made available and the
actual budget was significantly less. In FY 1987, the actual
Louisiana allocation was $161,900 because of mid-year budget cuts.
And in FY 1988, the Louisiana allocation will actually be just
over $144,000 when the $30,000 for training of an employee
scheduled to be transferred to a western state is taken into
account. Over this four year period, then, the meager budget
Louisiana ADC program receives has been reduced by over $40,000,
83–470 O - 88 – 17
510
or by over 20 percent. In addition, in FY 1988 about $190,000
originally anticipated for the Eastern Region for purchases of
needed equipment has been transferred to the Western Region to
make up for deficit spending in the West. Needed equipment and
material purchases for the Louisiana program have thus been
indefinitely postponed. These are not low priority items. I am
told that it is now unclear whether sufficient materials can be
purchased to meet farmers needs to enable them to participate in
the 1988 program in light of the transfer.
I am seriously concerned about this matter, and to determine
what actions I need to take to try and alleviate this serious
situation, I would appreciate receiving a written answer to each
of the following questions.
The Conference Report on the FY 1988 Agriculture
Appropriations chapter of the Continuing Resolution states in part
that "The conferees will expect the Department to give increased
emphasis to its research on developing environmentally acceptable
toxicants or repellants to assist in minimizing the economic loss
created by blackbirds, starlings, and grackles in rice, sunflowers
and other crops, and included in the total is funding to continue
the blackbird pilot project."
There appears to be some confusion about what this blackbird
pilot project is . In the 1979 Interior appropriations bill, I
offered an amendment to begin a program, to be funded at $300,000
annually, for blackbird mitigation at Stuttgart, Arkansas and
Crowley, Louisiana. a. Is this the project the Department
considers the conference report language referring to in its
interpretation? If it is not, what is the basis for the
Department's position?
Answer: The Department considers the ongoing effort to
reduce the blackbird damage to sunflowers in North Dakota to be
the project referred to in the Conference Report. We have drawn
this conclusion from the language of the Fiscal Year 1986 Urgent
Supplemental Appropriation Bill, which directed APHIS "to make
available an additional $200,000 to the Animal Damage Control
Program from within available funds to carry out a pilot program
which would expedite the movement of migratory blackbirds
throughout the sunflower growing region." We have conducted the
project in North Dakota since Fiscal Year 1986, as directed in
discussions with Congress.
In addition, APHIS is continuing with its ongoing research
program to develop environmentally safe toxicants and repellents
for blackbirds, starlings, and grackles that damage rice as well
as sunflowers. The major objective of this program is to provide
scientific information for the registration of an effective roost
toxicant. We have submitted an experimental use permit
application to the Environmental Protection Agency to field test
the roost toxicant CPT at field sites in the Mid south as well as
northern sunflower growing regions. Although these field tests
will not be conducted in rice growing areas, the field tests are
aimed at developing a control tool broadly use able for protecting
rice, sunflowers, and other crops, and for reducing nuisance roost
problems. This winter, we conducted an Arkansas-based field
511
application of toxicant chemical formula which would contain a
toxicant during an actual field trial. The purpose was to review
methods for evaluating the effectiveness and potential hazard of
such a control tool. We are currently testing other control
approaches to reduce bird damage to rice. They include testing of
a lethal bait in Louisiana which is designed to reduce local bird
populations which damage sprouting rice and a nontoxic seed coat
repellent for rice.
Question: The Senate Appropriation Committee report
accompanying the FY 1988 Agriculture Appropriations bill
stipulated that APHIS should maintain full funding for the ADC
Louisiana State Office. However, the actual operating budget for
FY 1988 in Louisiana is $144,485 when the $30,000 for training of
a temporary trainee scheduled to be transferred to a western state
is subtracted from the allocation of $174,584. This is
considerably less than the FY 1987 allocation of $161,900 and even
less when the $190,000 of equipment funds transferred from the
Eastern Region to the Western Region is taken into account.
What steps is APHIS now taking to correct this deficiency so
that full funding will be on line for the Louisiana program before
the fiscal year ends, consistent with the Senate directive?
Answer: We plan to bring the Louisiana State program up to
full funding by filling the two positions that were lost through
attrition in FY 1987. We will increase the State's allocation to
cover the cost of these new employees. One of these employees
will go to the District office in Crowley and the other, who was
originally intended to be stationed at the same office, will go to
MerRouge, Louisiana to establish a new ADC sub station at the
Louisiana State University Rice Research Station.
Question: Since the transfer of the ADC program from
Interior to Agriculture in 1986, I have received a number of
reports that the Fish and Wildlife Service is not cooperating
fully with ADC biologists who request that limited-kill permits be
issued to catfish, crawfish, and baitfish producers who fail to
control bird-caused losses at their ponds using conventional
nonlethal methods. Apparently, biologists did not have this
problem while the overall program was under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior.
What do your perceive as the problem, and what have you done
to rectify the situation?
Answer: To the best of our knowledge, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has issued migratory bird depredation permits to all
aquaculture producers in Louisiana who have requested this
authority. Any delay in this process may have resulted from an
unclear distinction between the roles of APHIS and the FWS when
dealing with migratory birds. In response, we held a February 17
meeting with FWS' regional law enforcement personnel to clarify
our respective roles. We agreed that APHIS is responsible for
providing control recommendations to minimize depredations or
other damage caused by migratory birds. We also agreed that it is
Fish and Wildlife Service's responsibility to issue limited kill
permits and that the Service may solicit from APHIS technical
512
information relating to available damage control techniques and
methods. We will continue to work closely with FWS and producers
in providing assistance in the resolution of migratory bird
depredation problems.
Question: I and other members of the Louisiana delegation
have received a number of requests for establishing an ADC office
in north Louisiana. Both ADC offices in Louisiana are now located
in the southern part of the state.
What is the possibility of opening a sub station in Louisiana
within existing funds this year? I understand that free space has
been offered at the LSU Rice Research Station in MerRouge for this
purpose -
Answer: ADC plans to open a sub station at the Louisiana
State University's Rice Research Station this year. We will
reassign one of the positions from the District office in Crowley,
Louisiana to the sub station for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Question: Can additional funds be found to operate such a
station?
Answer: We will cover the cost of the sub station from within
available funds.
Question: What would be the cost of operating such a station
in FY 1989 and can this be accommodated within the proposed
budget?
Answer: We estimate that it will cost approximately $65,000
to operate the sub station in FY 1989. The cost of the sub station
would not be covered under our FY 1989 budget.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LEAHY
ANIMAL, DAMAGE CONTROL
Question: How does APHIS determine the allocation of Animal
Damage Control funds?
Answer: We first allocate funds for projects specifically
directed by the Congress. Remaining funds are allocated based
on Federal priorities and needs identified by the various ADC
organizational units. These units include the State offices which
conduct operations, the Denver Wildlife Research Center, the
National Technical Support Staff, and the Deputy Administrator's
office. Each unit bases its needs estimate upon historical
spending patterns, anticipated needs, and requests for assistance
from cooperators. We conduct a meeting of all top ADC management
officials, representing all of the units, to reach a consensus on
the best use of available funds within established priorities.
Question: Is there a regional or State-by-State formula used
to distribute funds?
513
Answer: We do not use a formula to distribute funds because
the needs vary among the State offices and other organizational
units. All needs are fully considered and we prioritize them to
make fund distributions.
Question: In Vermont, the maple industry has a particular
problem with rodent damage to maple vacuum lines. What measures
is APHIS taking to address this and what can be expected in Fiscal
Year 1989?
Answer: APHIS has allocated an additional $40,000 of animal
damage control funds for Vermont this year. These funds will
support a full-time employee in Vermont to work on the sapline
problem and other problems specific to New England. This employee
will provide technical assistance and will conduct field tests
designed to assist maple producers in the prevention or control of
damage by squirrels, chipmunks, and other rodents. We plan to
continue this work in Fiscal Year 1989.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
ANIMAL DAMAGE contROL (ADC)
Question: The Animal Damage Control program was transferred
to USDA from the Department of the Interior in 1986. In my
estimation, it has become one of the most popular programs in
USDA. Each year, the budget proposes large reductions in the
activities of the ADC, and each year, the Subcommittee increases
the appropriation for the ADC activities. Would you care to
comment on this, Dr. Glosser?
Answer: We share your strong support for the animal damage
control program. Under our FY 1989 budget proposal, we could
continue program operations at approximately the FY 1988 level,
with cooperators reimbursing APHIS for the cost of predator
control programs on non-Federal lands. We believe that in these
times of budget deficits and funding reductions, this proposal is
appropriate, given the fact that States, local governments, and
industry are the direct beneficiaries of our control activities.
We also plan to continue with the technical assistance and
research components of our program.
Question: I'm told that services for the Western predator
control program have been reduced . What portion of your efforts
are directed toward the predators?
Answer: In FY 1988 we plan to spend approximately
$10,424,000 on predator-related activities, including technical
assistance and control activities .
Question: How much toward the Western States and how much
toward the Eastern States?
Answer: Of this amount, we plan to spend $10,069,000 in the
Western Region and $355,000 in the Eastern Region.
514
Question: Do you have an estimate of the impact of the
Environmental Protection Agency's endangered species labeling
program on the ADC?
Answer: The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
regulations would require additional data gathering and analysis
to ensure continued registration of control tools which could
impact endangered species. USDA is reviewing the proposed rules
with the Environmental Protection Agency in hopes of developing a
revised proposal which meets the needs of both USDA and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Question: Last fall, we were notified of some "critical
needs" of the ADC program, i.e., (a) completion of an
environmental impact statement; (b) renovation, equipment, and
specialized staffing for the Denver Wildlife Research Center; (c)
equipment for day-to-day field operations; and (d) a radio system
to replace the Fish and Wildlife system. Will you please advise
us whether or not these "critical needs" have been met and what
action was taken to meet them.
Answer: a . The Environmental Impact Statement has to be
technically, procedurally, and legally sufficient to meet the
National Environmental Policy Act and USDA's own environmental
guidelines. This makes it necessary to contract the work to a
professional concern. Accordingly, we have solicited bids from
private contractors and expect to sign a contract for the project
in the next few months. The project should be completed next
year .
b. We are also moving to begin correcting certain
deficiencies at the Denver Wildlife Research Center that threaten
our ability to develop and maintain pesticide registrations and
provide practical technology to the Nation's agricultural
producers. As a laboratory facility, the Denver Wildlife Research
Center must meet the Good Laboratory Practices standards
established by the Environmental Protection Agency in order to
have its work accepted as scientifically valid . Also, the Center
uses animals for research and should adhere to USDA's Animal
Welfare Standards. An assessment of the Center found that it did
not comply with either set of regulations.
We have moved to begin bringing the Center into compliance
with the Animal Welfare and Good Laboratory Practices standards.
For Animal Welfare, we have established an Animal Care Committee
in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act regulations. We have
also established an Animal Care Section to centralize research
activities involving captive animals and their care, and will hire
a veterinarian to supervise the new section. We have also
allocated funds to begin modernizing our animal holding facilities
with final completion in FY 1989. We have closed substandard
animal holding facilities until they are upgraded.
For Good Laboratory Practices, the Denver Wildlife Research
Center has implemented a program to comply with GLP by upgrading
laboratory and data archive facilities, purchasing laboratory
equipment, reorganizing Center personnel into more efficient work
units, and hiring new personnel where needed . We have also
515
started a quality assurance program with the appointment of a
quality assurance officer for the Denver Wildlife Research
Center.
c. ADC field operations require the use of specialized
equipment and supplies • Field employees use traps, snares, and
rifles routinely. Inventories have not been restocked adequately
during the past few years. Additionally, there is an inherent
need for vehicles in the program, as operations are conducted at
various sites throughout a State. The majority of vehicles owned
by the program have exceeded the mileage limit for recommended
replacement and often need repair. The Agency plans to purchase
$489,000 worth of specialized equipment and vehicles in FY 1988.
This will begin to meet the most critical needs in this area and
assure that ADC can respond adequately to constituent concerns.
d. Over 80 percent of ADC's radios are at least 8 years old,
rendering them obsolete. The radios were purchased on an ad hoc
basis and do not form a good system. APHIS can continue to use
these radios and the Fish and Wildlife frequencies until no later
than 1991 in accordance with the transfer agreement between APHIS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service. As of now, we have not been
able to purchase new radios within Fiscal Year 1988 funding.
PSEUDORABIES
Question: Pork producers will begin the first year of their
10-year plan to control and eradicate pseudorabies beginning in
1989. Financing for the eradication program will come from a
unique partnership of Federal and State governments and producers.
Pork producers are enthusiastic about this program and are
encouraged by efforts in Congress to support them in their effort
to eradicate pseudorabies. The program is projected to cost an
estimated $57 million over the next ten years. Is the USDA/APHIS
prepared to help producers by assuming the leadership role for
coordinating this program?
Answer: APHIS has the technical capability to assume a
joint leadership role with the National Pork Producers Council
should a national eradication program be initiated . However, the
budget assumes that such a program could be successfully carried
out by the States and industry, with a limited Federal role.
BOLL WEEVIL
Question: Fiscal 1989 will mark the third year of operation
for the expanded boll weevil eradication program in Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida, and the second year of operation of an
eradication program in Arizona. Do you believe the success of the
program in North and South Carolina can be achieved in these
programs?
Answer: Yes, we do. Although success cannot be guaranteed,
these programs are employing technologies and procedures that have
been successful in adjoining areas. With favorable climate and
adequate resources, both of these programs should succeed .
516
Question: Is APHIS receiving appropriate support from
producers and State agencies in the expanded program?
Answer: Yes, we are . In the Southwest program, the Arizona
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture is providing a
project co-manager and other support personnel. The growers have
contributed 70 percent of program costs, and the Arizona Cotton
Growers Association has endorsed a plan to include the entire
state in the eradication program. The growers in the expanded
area have voted for a $5 per bale assessment to cover their share
of the program.
In the Southeast expansion program, growers in the individual
States have passed referenda to participate in a 4-year
eradication program. The growers have agreed to contribute
$10 per acre for the first year, $35 per acre the second and third
years, and $25 per acre the fourth year. The States have agreed
to pay a portion of the growers' contribution, facilitate the
certification of pesticide applicators, provide regulatory
support, and ensure compliance, including grower contributions.
Question: Appropriated funds have been provided to augment
producer assessments in order to operate an effective boll weevil
eradication program. What are the appropriated funds used for?
Answer: During the first year of the program, appropriated
funds are applied to all categories of program expenses. This
includes purchasing capitalized equipment such as vehicles,
high-clearance spray equipment, and radio communication equipment •
Funds are also used for salaries and travel expenses, chemical and
application costs, rents and utilities, and trapping supplies •
During the remainder of the program, Federal funds are
generally used only for APHIS salary and travel expenses, and for
rents and utilities. Increased cooperator contributions then
offset the significant expenses APHIS incurred during the first
year of the program.
Question: What is the role of APHIS personnel in the
programs?
Answer: APHIS personnel provide technical and managerial
expertise in operating the program in conjunction with various
cooperators.
Question: The APHIS budget request for Fiscal 1989 does not
include funding for the Southeastern, High Plains (Texas) or
Arizona boll weevil programs. However, operating budgets for
these programs were based on a 70-30 producer-Federal cost share
arrangement, and the assistance of APHIS personnel is key to the
success of the programs. If appropriated funds were made
available for fiscal year 1989, what amount would be needed for
APHIS to continue its current level of participation in these
programs?
Answer: APHIS would require approximately $9,677,000 in
appropriated funds to continue its current level of participation
in the boll weevil programs for FY 1989. Based on the current
517
cotton acreages, these funds would be directed among the following
programs as follows:
High Plains Control $722,000
Southeast Eradication 5,785,000
Southwest Eradication 3, 170,000
$9,677,000
Question: The fiscal 1988 appropriation provided a single
funding level for all boll weevils eradication programs rather
than specific levels for each individual program. Has the
industry cooperated in APHIS' effort to establish appropriate
priorities to conduct all three programs?
Answer: The industry has been very cooperative. The
National Cotton Council, The High Plains Cottongrowers, Inc., The
Arizona Cotton Growers Association, and The Southeast Boll Weevil
Foundation, Inc., have provided advice and guidance for the
programs. The appropriation provided for Fiscal Year 1988 was
applied to the three programs with the advice of these
organizations, who represent the cotton growers.
Question: Are there examples of how other USDA agencies,
such as ASCS, could assist in the operation of the programs?
Answer: APHIS has held discussions with ASCS and other
agencies on how they could assist with these programs. We will
continue to explore how ASCS in conducting its program operations
could assist APHIS in performance of its boll weevil programs.
Question: Are there any ASCS regulations which might be
adjusted in the eradication areas to reduce the cost of operating
or participating in the program?
Answer: In our discussions with ASCS, APHIS and ASCS have
been looking at ASCS regulations to see if they could be adjusted
to the needs of the boll weevil program without disrupting the
mission of ASCS. To date, we have not identified any regulations
which we could agree to change. We will continue these
discussions throughout the life of the program.
PINK BOLLWORM
Question: The Fiscal Year 1988 appropriation for pink
bollworm was a reduction from previous levels and includes
specific funding levels for five separate activities; has the
reduction in appropriated funds inhibited the success of the
program?
Answer: The pink bollworm program should continue to be
successful at the current funding level. The Fiscal Year 1988
appropriation is only 2 percent less than actual Fiscal Year 1987
program spending, so the effect on program activities has been
minor. While funding has increased at the sterile moth rearing
facility, survey activities in Louisiana and Arkansas were reduced
slightly. However, this should not inhibit the success of the
program •
518
Question: Please provide information concerning the
operation of the program.
Answer: The purpose of the cooperative pink bollworm program
is to prevent the pest from spreading to non-infested areas.
Primary operations are quarantine enforcement, trapping, methods
development, and the cooperative sterile moth rearing project. The
program uses a variety of methods to carry out these operations.
Program methods include chemical control, which is the primary
technique used by growers. Other control techniques used by the
growers are pheromone sex lure traps, release of sterile moths,
and cultural practices such as crop rotation and alternative
planting dates. The Federal program conducts field trials that
utilize the pheromo ne sex lure traps and sterile moth release
techniques. The sterile moth release program began in 1968 to
prevent the impending spread of native moths to the San Joaquin
Valley of California from the heavily infested areas further
south. This program is also a cooperative effort to which
California contributes 85 percent of the funds. It has
successfully prevented the pink bollworm from becoming established
throughout the Valley.
ANIMAL WELFARE
Question: What will be the workload impact on the animal
welfare program to implement the 1985 amendments to the Animal
Welfare Act?
Answer: Inspections on the average will require
approximately one-half hour longer. The additional time will be
required for oversight of the facility's responsibility to comply
with requirements specified in the December 1985 amendment to the
Animal Welfare Act.
Question: What additional staffing and funding will be
needed to carry out the new animal welfare regulations?
Answer: We do not yet know the full impact of the new
regulations since they have not been finalized . Once the final
regulations are in place, we will be able to determine what, if
any, additional staffing and funding will be needed .
Question: Why were no funds requested in the budget for this
purpose?
Answer: We have not yet determined if any additional
funding and staffing is necessary because the new regulations have
not been finalized. Therefore, we had no sound basis upon which
to request funds at the time the FY 1989 budget was developed.
519
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
Question: The Animal Damage Control program is one of the
most critical programs for agriculture and the livestock industry
in the United States. Historically, this program has focused
primarily on predator control in the Western states, and
particularly on coyote control, which provides protection for the
sheep industry. However, it now appears that funds traditionally
available for predator control are being shifted to other animal
damage control activities .
In FY 88, Congress appropriated over $24 million for the
Animal Damage Control Program, an increase of almost $2 million
over the FY 1987 appropriation and almost twice the
Administration's FY 88 budget request. Although new Congressional
directives were added in the FY 88 Continuing Resolutions,
sufficient funds were appropriated to cover these expenses.
Nevertheless, FY 88 funds actually allocated to States in the
Western Region will be significantly reduced. This is especially
confusing in view of the Administration's position concerning
funding for the Animal Damage Control program.
This greatly concerns me and leads me to question the use of
appropriated funds traditionally available for predator control.
I have heard repeatedly from constituents in my State that funds
previously available for predator control and other animal damage
control operations are no longer being provided . Unless these
funds are available, aerial hunting and other vital control
programs will be drastically reduced .
Damage from predators is the single greatest cause of
economic damage to the sheep industry in the United States with
estimated losses of approximately $70 million per year. I do not
believe it was ever the intent of Congress to reduce funding for
coyote control and other predators in the Western United States
but that seems to be what is happening .
What was the APHIS FY 89 budget request to the Department of
Agriculture for Animal Damage Control? What did the Department
request from OMB'?
Answer: The APHIS FY 1989 budget request to the Department
of Agriculture for animal damage control was $23,801,000. The
Department requested $22,310,000 from OMB.
- Question: To give me a better understanding of how ADC funds
are being allocated, please provide for the record a
state-by-state breakdown of ADC activities and funding, including
predator control operations, for FY 87, FY 88, and proposed FY 89.
Include in this breakdown, funds dedicated to research.
520
Answer:
STATE
Alabama - - - - - - -
Alaska - - - - - - - -
Arizona - - - - - - -
Arkansas . . . . . .
California. . . .
Colorado . . . . . .
Connecticut . . .
Delaware . . . . . .
Florida. . . . . . .
Georgia • . . . . . .
Hawaii - - - - - - - -
Idaho . . . . . . . . .
Illinois . . . . . .
Indiana. . . . . . .
Iowa - - - - - - - - - -
Kansas . . . . . . . .
Kentucky. . . . . .
Louisiana . . . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . .
Maryland . . . . . .
Massachuset . . .
Michigan . . . . . .
Minnesota . . . . .
Mississippi . . .
Missouri . . . . . .
Montana . . . . . . .
Nebraska . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . .
New Hampshire.
New Jersey . . . .
New Mexico . . . .
New York . . . . . .
North Carolina
North Dakota . .
Ohio - - - - - - - - - -
Oklahoma . . . . . .
Oregon . . . . . . . .
Pennsylvania. .
Rhode Island . .
South Carolina
South Dakota . .
Tennessee . . . . .
Texas . . . . . . . . .
Utah . . . . . . . . . .
Vermont • . . . . . .
PREDATORS
4,603
12,952
349,072
1,086,880
1,086,342
6,968
769,817
10, 736
13,787
200, 500
6,040
25, 583
6, 281
3, 101
8, 231
70,273
4,603
5,464
622, 284
200,000
551,562
13,772
5,440
847,000
37,375
6,934
257,661
28, 414
200,500
730,832
5,440
2,968
263, 247
6,041
1,500,000
788,000
10,000
OTHER 1/
42,342
71,557
87,270
222,322
206, 301
51, 130
22, 237
24, 495
21, 643
62,849
66, 298
93,808
98, 736
126,799
23,963
110,606
85,030
158,508
57, 765
1, 274,205
19, 136
77,742
399,041
92,308
47,705
103,166
34, 361
23,388
41, 300
60,230
173, 111
50, 662
63,767
220,005
95, 583
150, 612
133, 222
41, 462
18, 766
57,570
99, 898
154, 107
626,968
10,571
34, 102
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
FISCAL YEAR 1987
RESEARCH
3,366,805
183,960
195,800
245, 460
233,930
82,520
88,000
349,800
TOTAL
46,945
84, 509
436, 342
222,322
1, 293, 181
4, 504, 277
22, 237
24,495
205,603
69,817
66, 298
1,059,425
109,472
140, 586
23,963
311, 106
336,530
184,091
64,046
1, 274,205
22, 237
85,973
469,314
96,911
53, 169
725,450
234, 361
574,950
55,072
65,670
1,020, 111
88,037
70,701
477,666
357,927
351, 112
864,054
129,422
18, 766
60,538
363, 145
160, 148
2, 214,968
1, 148, 371
44, 102
521
STATE
Virginia . . . . . .
Washington . . . .
Washington, DC
West Virginia.
Wisconsin . . . . .
Wyoming . . . . . . .
Total
STATE
Alabama. . . . . . .
Alaska - - - - - - - -
Arizona. . . . . . .
Arkansas . . . . . .
California . . . .
Colorado . . . . . .
Connecticut . . .
Delaware . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . .
Georgia • . . . . . .
Hawaii - - - - - - - -
Idaho . . . . . . . . .
Illinois . . . . . .
Indiana. . . . . . .
Iowa . . . . . . . . . .
Kansas - - - - - - - -
Kentucky. . . . . .
Louisiana . . . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . .
Maryland . . . . . .
Massachusetts.
Michigan. . . . . .
Minnesota . . . . .
Mississippi . . .
Missouri . . . . . .
Montana . . . . . . .
Nebraska . . . . . .
Nevada. . . . . . . .
New Hampshire.
New Jersey. . . .
New Mexico . . . .
New York. . . . . .
North Carolina
North Dakota . .
Ohio - - - - - - - - - -
1/
PREDATORS OTHER –
17,602 54, 191
258,517 118, 151
547, 225
19, 141 45,918
14, 153 129,886
815,967 9, 857
10,874,083 6,641,875
PREDATORS
7,000
2,000
319,000
1,009,000
1,002,000
6,000
734,000
11,000
8,000
178,000
6,000
28,000
7,000
2,000
8,000
72,000
7,000
6,000
796,000
171,000
518,000
14,000
6,000
791,000
37,000
7,000
282,000
30,000
2, 253,00
OTHER -
39,000
43,000
81,000
229,000
116,000
800,000
22,000
24,000
12,000
63,000
30,000
79,000
97,000
131,000
24,000
122,000
70,000
164,000
60,000
20,000
72,000
389,000
102,000
46,000
17,000
59,000
12,000
40,000
59,000
146,000
50,000
63,000
187,000
79,000
1
2
Ö2/
/
RESEARCH
187, 130
TOTAL
71,793
563,798
547,225
65,059
144,039
825, 824
4,933,405 22,449,363
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
FISCAL YEAR 1988
RESEARCH
3,695,000
191,000
240,000
203,000
255,000
225,000
243,000
TOTAL
46,000
45,000
400,000
229,000
1, 125,000
5,497,000
22,000
24,000
203,000
69,000
270,000
1,016,000
108,000
139,000
24,000
300,000
331,000
192,000
67,000
2, 253,000
22,000
80,000
461,000
334,000
52,000
813,000
230,000
530,000
54,000
65,000
937,000
87,000
70,000
469,000
352,000
522
STATE
Oklahoma . . . . . .
Oregon - - - - - - - -
Pennsylvania. .
Rhode Island . .
South Carolina
South Dakota . .
Tennessee . . . . .
Texas . . . . . . . . .
Utah • - - - - - - - - -
Vermont • . . . . . .
Virginia . . . . . .
Washington . . . .
Washington, DC
West Virginia.
Wisconsin . . . . .
Wyoming . . . . . . .
Total
STATE
Alabama. . . . . . .
Alaska - - - - - - - -
Arizona - - - - - - -
Arkansas . . . . . .
California. . . .
Colorado . . . . . .
Connecticut . . .
Delaware . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . .
Georgia . . . . . . .
Hawaii . . . . . . . .
Idaho . . . . . . . . .
Illinois . . . . . .
Indiana - - - - - - -
Iowa - - - - - - - - - -
Kansas - - - - - - - -
Kentucky . . . . . .
Louisiana . . . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . .
Maryland . . . . . .
Massachusetts.
Michigan . . . . . .
Minnesota . . . . .
Mississippi . . .
Missouri . . . . . .
Montana . . . . . . .
Nebraska . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . .
New Hampshire.
PREDATORS OTHER -
178,000 176,000
718,000 132,000
6,000 164,000
19,000
3,000 59,000
243,000 84,000
6,000 155,000
1,383,000 561,000
720,000 46,000
10,000 74,000
19,000 56,000
290,000 95,000
555,000
21,000 43,000
29,000 212,000
734,000 78,000
10, 424,000 8,309,000
RESEARCH
86,000
91,000
263,000
194,000
TOTAL
354,000
850,000
256,000
19,000
62,000
327,000
161,000
2,035,000
1,029,000
84,000
75,000
579,000
555,000
64,000
241,000
812,000
5, 686,000 24, 419,000
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
PREDATORS
7,000
2,000
78,000
91,000
361,000
6,000
253,000
11,000
8,000
17,000
6,000
28,000
7,000
2,000
8,000
72,000
7,000
6,000
134,000
13,000
283,000
14,000
OTHER l/ RESEARCH
31,000
12,000
57,000
178,000
249,000
700,000
18,000
20,000
12,000
50,000
30,000
144,000
77,000
105,000
20,000
9,000
49,000
143,000
45,000
838,000
16,000
69,000
254,000
82,000
36,000
64,000
17,000
143,000
30,000
FISCAL YEAR 1989
3, 231,000
153,000
177,000
200,000
215,000
198,000
TOTAL
38,000
14,000
135,000
178,000
340,000
4,292,000
18,000
20,000
165,000
56,000
207,000
597,000
88,000
113,000
20,000
26,000
270,000
171,000
52,000
838,000
18,000
77,000
326,000
287,000
42,000
198,000
30,000
426,000
44,000
523
STATE PREDATORS OTHER l/ RESEARCH TOTAL
New Jersey . . . . 6,000 47,000 53,000
New Mexico . . . . 150,000 162,000 312,000
New York . . . . . . 37,000 34,000 71,000
North Carolina 7,000 58,000 65,000
North Dakota . . O 155,000 155,000
Ohio - - - - - - - - - - 30,000 79,000 179,000 288,000
Oklahoma . . . . . . 17,000 232,000 249,000
Oregon - - - - - - - - 102,000 147,000 249,000
Pennsylvania . . 6,000 103,000 100,000 209,000
Rhode Island . . 15,000 15,000
South Carolina 3,000 45,000 48,000
South Dakota. . 26,000 1,000 27,000
Tennessee . . . . . 6,000 154,000 160,000
Texas . . . . . . . . . 69,000 101,000 49,000 219,000
Utah - - - - - - - - - - 300,000 45,000 263,000 608,000
Vermont • . . . . . . 10,000 58,000 68,000
Virginia . . . . . . 19,000 39,000 58,000
Washington. . . . 23,000 23,000 160,000 206,000
Washington, DC 276,000 276,000
West Virginia. 21,000 32,000 53,000
Wisconsin . . . . . 29,000 168,000 197,000
Wyoming . . . . . . . 192,000 136,000 328,000
Total 2,467,000 5,608,000 4,925,000 13,000,000
l/ Includes technical assistance, environmental impact statement,
administrative support, and program direction.
2/ Included $1,000,000 for an environmental impact statement.
Question: Do you see a shift from traditional on the ground
predator control activities in the Western Region toward research
and technical advice and assistance?
Answer: We do not plan to shift our emphasis away form
current predator control programs. For FY 1989, we are shifting
the responsibility for program costs on State and private lands to
cooperators. In FY 1988, we are devoting additional funds to our
research program in an effort to correct certain deficiencies that
threaten our ability to develop and maintain pestic ide
registrations and provide practical technology for the traditional
program •
As a laboratory facility, the Denver Wildlife Research Center
must meet the Good Laboratory Practices standards established by
the Environmental Protection Agency in order to have its work
accepted as scientifically valid . Also, the center uses animals
for research and should adhere to USDA's animal welfare standards.
An assessment of the Center found that it did not comply with
either set of regulations.
In response, we have moved to begin bringing the Center in
compliance with animal welfare and Good Laboratory Practices
standards this year. We have established an Animal Care Committee
524
in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act to monitor Our
compliance with animal welfare regulations. We have also
established an Animal Care Section to centralize research
activities involving captive animals and their care, and will hire
a veterinarian to supervise the new section. We have also
allocated funds to begin modernizing our animal holding
facilities, with completion expected in FY 1989. We have closed
substandard animal holding facilities until they are upgraded .
The DWRC has implemented a program to comply with Good
Laboratory Practices by upgrading laboratory and data archive
facilities, purchasing laboratory equipment, reorganizing Center
personnel into more efficient work units, and hiring new personnel
where needed. We have also started a quality assurance program
with the appointment of a quality assurance officer.
Question: How do you explain the Department's estimate that
the FY 89 request for $13 million will be able to protect over 9
million head of livestock in view of the estimates for the past
two fiscal years?
Answer: The estimate assumes that States, local governments,
and industry would reimburse APHIS for its predator control work
on non-Federal land so that the work can be carried out at
approximately the same level as in FY 1988. The $13 million
represents the APHIS cost of conducting research, and providing
technical assistance, with any remaining funds used for predator
control on Federal land.
Question: What kind of research is being done that will help
Western predator control? -
Answer: The current program emphasizes maintenance of
pesticide registrations and improvement of existing predator
control tools used by animal damage control specialists and
ranchers. We are devoting substantial effort to improving the
efficiency and utility of the M-44 sodium cyanide ejector, to
supplying data required by the Environmental Protection Agency to
maintain the Federal registration of the livestock protection
collar, and to developing effective baiting techniques control.
Field work on multiple stimulus coyote frightening devices has
been completed and the Animal Damage Control program has
advertised the availability of this technology to potential
manufacturers. Additional work is underway to develop improved
coyote attractants for use with control devices, to develop test
standards and improve designs for coyote snares, and to evaluate
the effectiveness of winter aerial hunting in remote mountainous
grazing areas for reducing spring and summer coyote predation on
sheep.
Question: What progress has been made on Compound 1080
single dose baits?
Answer: Several actions, including rehabilitation of the
Denver Wildlife Research Center chemistry laboratories and hiring
staff for chemical registration research, are underway to enable
525
studies to proceed that support registration of 1080 and other
toxicants . These studies would involve field trials that would
require experimental use permits from the Environmental Protection
Agency. In addition, we are examining ways to increase the
likelihood that coyotes will take 1080 baits and reduce bait-take
by birds and other non-target wildlife. Research indicates that
compound 1080 single does baits have the potential to become an
important addition to currently available control tools.
GRASSHOPPER AND MORMON CRICKET
Question: I have enjoyed our past cooperation in
establishing the program for grasshopper control. We have learned
a lot about the control of grasshoppers and the influence of
weather conditions on dramatic outbreaks. Because of the
uncertainty of conditions leading to an outbreak of grasshoppers,
we established the reserve fund so that funds would be available
to react when these disasters occur without diverting funding from
other programs. I am not pleased to see the proposed reduction in
current budget authority and elimination of the $5 million reserve
fund .
The FY 1988 budget included approximately $9 million for
grasshopper and Mormon cricket control programs, including $5
million for the reserve fund. Congress directed that $3 million
of the remaining funds in the FY 87 reserve fund be used for the
second year of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program in
North Dakota and Idaho .
What is the status of the IPM program?
Answer: IPM project field activities were initiated in the
spring of 1987 to coincide with the spring grasshopper hatch.
Activities included testing improved survey methodologies and data
analysis techniques to better predict the need for timing of
treatment; development of methodologies for integrating biological
and chemical control methods with range management practices; and
assessing environmental impacts. The project was only carried out
at one of the two demonstration sites--McKenzie County, North
Dakota--due to low grasshopper populations at the Idaho
demonstration site located in the Bureau of Land Management's
Boise, Idaho, district.
In FY 1988, in accordance with direction from the Congress,
APHIS will spend at least $3 million in support of the program.
Question: Given the fact that the program was designed to be
a 5-year program with APHIS as the lead agency, why has FY 1989
funding for grasshopper control been reduced and why has the
reserve fund, which has provided funds for this program in the
past, been eliminated?
Answer: We plan to fund the IPM program at a $2.1 million
level in FY 1989 using funds from the annual appropriation rather
than the reserve fund . Thus, allowing us to eliminate the reserve
fund. The requested amount should be sufficient for the program
because many start-up costs were completed in FY 1987.
526
Question: According to a statement issued by the Department
of Agriculture on January 13, key participants in the Integrated
Pest Management program indicated that the program shows great
promise, but it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions.
In view of these statements by the late Dr. Houston, why
would you eliminate the reserve fund until you are certain this
"solution" works?
Answer: In FY 1989, we plan to fund the IPM program at a
$2.1 million level using funds from the annual appropriation. We
believe that any infestations on Federal lands can be handled
through the reimbursement mechanism with the Department of the
Interior or with funds carried over in the no-year control fund .
Further, the intensive control measures of recent years have
resulted in large reductions in grasshopper populations. This
should reduce the level of control needed and will enable the
affected States and ranchers to assume a greater share of the
costs that do arise .
NOXIOUS WEEDS
Question: I am pleased to hear that the noxious weeds are so
well under control on state and private lands. I have not
received the same report for the federal lands in my state.
Therefore, I see no reason to believe that the problems are all
resolved. If hydrilla and common crupina are near eradication, it
would seem that other noxious weeds would be available that have
caused similar problems for ranchers and farmers . It is also
important to keep in mind that noxious weed infestations on state
and private lands often originate from public lands.
Will you provide me with the acres of hydrilla and common
crupina treated on state and private lands by state for the last
three years and the remaining inventory of acres without
treatment? Please provide that for the record.
Answer: The information follows:
Hydrilla / Common Crupina
State Treated Untreated- Treated Untreated
California 275 miles 127 miles * tº º «E-º º
Florida * 38,000 acres º º tº º 2/
Idaho º tº Gº tº 366 acres 23,000 acrest
* Less than 1 mile
l/ Hydrilla has also been found in 6 other counties in California
and in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.
2/ Common crupina has been eradicated from 99 percent of the 366
acres treated in the feasibility study. It is widely dispersed
throughout 400,000 acres of land in Idaho .
527
Question: Do you have a list of other noxious weeds existing
on Western state and private lands? Please provide that for the
record as well.
Answer: The information follows:
State Noxious Weed
California Orobanche ramosa
Sal sola vermiculata
Pennisetum clandestinum
Monochoria vaginal is
Asphodelus fistulo sus
Ipomoea aquatica
Utah Goats rue
Texas Orob anche ramosa
Pennisetum clandestinum
Hawaii Monocharia vaginalis
Ipomoea aquatica
The 5-year feasibility study on the eradication of common
crupina in Idaho is scheduled to end this year (FY 88). The
program has shown promising results on the 7, 250 acre trial
eradication area.
Question: How do you propose to translate the results of
this program to remaining areas infested by common crupina if no
funds are appropriated for this purpose?
Answer: The common crupina eradication feasibility study in
Idaho is a cooperative effort which has succeeded in eliminating
the weed from 99 percent of the trial area. The study has refined
techniques for a larger scale program that affected States can use
without Federal assistance to eradicate the weed . Current efforts
are directed at finding control strategies to eliminate the small
isolated patches that remain in the trial area.
BRUCELLOSIS
Question: Good progress has been made in reducing the
incidence of brucello sis. The objective is to eradicate this
disease.
Can you provide a list of states in each class of class A and
below, including the date of projected class free status? Please
do so for the record.
Answer: We would be pleased to provide the information for
the record .
528
Brucellosis State Classification Timetable
Current Projected
State Classification Class Free
Alabama A FY 1991
Arizona Free & A FY 1988
Arkansas B FY 1993
California A FY 1991
Colorado A FY 1989
Florida B & C FY 1995
Georgia A FY 1990
Idaho A FY 1989
Illinois A FY 1989
Iowa A FY 1989
Kansas A FY 1990
Kentucky B FY 1991
Louisiana C FY 1995
Mississippi B FY 1992
Missouri A FY 1991
Nebraska A FY 1989
Nevada A FY 1989
New Mexico A FY 1989
Oklahoma B FY 1992
Oregon A FY 1988
South Dakota A FY 1990
Tennessee A FY 1990
Texas B FY 1995
Virginia Free & A FY 1988
Washington A FY 1988
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KASTEN
MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY
Question: Dr. Glosser, the Lake States Division of
Rhinelander Paper Company recently bid on a contract to supply a
type of yeast needed for the 1988 Medfly control program to APHIS.
Lake States' bid was not accepted; the company, alleging that USDA
changed the award criteria after bids were submitted, has filed
Protest No. B-230078. 1 with the General Accounting Office. My
questions are as follows: a . Should GAO rule in favor of Lake
States, is its decision binding on USDA2
Answer: A rule in favor of Lake States would be binding on
USDA. However, the two yeast contracts that Lake States bid upon
are now substantially filled and could not be reawarded.
Question: Should GAO so rule after the contract has been
filled, what compensation is Lake States entitled to?
Answer: Lake States would be entitled to compensation for
its bid preparation costs and costs involved in filing its protest
with GAO.
529
Question: If none, what other recourse does Lake States have
(for example, legal action) and what are the limits on the damages
Lake States may seek?
Answer: When GAO rules on this protest, Lake States will
have exhausted its administrative remedies. Lake States could
only seek redress in Federal District Court.
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL
Question: APHIS works cooperatively with Wisconsin's
Department of Natural Resources and several Wisconsin counties to
address the problem of damage caused by Canada geese and deer in
the Horicon Marsh area. Every year, some 400,000 to 500,000 geese
use farm fields, damaging crops. In addition, the Fiscal Year
1988 appropriation contained a $100,000 earmark for beaver damage
control in northern Wisconsin.
Wisconsin DNR has advised me that they have been told that
purchases of equipment necessary for animal damage control work
have been put on hold. Unless equipment such as vehicles and
traps for beaver damage control and scare cannons, propane and
seed for lure crops for goose damage control can be obtained,
these ADC programs will not be effective. The beaver damage
problem is especially urgent, as the ice on rivers and streams in
northern Wisconsin melts in mid-late April.
I'd like to know the reason for the freeze on equipment
purchases, and to ask if it can be lifted sufficiently to allow
Wisconsin to purchase basic equipment needed for urgent ADC
problems. I sincerely hope that Wisconsin is not being
shortchanged in order to accommodate other states.
Answer: We held back on major equipment purchases in all
States until we had a clear idea of our actual funding in FY 1988.
We realize the urgency of this situation and are moving to
purchase the necessary equipment for the program in Wisconsin.
Question: Further, I note that the FY 89 budget request
deletes funding for ADC in Wisconsin. Why does APHIS feel that
Wisconsin's ADC problems require less attention than those in
certain Western states?
Answer: We will continue the Wisconsin animal damage control
program in FY 1989. Our FY 1989 budget request contains $197,000
for the Wisconsin program. The reduction from FY 1988 reflects
the program-wide decision to seek reimbursements from cooperators
for all work on State and private land.
MOSCAMED AND CAPMED
Question: Dr. Glosser, I am concerned about the
environmental effects of two projects known as Moscamed and CAPMED
for the eradication of Mediterranean fruit flies from Guatemala
and all of Central America. I was pleased to learn that APHIS and
the Government of Guatemala had agreed to remove the cancer
causing fumigant EDB from Moscamed. I am none the less troubled
by other effects of these projects. Has APHIS compiled an
530
inventory of nontarget species that might be affected by Moscamed?
If not, why not?
Answer: APHIS has not compiled an inventory of non-target
species that might be affected by the Moscamed program. An
environmental assessment of the Moscamed program in Guatemala is
currently being developed by the Consortium for International Crop
Protection under a contract with USAID. The effect of malathion
on nontarget species is one of the main areas being investigated
by the environmental assessment team. It is estimated that the
assessment will be completed in July 1988.
Technologies employed in the program have been used not only
in the United States, but in other areas of Central America, South
America, and Africa without adversely impacting the environment.
Temporary reductions in certain species of arthropods could be
expected, however permanent reductions are not likely because of
patterns of use and application rates .
Question: Although EDB has been removed from these projects,
I understand that another toxic fumigant, methyl bromide is now
under consideration. What are APHIS' conclusions with respect to
the health implications of methyl bromide in Central America?
Answer: Methyl bromide is currently being used as a
quarantine tool in the Moscamed program. It is registered for use
in the United States and is used as a fumigant for selected fruits
being imported into and exported from the United States. The
Moscamed program cooperators are currently evaluating a number of
potential non-chemical quarantine tools for use in the program
such as dry-heat and hot-water treatments.
Question: What research has been conducted on nonchemical
alternatives?
Answer: Research on non-chemical alternatives is presently
being focused on hot-water treatment of mangoes, and dry-heat
treatment for papaya and possibly other fruits including citrus.
Question: One of the concerns about these projects is their
cost ineffectiveness. Have any of the beneficiaries of the
projects, such as U. S. growers, ever stated that either or both of
these projects are sufficiently cost effective to justify the
investment of their own funds?
Answer: Both Mexico and Guatemala provide funds and make
in-kind contributions to the program. APHIS has not approached
U. S. growers for financial assistance, but they have consistently
supported the objectives of the program.
In regard to the cost effectiveness of the program, based on
information provided from the affected counties, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, and USDA, an
economic analysis of the eradication of Medfly from Central
America and Panama was prepared in April 1985. Benefit/cost
ratios ranged from 0.8 to 2.5 depending on different assumptions
about coffee losses due to Medfly and the potential for marketing
additional coffee from Central America.
531
Question: To what extent has APHIS investigated the
possibility of containing the Medfly risk in Central America while
delaying the further implementation of these projects until
technological advances perinit environmentally benign alternatives
to EDB, methyl bromide and malathion to be deployed?
Answer: Because the Mosc amed program is an international
cooperative program, a decision to maintain a stationary barrier
zone in Guatemala would require the concurrence of all the
cooperators. Guatemala has in the past expressed dissatisfaction
with a stationary barrier zone concept. At the present time, the
barrier zone in Guatemala is not being expanded until an
environmental assessment is completed for the Mosc amed program and
reviewed by the appropriate Congressional committees. The
environmental assessment is currently being developed and should
be completed in July 1988. In addition, APHIS, in cooperation
with the Agricultural Research Service, has taken the lead in
identifying, developing, and testing alternative and
environmentally safe quarantine and control tools. Potential
alternatives include the use of boric acid as a substitute for
malathion, and hot-water treatments of mangoes as a quarantine
tool.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD
GYPSY MOTH
Question: In 1985 the State of Oregon, with the cooperation
of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), began
an effort to eradicate a widespread gypsy moth infestation from
the State. In an agreement reached between OMB Director
David Stockman, Secretary Block and me, it was agreed that
USDA-APHIS would provide funding assistance to the State of Oregon
to complete its eradication program. What funding level has APHIS
provided the State of Oregon in the last three fiscal years for
the gypsy moth program? .
Answer: USDA funding for eradication of isolated
infestations of the gypsy moth in the State of Oregon for the past
3 years was $6,241,000 in FY 1985, $4,436,000 in FY 1986, and
$437,000 in FY 1987.
Question: What was the formula for carrying out the spraying
program? -
Answer: USDA covered 100 percent of the spray operations and
post-treatment survey costs on Federal land, and 50 percent of
these costs on State and private land.
Question: How has the State utilized these funds?
Answer: These funds were used by the State of Oregon for
spray operations and post-treatment surveys on Federal, State, and
private land.
Question: Has the State's spraying program been successful?
532
Answer: The program has been very successful. After 3 years
of multiple applications of Bacillus thuringiensis. -- Bt -- only
isolated infested patches on 3,550 acres of the original 227,000
acre infestation remain.
Question: Do you believe that the gypsy moth infestation in
Oregon still holds the potential to spread back onto Federal
lands?
Answer: Any existing gypsy moth infestation has the
potential to spread if it is not contained and eradicated .
Because the isolated infestation in Oregon has not yet been
completely eradicated, the potential for an increase in the moth
population and the subsequent spread of the pest onto Federal land
exists .
Question: The Senate Report to accompany S. 1800, the
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriation
Bill, 1988 (Senate Report 100-203), contains a clear directive
that "APHIS is to provide such sums as may be necessary to
complete treatment on those Federal, State, and private lands in
Oregon which remain affected by gypsy moth infestation." What
Federal assistance has the State of Oregon requested for its 1988
spraying program?
Answer: The State of Oregon has requested Federal assistance
totaling $303,780 for the eradication project in FY 1988. This
includes $149,893 for spraying operations and $153,887 for
post-treatment surveys. This request for Federal funds is based
on the same cost sharing formula used in past years.
Question: When can the State expect to receive these funds?
Answer: The requested funding will be provided in time to
begin spring treatments.
533
FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
WHEAT CLASSIFICATION
Question: Have you established any new classes, and are you now
able to distinguish conclusively the various classes?
Answer: The wheat classification working group reported to me
July 1987 that we have not established any new classes of wheat nor
can we distinguish conclusively the current classes. A new wheat
classification system has not yet been formulated. The working group
requested an extension to continue research on developing an accurate
and reliable objective classification system. FGIS, in cooperation
with the wheat classification working group and the Agricultural
Research Service, has made significant progress toward resolving the
wheat classing problem. A single seed hardness test has been devel-
oped to distinguish hard wheat from soft wheat. In addition, cali-
brations for near infrared reflectance--NIR--instruments have been
developed that show promise for distinguishing Hard Red Winter wheat
from Hard Red Spring wheat. When mixtures of hard and soft wheat are
not present, the NIR can be used to identify whether or not the class
is hard or soft. All of these testing methods are currently being
evaluated using 15,000 market samples. On March 30, 1988, the wheat
classification working group is holding an open meeting in Belts—
ville, Maryland, to review the status of this research.
Question: Are our country elevators equipped to deal with the
wheat classification nuances?
Answer: If the research concludes that NIR technology can be
used for the basis of an objective quality-based classification sys-
tem, then many elevators in the United States will probably be able
to use their protein NIR instruments to adopt the new classification
system.
GRAIN QUALITY
Question: There have been recent news reports of a Nebraska
effort to ship perfectly clean grain abroad.
Are you familiar with this program?
Answer: Yes, we are aware of the program.
Question: What is your opinion of it?
Answer: Shipping grain, Identity Preserved——IP--from point of
production to the final foreign destination is one way of fulfilling
specific quality requirements of the foreign customer. Small spe-
cialized shipments such as high quality soybeans are frequently con-
tainerized and exported directly from the farm or local elevator.
The frequency and size of such shipments is dictated by market de-
mand. IP shipments are more costly and historically the foreign
grain market has been reluctant to accept the increased cost except
for specialized end-use needs. -
534
Question: Could it be used as a model for other states and for
exporters?
Answer: Yes, the Nebraska program could serve as a model. Sev–
eral States and independent exporters have considered establishing
similar IP programs in the past. None have developed into widespread
major programs.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN
DUST SUPPRESSANT
Question: Mr. Miller: Dust in elevators has been a big problem
for a long time. Dust elimination can be a very expensive process.
When storing beans, a significant number of elevators like to
apply soybean oil to keep the dust down which seems to be effective
and relatively low cost. However, they have developed an inspection
problem.
It seems the Federal grain inspectors are sometimes docking beans
for a musty odor when it is sprayed with oil. That can cost 10 cents
per bushel although there is no real problem with the beans.
I am told about one story where an elevator sold some beans to
Cargill and to ADM. Those that went to Cargill were fine. Some of
the truckloads that went to ADM were docked and others were not. The
decision was appealed to the Federal level. Four samples were sent
in. One from each of three bins and a fourth which was a combination
of the first three. The first three samples were fine. But, the
combined sample came back musty.
I am told that there is a very interesting test for musty. The
inspector smells it and pronounces a judgement.
Is FGIS working to develop a reliable test to see if grain is
musty? And, if not, can you look into developing such a test and
report back to the Committee?
Answer: The addition of mineral oil or soybean oil to soybeans
does not generally by itself cause soybeans to grade musty. Musty
odors usually are caused from soybeans being stored at too high of a
moisture content and/or inadequate aeration. Most likely something
other than an oil suppressant causes the musty odor. Soybeans con-
taining a detectable oil odor are graded sample grade because of a
"commercial objectionable foreign odor."
In answer to your question about an objective odor tester, FGIS
issued a research contract for the development of an instrument that
will objectively identify grain odors. An instrument has been devel-
oped that is capable of separating and identifying mixtures of or—
ganic vapors. However, the instrument is quite sophisticated and
actual compounds or mixtures of compounds which combine to form a
particular odor are very complex and unknown at this time. The Agri-
cultural Research Service recently assumed responsibility for the
identification of these compounds.
535
GRAIN STANDARDS
Question: I understand that there can be an appearance problem
with coated grain. But, it has no effect on processing. I under-
stand that Brazil and some other countries have moved towards a grain
grading standard that indicates their suitability for processing. Is
FGIS looking into that approach?
Answer: I assume that you are referring to soybeans. FGIS is
in the process of field testing near infrared reflectance——NIR--
instrumentation for measuring protein and oil content of soybeans.
If the field test proves successful, plans are to make protein and
oil measurements available upon request of the applicant for inspec-
tion.
Question: If FGIS is , when is something likely to be proposed in
that area?
Answer: Because of field testing, equipment procurement by of—
ficial agencies and FGIS, and standardization of the equipment, the
earliest the service could be offered would be for the 1990 crop
year. While protein and oil content would be a major achievement
towards identification of the soybeans suitability for processing, an
additional test is needed to identify the quality of oil. Presently,
the only suitable method within current inspection constraints is a
visual damage determination. This procedure is hampered when soy-
beans are coated with dust resulting from treatment with a dust sup—
pressant. The Agricultural Research Service is researching the
possibility of an objective oil quality test that will meet inspec-
tion needs, but no such test is imminent.
Question: What problems do you see in setting up such a
standard?
Answer: We do not plan to establish specific standards for soy-
bean oil and protein but these tests would be available as other
criteria upon request of the applicant. Once a testing program is
available for measuring the quantity of soybean oil and protein, the
service will be provided on a nationwide basis. Further, whether the
protein and oil results will be reported on "constant," "dry matter,"
or "as is" moisture basis must be considered.
536
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
WHISTLEBLOWERS
Question: About how many whistleblower complaints has FSIS
received in 1987?
Answer: In 1987, USDA's Office of the Inspector General received
39 complaints concerning FSIS.
Question: How does this compare with such complaints over each
of the past three years?
Answer: There were 39 complaints in 1986, and 22 complaints in
1985, the first year of record by OIG.
FISH INSPECTION
Question: In recent years there has been a great deal of
discussion about expanding Federal Food Inspections to include fish,
and I am pleased that you are working on an interagency study on this
topic. When do you expect that you will complete this study?
Answer: FSIS is providing technical support to the National
Marine Fisheries Surveil lance Program. A plan of operations manual
was published in September 1987. Included in the manual are project
plans and milestones. The Commerce Department, The Food and Drug
Administration and FSIS are currently involved in a study the purpose
of which is to evaluate the safety of both domestic and imported
seafood including consideration of health risks, sources of hazards,
and analyses of options. We expect the study to be completed by
December 1988.
Question: Wil 1 it include recommendations for mandatory
inspections?
Answer: The system under development is an industry survei 1 1 ance
system. Mandatory inspection authority similar to meat and poultry
inspection authority is not a planned option.
Question: Will the study include a review of imported seafood,
as well as domestic seafood?
Answer: Issues involving imported seafood are included in the
National Academy of Sciences study.
Question: If mandatory inspections were required, do you believe
that the size of the FSIS workforce would have to be significantly
increased?
Answer: If the enacting legislation de legated responsibility for
mandatory fish inspection to FSIS, the workforce would have to be
significantly increased. Fish inspection would likely include
certification and inspection of vessels and harvest sites, in
addition to plant inspections.
537
MICROBIAL QUALITY OF FOODS
Question: With the formation of the Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Quality for foods, it is expected that microbial
criteria for assessing the safety and wholesomeness of food will be
reviewed. Will the final recommendations of the Committee include
methods for reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses in our
population?
Answer: The Committee will be asked to provide advice and
recommendations on the use of microbial criteria as means of assuring
the safety and who lesomeness of foods and food ingredients.
Recommendations will be presented to the appropriate Federal agency
in the form of standards, guide lines, or purchase specifications. In
turn, these standards, guidelines or purchase specifications can be
incorporated into the various Federal, state and local government
agencies' food protection programs, adding to their effectiveness in
reducing the risk of foodborne il 1nesses.
Question: Will FSIS participate in attempting to formulate
standards of risk that contamination poses for safety and the means
for minimizing such risk?
Answer: As a participant on the National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods, FSIS wil 1 be working with other
members in recommending standards, guide lines, or purchase
specifications as means of ensuring the safety, and wholesomeness of
foods and food ingredients. One of the primary factors to be
considered in the development of meaningful criteria is whether there
is evidence of a hazard to health based on epidemiological data or
hazard analysis for a particular food, food ingredient, or process.
Question: If the first meeting of the committee is to be held in
April, how long do you believe it will be before final
recommendations are forthcoming?
Answer: The initial meeting in April will be an organizational
meeting which will set the agenda. The Committee will be asked to
provide its recommendations as it completes its work on any given
item. It is unknown, at this time, when the first recommendations
will be forwarded to the various Departments. We do, however, expect
the group to proceed as rapidly as possible.
Question: Will consideration be given to the risk assessment
models and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences in
1985 and 1987 ?
Answer: The National Academy of Sciences report "An Evaluation
of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods and Food
Ingredients", identifies those factors which should be considered in
determining the appropriateness of microbiological criteria for
specific foods or food ingredients. The Microbiological Advisory
Committee will be reviewing those factors as they prepare their
recommendations for the agency.
Question: How do you believe such information would be helpful
in modifying FSIS operations?
538
Answer: It is our expectation that the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee will provide both FSIS and the industry with
guidance that will enable us to reduce the microbiological
contamination of food products.
DISCRETIONARY INSPECTIONS
Question: Dr. Crawford, in your statement to the Committee you
discuss the implementation of the Discretionary Inspection system
that will provide periodic rather than continuous inspection at some
plants. When do you expect final regulations for implementation of
periodic inspection procedures to be issued?
Answer: FSIS expects to issue proposed regulations concerning the
Discretionary Inspection system during the summer of 1988. There
will be a comment period, analysis of comments, and revisions
considered before final rules are published.
Question: How soon after issuing these regulations will FSIS
move toward national implementation of periodic inspection?
Answer: Discretionary Inspection will be implemented in stages
beginning in the summer of 1988 and move forward with the gradual
reshaping of the inspection program. Implementation will begin with
a nationwide screening effort to identify plants suitable for
periodic inspection; then assign inspection resources to processing
plants based on risk-assessment. The next step will be to install
risk based inspection in processing operations carried on in
combination slaughter/processing establishments. Finally, the
program wil 1 test variations in the inspection procedures such as
team inspection use of directed sampling.
Before implementation of the new system, it will also be
necessary for the Agency to consult and bargain with the National
Joint Councils representing the inspectors on those matters, such as
training and transfers, which are covered by our labor-management
agreement with the employee organizations.
This systematic approach will enable FSIS to implement
Discretionary Inspection and simultaneously continue adjusting and
evaluating its component parts. The plan recognizes the evolutionary
aspect of the discretionary inspection system and therefore plans to
implement changes only after they are fully developed, discussed, and
where necessary published for industry and public comment.
Question: In your testimony, Dr. Crawford, you mention that FSIS
will provide an annual report to Congress evaluating the
Discretionary Inspection program. Do you also intend to provide the
appropriations committee with an assessment of Phase II of the
Discretionary Inspection pilot project reviewing factors out lined in
the Senate Appropriations report for fisca 1 1988 before moving toward
nationwide expansion?
Answer: FSIS will be glad to provide the appropriations
committee with an assessment of Phase II of the Discretionary
Inspection pilot project. This will be included in the 1988 Annual
Report.
539
CONSUMER EDUCATION
Question: Recently FSIS announced that a "monumental task" lies
ahead to educate consumers about the proper hand 1 ing of refrigerated
foods. Please explain some of the label ing techniques and consumer
precautions recommended by your Agency?
Answer: The label ing for perishable canned meat and poultry
products, which consumers might think are shelf-stable, is required
to bear a warning about proper storage, such as "Keep Refrigerated"
or "Keep Frozen." A recent agency directive now allows safe food
hand 1 ing statements on product labels. A recent policy memorandum
set requirements for the new class of perishable prepared entrees,
cal ling for plant quality control systems to ensure product safety
and for the "Keep Refrigerated" notice on the label.
FSIS consumer education programs are aimed at expanding knowledge
of safe food hand ling techniques by targeting materials to such
groups as the media, the Extension Service, and state and national
organizations such as consumer interest groups. The education
programs include materials in Spanish as well as English and in 1989
will include descriptions of proper food hand ling methods adapted for
junior high home economics and health c 1 asses. FSIS continues to
operate its to 1 1-free Meat and Poultry Hot line for immediate public
inquiries.
The techniques publicized by FSIS emphasize refrigerator and
freezer times and temperatures, cooking times and temperatures,
holding times and temperatures, methods of reheating, and ways to
minimize the risk of cross-contamination.
NEW TEST METHODS
Question: FSIS has announced new developments in the testing of
swine for sulfame thazine residue contamination and of bob veal calves
condemned for antibiotic/sulfa residues. Would you please explain
what new testing procedures FSIS will be employing for these
purposes?
Answer: FSIS will be employing a combination of several
activities to reduce the sulfame thazine residue problem in swine.
The enhanced program will include as its first action, collection of
two samples weekly from each of the 100 largest swine s 1 aughter
establishments. The animal under test will be retained until
laboratory results are reported to the inspector. Analysis will be
by the FSIS quantitative thin layer chromatography procedure that
identifies and quantifies sulfonamide residues. If positive
violations are obtained, sampling will be geometrically increased in
subsequent sampling of that particular establishment. Normal
surveil 1 ance activity procedures will be employed by FSIS.
Beginning in April 1988, a rapid in plant test for sulfonamides
will be phased into the program. Initial introduction will be in the
20 largest establishments and expand as expeditiously as practical to
the 100 largest establishments. We anticipate completing this by the
end of May 1988. As the Sulfa On Site (SOS) test is introduced other
establishments will 1 be added into the testing of sulfonamide
residues by the quantitative thin layer chromatography procedure.
540
When the SOS test is fully in place, the laboratory analysis for
sulfonamides will terminate. The SOS in plant test uses swine urine
as the test sample. The procedure uses a modification of the
laboratory thin layer chromatography procedure. The test procedure
can analyze 6 samples at one time in approximately 30–40 minutes.
Animal carcasses will be held by the inspector until test results are
obtained. The self instruction guidebook provides details on how
inspectors should interpret test results.
The SOS test is semiquantitative because the test uses internal
standards for interpreting results. It allows a tester to determine
(a) nondetectable sulfa residues, (b) low level concentrations of
sulfamethazine residues above the tolerance, (c) sulfamethazine
residue violations in liver and other organ tissues, but not a
carcass residue violation, and (d) sulfamethazine residues above the
0.1 ppm to 1 erance in animal carcasses. Animals not exhibiting
sulfonamide residues expected to result in a residue violation will
be cleared by the inspector. The carcasses with suspect residue
violation will be held and muscle tissue will be analyzed in an FSIS
contract laboratory. Results from the quantitative test will be
reported to inspectors for either releasing the retained carcass or
condemning the carcass. For additional quality assurance FSIS will
analyze a selected number of samples for gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry confirmation to ensure program quality.
At some future date when evaluation of an immunoassay card test
for sulfame thazine is fully validated, FSIS will evaluate its use in
future sulfamethazine testing.
FSIS has two new procedures for chloramphenicol testing of bob
veal calves. One is a rapid in plant immunoassay card test that
provides a yes-no at a low-- less than five parts per billion--
concentration. It has undergone some independent evaluation to fully
define its performance characteristics. The card test uses urine as
a test sample. We believe it is rapid and reliable for use in
testing bob veal calves and has the capability of analyzing many
samples a day.
A new gas chromatography-mass spectrometry procedure using either
muscle tissue or urine has also been developed to support the
antimicrobial testing program. This test has demonstrated capability
to detect and confirm the presence of chloramphenicol at five parts
per billion concentration. FSIS is currently planning an inter agency
validation study of this method with the Center for Veterinary
Medicine. The method is reliable, sensitive, and specific for
chlor amphenicol residues.
Because chloramphenicol is an unapproved drug in food producing
animals, detection and confirmation of any amount of ch1 or amphenicol
results in a residue violation.
HAZARD ANALYSIS CRITICAL CONTROL POINT PROGRAM
Question: There has been a great deal of interest in the FSIS
plant-operated Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Program (HACCP)
demonstration project in Puerto Rico. Some have suggested that this
project provides ample comparative data on various inspection
methods. Why was the petition to allow the National Academy of
541
Sciences to review information on the Puerto Rico project recently
denied?
Answer: In the early stages of the project, steps were initiated
to establish by contract a committee of five members of the
scientific community, outside of FSIS, to review, critique, and give
counsel on the progress and planned direction of the project. This
group will provide the scientific overview required in evaluating the
results of the test.
Question: Will data on this project be released in the near
future?
Answer: After the project has been completed, the analyses
evaluated, and the five scientific consultants submit the results of
their review, FSIS will release the data in a comprehensive final
report. We expect this to be available by the end of 1989.
Question: Does this project present an opportunity for
comparative analyses of inspection methods?
Answer: This is not the purpose of the test, although it may
generate some information that could be used for comparative
analyses.
Question: When will this project be completed and final
assessments made? •
Answer: We expect all analyses to be completed, reviews by the
scientific consultants submitted, and the final agency assessments of
the project to be complete by September 1989.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MICROBIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Question: I support the Food Safety and Inspection Service's
efforts in forming the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological
Criteria for Foods. This committee appears to strike a balance
between the protection of consumers, the utilization of available
science, and the interests of agriculture. You mentioned meetings of
this committee are scheduled for April of this year. I realize this
is a time consuming task, but I am interested to know when you expect
this committee to produce a final report with recommendations?
Answer: The initial meetings of the Committee will develop an
agenda for completion of the various stages of the Committees work, a
target date for issuance of a final report will be part of this
agenda. However, we expect the committee will release its
recommendations as work is completed on each item.
Question: Do you anticipate any changes being made within your
current microbiological testing program until these recommendations
are released?
83–470 O – 88 – 18
542
Answer: This fiscal year we began expanding the scope of our
microbiological monitoring programs to include more products and more
organisms of public health concern. In addition to our emphasis on
salmonel 1 a, we have added L. monocytogenes. This emphasis is not
expected to change even after the recommendations of the National
Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods are
released. However, the committee recommendations may provide both
industry and the regulatory agencies the means of evaluating the
effectiveness of microbiological control procedures in use. After
release, we will evaluate these recommendations to determine if we
are utilizing our laboratory resources in the most effective and
efficient manner.
543
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
INSPECTION, GRADING AND STANDARDIZATION SERVICES
Question: There is a concern that graded potatoes are being
held for an unreasonable amount of time at delivery points when
shipped. This results in a deterioration of quality to the
detriment of the seller. Is AMS considering taking action that
would ameliorate this situation?
Answer: AMS does not have jurisdiction over how long
products are held at delivery points. However, the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) which we administer provides
growers or sellers with the capability of recovering damages caused
by the buyer who holds product for unreasonable periods of time
before shipping. In order to justify paying 1ess than the agreed
upon price, buyers must provide strong evidence that there was a
breach of contract by the seller and that the deterioration was not
a result of the buyers' negligence in holding the product.
Question: Has AMS considered requiring purchasers to be on
hand at delivery of graded potatoes?
Answer: A requirement that purchasers physically be on hand
at the time of delivery would present great difficulties. Many
receiving markets close early in the afternoon and do not re-open
until the next morning, while shipments can arrive at the receiving
1ocation at any time of day. In addition, delivery by rail is often
made to a railyard some distance from the receiver, who is notified
of arrival after the railcar actually arrived. Since no standard
presently exists to pinpoint the exact time of arrival, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, for receivers to have someone
available to meet incoming shipments at all times.
Question: Would a grade set at shipment be permitted to
remain the grade set upon receipt?
Answer: It has been AMS policy that once a grade
certification has been issued, that certificate remains valid unless
another USDA grade certificate is issued. The additional
certification would be needed if there was an error in the original
certification or a change had occurred in the product due to a
condition factor. If a buyer wanted to verify that product quality
had not deteriorated in transit, the buyer would ask AMS to grade
the product again. If product quality had changed, the new grade
certificate would reflect the changes and would be the official
determination of current product quality.
Question: Is AMS involved in working groups to establish
grading and standards agreements for potatoes traded between the
United States and Canada?
Answer: Each country currently has import requirements
setting minimum quality 1evels for potatoes being received in
international trade. Under provisions of these requirements both
544
the United States and Canada are authorized to certify that potatoes
exported meet the other country's requirements.
There was a Canada/U.S. Potato Meeting held in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada in September 1987 for the purpose of increasing
communication between the two countries. Charles R. Brader,
Director of the Fruit and Vegetable Division of AMS, attended the
meeting.
Question: What is AMS doing to assure that Canadian potatoes
are sufficiently inspected and are meeting the same grade and
standard requirements granted by Canada when imported to the United
States?
Answer: There is a reciprocity agreement between the United
States and Canada to accept the others' inspection certificates for
potatoes. Since 1984, we have performed spot-checks with restricted
or 1 imited inspections at the Maine border to check the accuracy of
the Canadian inspections. Potatoes that are suspected of failing to
meet the minimum quality requirements at the border spot-check may
be either returned to Canada for regrading or other disposition, or
may be shipped to destination where a full inspection must be
performed by an AMS inspector. If the potatoes fail inspection at
destination, they must be either returned to Canada or destroyed.
Potatoes are also checked to determine if they are correctly
labeled. A team of inspectors are on duty at the Maine border 40
hours per week most of the season, with the effort being increased
to two teams during the heavier shipping periods in early fall or
1ate spring. Shifts are staggered, as are 1 ocations, to ensure that
the incidence of inspection point avoidance is minimized.
Question: What is the status of the Administration's
proposal to provide less-than-continuous in-plant inspection of egg
processing?
Answer: Based on the concerns that have arisen recently over
Salmonella and other harmful bacteria that may contaminate our
Nation's food supply, the Administration has not re-submitted the
legislative proposal for 1ess-than-continuous inspection of egg
processing operations as part of the FY 1989 budget.
Question: With the recent availability of cotton classing
through personal computers or data tapes, how are ginners and grower
agents helped? Is there any cost benefit as a result of the use of
telecommunications?
Answer: From the user's standpoint, receiving classing data
electronically reduces data entry costs and provides for instant
availability of data. Cotton data received on computer tapes and
diskettes can be 1 oaded directly into the recipient's computer
system without the time-consuming chore of keying in data from
thousands of individual grade certificates. In the case of
telecommunications, classing data can be transferred directly from
the classing office minicomputer to the recipient's personal
computer, and is therefore available to users as soon as quality
determinations are made.
545
As a result of electronic dissemination, producers receive
information in a more timely manner than previously when the
information was sent through the mail. More timely information
aids producers' marketing efforts and reduces their interest
charges and bale storage costs. Furthermore, AMS' data handling
and postage costs are also reduced significantly through the use of
tapes, diskettes, and telecommunications. Overall, it is estimated
that cotton classing costs are reduced by 7-10 cents per bale as a
result of these innovations.
Question: What is the status of AMS efforts to establish a
new fee structure for inspecting imported flue-cured and burley
tobacco?
Answer: A new fee structure to recover costs for imported
flue-cured tobacco has been developed and is under review in the
Department. Similar to our existing fee structure, fee
differentials have been established that take into consideration
whether a shipment is uncertified or certified pesticide free.
WHOLESALE MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Question: The Wholesale Market Development has provided a
variety of technical and practical assistance to urban areas for
market and distribution of farm products.
Why is AMS proposing to eliminate the wholesale market
development program in fiscal year 1989?
Answer: While the program has and continues to be
beneficial, difficult decisions must be made during time of fiscal
restraint. Although the program is proposed for elimination
previously published reports on wholesale market designs will be
available to cities and/or regions that wish to improve their
wholesale market facilities and can serve as blueprints for future
planning. Some of these reports would be available through the
National Technical Information Service or State Departments of
Agriculture in States where studies have been done.
Question: What are the current projects being funded under
this program? Please provide a description of the projects, their
1ocation, and status. Will these projects be completed by the end
of fiscal year 1988? -
Answer: Surveys and analyses to determine the need for new
or modified wholesale food market facilities have been completed
for San Diego, California; Buffalo and Syracuse, New York; and
Baltimore, Maryland. We will continue to provide technical
assistance to these areas as these markets progress from the
planning stage through construction, and subsequently into actual
operation. Only the study results for San Diego are expected to be
published in FY 1988.
546
A study to help determine the kinds and amounts of new fruit
and vegetable marketing facilities needed to serve northeastern
Mississippi growers and consumers has been partially completed.
Final publication of the results of the study will not occur during
FY 1988.
Market development research is being conducted in
cooperation with the Horticultural Producers Federation to help 14
small farmer cooperatives in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Virginia, Alabama, and Oklahoma compete in the wholesale vegetable
marketplace. Final publication of the research results will not be
completed in FY 1988.
Alternative marketing studies currently underway include
catfish processing and marketing in southeastern Oklahoma, and
research on commercial fresh vegetable production in south central
Washington and north central Oregon. Certain phases of these
projects have been completed in FY 1988.
Southwest Iowa is the study area for analyzing the economics
of constructing and operating an alfalfa cubing plant. Final
publication will not occur during FY 1988.
Research and technical assistance is being provided to small
producers entering the Shiitake mushroom production and marketing
system. The research will assess the size and growth opportunities
of the U. S. Shiitake market. Studies have been started to
determine what strategies can be developed for small producers to
position their products in the marketplace. Final publication will
not occur in FY 1988.
A research project on alternative disinfestation methods for
Florida export grapefruit to Japan is complete and final
publication is expected in FY 1988.
A study to identify the cause of damage to dry grocery
products in warehouses, ascertain differences between conventional
and mechanical operations, actions to control damage, and how
damaged goods are recouped and/or disposed of has been completed.
A final manuscript on the findings of the study is expected to be
completed in FY 1988.
Development of a standard Uniform Produce Codes (UPC) and
price 1 ook-up numbers (PLU) coding system for produce is currently
underway. This coding system will provide generic UPC codes for
all packages of fixed-weight produce, standardize all PLU numbers
for produce throughout the U. S., and standardize item numbers for
all variable-weight packages of produce. Final publication will
not occur during FY 1988.
Research to increase safety, comfort and efficiency of USDA
meat and poultry inspectors has been completed. Final publication
of the results of the research is not expected during FY 1988.
A study to determine costs of various methods for
harvesting, handling and transporting fresh broccoli, and to
identify the 10west cost marketing system without compromising
547
quality has been initiated. Secondary data on broccoli production
and marketing in Georgia and South Carolina has been collected.
Final publication of the results of the study are not expected
during FY 1988.
Question: Do you believe that the continuation of projects
to expand and improve wholesale market facilities is necessary?
How will such projects be funded?
Answer: It is important that the United States have the
most efficient food distribution system possible and to the extent
that improved wholesale market facilities are part of the system,
it is important to improve them. However, we believe these
projects can be funded and undertaken by the States or regions
requiring them as they see the need. Many projects have been
conducted that can serve as a model for States wishing to improve
their wholesale market facilities.
Question: What is the purpose of the $1,016,000 in
close-out costs requested in the fiscal year 1989 budget?
Answer: If the program is terminated, close-out costs are
necessary to fund employees' severance pay, unemployment costs and
accrued annual 1eave.
BEEF GRADE NAME CHANGE
Question: You recently changed the name of a beef grade
from "Good" to "Select." Please tell the Committee more about how
the change will affect the beef industry and consumers.
Answer: The change in the grade name should benefit both
the beef industry and consumers. Practically all of the beef that
currently qualifies for the Select (Good) grade is marketed without
an official USDA grade as "no-ro11" beef. While approximately 80
percent of the "no-ro11" beef is equivalent to the Select (Good)
grade, the remaining portion is quite variable in both composition
and palatability. Due to this wide variation, consumers have no
guide to the palatability or composition of this beef and often
have difficulty making comparisons because it does not carry an
official USDA grademark. By providing the industry with an
improved grade name, it is anticipated that retailers who currently
market "no-ro11" beef may use the new "Select" grade as a
purchasing tool to provide a more uniform product to their
customers. If this beef were officially graded, consumers would
benefit from the improved uniformity and they would have the
opportunity to use official grades to make more informed
comparisons between either markets or grade 1evels. Even if
retailers only use the Select grade as a purchasing tool and do not
1abel cuts with it in the store, consumers could benefit from the
improved uniformity of the product over that currently associated
with beef purchased as "no-ro11" beef by retailers and marketed
under "house" names.
In addition, if a greater portion of the retail beef supply
is officially graded, consumers would be able to more effectively
signal the industry through their purchases, as to the quality
1evels and trimness 1evels they prefer. Thus, the industry can
most effectively market its product and also, if necessary, adjust
548
production of a given type of beef to provide consumers with the
type product they most desire. Also, by more effectively
identifying the most desired grades of beef, true value differences
could be reflected in the marketplace.
MARKET NEWS
Question: I note in your prepared statement that a Market
News office was recently opened in Miami. Could you please
elaborate on why this office was needed, who it served, what
information is reported, and the general benefits derived from the
office? -
Answer: In August 1983, President Reagan officially signed
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The Act is designed to
enhance the economic and political stability of the Caribbean
region through trade, aid, and investment. As the Caribbean
initiative gained momentum and imports surged, USDA and the Agency
for International Development received numerous inquiries from
growers and shippers in the Caribbean area for U. S. market
information. Inquiries were also coming from U.S. exporters,
importers, wholesalers, retailers, and researchers. The existing
F1orida market news offices in Pompano Beach and Winter Park could
not cover reporting of these additional commodities with current
staff. Therefore, USDA, AID, and the State of Florida combined
resources to establish the Miami Market News office to provide
price and supply information.
The Miami market news office issues reports for the fruits
and vegetables sold on the Miami terminal market and for those
fruits and vegetables grown in the Caribbean Basin which are
imported through south Florida ports. Reports are also issued for
ornamental crops imported through Miami and for imported cut
flowers shipped through the Miami airport.
This new office provides timely and accurate market
information on supply and prices which was not previously
available. Establishment of the Miami office should enhance
cooperation with the Caribbean area, while providing increased
information to the domestic produce industry. The reports are
being published in both English and Spanish by bilingual personnel
in the Miami office.
Question: What is the justification for the increase in the
market news budget in fiscal year 1989?
Answer: The goal of the market news program is to provide
the public with timely, accurate, and understandable information on
current market conditions. To enhance the system and make the
information more timely and useful, the current method used for
collection, processing, and dissemination of market news
information needs to be updated with technology currently
available. The development and implementation of a computerized
data base and communications network will improve the timeliness of
information delivery and make the information available in such a
manner as to permit users to organize and analyze the raw data for
specialized report formats. The new system will improve the
operational efficiency of market news, allow the information to be
549
accessible to a greater number of buyers and sellers and a11ow
users to better organize and analyze data, thereby increasing the
efficient utilization of the information. Approximately $650,000
of the requested $1.1 million increase is for this enhancement
effort. The remaining $450 thousand is needed to fund the FY 1988
Federal salary increase and other increased operating expenses.
RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PROGRAMS
Question: The intent of the Beef Promotion and Research
Program which became effective in July, 1986, is to expand domestic
and foreign markets for beef and beef products. What have been the
results of this program, and what is the status of the producer
referendum which was mandated by the 1aw?
Answer: During FY 1987, $73 million in assessments was
collected from domestic producers and importers. Of this total,
approximately $28 million was available to the certified State
organizations and was used for 1 ocal research and promotion
efforts. The remaining $42 million was retained for use in
nationwide research and promotion efforts. Of the total
assessments collected, $3.8 million in refunds have been
requested. Approximately 8% of the domestic assessments collected
and 14% of the imported assessments collected have been requested
as refunds. -
While the program has only been in effect for a short time,
we already have some indication that the program's goals are being
achieved. Advertising efforts have increased consumer awareness
and improved consumer attitudes towards beef. In addition, beef
prices have increased over the past year, though it is difficult to
attribute this solely to the research and promotion effort.
On May 10 of this year, the 1egislatively-mandated
referendum will be conducted. At that time, cattle producers and
beef importers will have an opportunity to choose whether to
continue the beef research and promotion program. This decision
will be the true barometer of whether the research and promotion
efforts have been effective.
Question: Similarly, what is the status of the pork
promotion and research program?
Answer: Similar to the Beef Promotion and Research program,
the Pork Promotion and Research program has been operational for an
entire year. Over $25 million in assessments from domestic
producers and importers was collected in FY 1987. Of this total,
over $5 million was retained by the State associations and used for
1ocal research and promotion efforts, and the remaining $20 million
was available for use in nationwide research and promotion
efforts. Overal 1, $2.7 million in refunds have been requested.
Approximately 11% of the domestic assessments col1ected and 1% of
the imported assessments collected have been requested as refunds.
The Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act
of 1985 which authorized the program, requires that a referendum be
held between 24 months and 30 months following the issuance of the
order. Therefore, the referendum must be held between September
550
1988, and February 1989. At that time, producers and importers
will vote to decide if the program should continue.
Question: When will the Watermelon Research and Promotion
Act be fully implemented?
Answer: In February 1987, public hearings were held to
obtain evidence in support of or in opposition to the proposed plan
for establishing a watermelon research and promotion program. A
recommended decision based on the evidence from the public hearing
has been prepared. Once approved, the recommended decision will be
published and comments will be solicited. A Secretary's decision
will then be issued. If the Secretary's decision recommends the
issuance of a plan, a referendum will be held to determine producer
and handler support. The Secretary will then issue the plan if
supported by the producers and handlers.
MARKETING ORDERS
Question: Since the completion of the study, Criteria for
Evaluating Federal Marketing Orders: Fruit, Vegetables, Nuts and
Speciality Commodities, what has AMS done to develop marketing
order criteria?
Answer: The team which prepared the "criteria study"
developed generic lists of suggested questions which industries and
USDA might want to consider when evaluating both new marketing
order programs and the implementation of regulations under existing
programs. In conjunction with the study's suggestions, AMS
developed a standardized list of topics and questions which
industries should consider before requesting a marketing order
program. Additionally, AMS developed criteria which marketing
order administrative committees should consider when formulating
seasonal regulations. Those criteria have been provided to each
marketing order committee.
Question: Have performance guidelines been updated to
include the performance measures developed through this study so
that interested parties can weigh the merits and shortcomings of
marketing orders?
Answer: The study did not develop performance measures.
Rather, 1 ists of questions critical to the decision-making process
when evaluating proposals for new marketing order programs or
implementing seasonal regulations were developed. Those questions,
where applicable, are being utilized.
An Economic Analysis and Program Review Branch has been
created within our Fruit and Vegetable Division specifically to
enhance our ability to evaluate the economic impacts of new
marketing order programs and seasonal regulations. That branch and
others in AMS will continue our efforts to develop other specific
performance criteria for marketing order programs.
Question: What is the full cost of implementing marketing
orders and agreements?
551
Answer: In FY 1988, approximately $7.6 million in Federa1
funds is available for administering marketing agreements and
orders: $3.4 million for milk marketing orders; and $4.2 million
for fruit and vegetable orders. The budget for Milk Market
Administrator's and their staffs total $34.4 million while the
Fruit and Vegetable Administrative Committees' budgets total
approximately $33.2 million.
Question: What is the percentage of the total and actual
do11ar amount that is paid by producers and handlers?
Answer: The $7.6 million in our budget request for Federal
oversight of marketing orders are Federal funds. The funding
needed to finance the fruit and vegetable and milk market
administrators is raised through assessments on producers and
handlers.
Question: Will any new marketing orders or agreements be
established in fiscal year 1988?
Answer: Four potential marketing orders have been
recommended by growers and/or handlers. Specifica11y, potatoes
produced in the "High Plains" of Texas and Eastern New Mexico,
seedless European cucumbers grown in greenhouses, Florida
strawberries and Vidalia onions grown in Georgia. Of these four,
only the Florida strawberry proposal may be established in fiscal
year 1988. The reason why is that the establishment of a marketing
order is a 1engthy and time consuming process. Before a marketing
order is issued by USDA, it must proceed through several stages. A
public hearing is held and a recommended decision based on hearing
evidence is issued by USDA. After comments and exceptions to the
recommended decision are considered, USDA issues a final decision
which contains the provisions of the marketing order. Producers
vote on the order in referendum. If two-thirds of the voting
producers favor the proposal, then the Secretary of Agriculture
issues the marketing order.
In the case of the Florida strawberry proposal, a public
hearing was held in May 1987, a Recommended Decision was published
in the second quarter of FY 1988, and a final decision should be
published in FY 1988.
For the other three proposal orders, preliminary hearings
have not yet been held.
Question: Have any producers or handlers recommended such
marketing orders or agreements that are awaiting AMS review?
Answer: A11 of the recommended marketing orders awaiting
AMS review were suggested by producers or handlers.
Question: Are any marketing orders or agreements expected
to be terminated in fisca1 year 1989?
Answer: At this time, we do not expect to terminate any
marketing orders in fiscal year 1989.
552
Question: Why has AMS revised its position on recovering
the administrative costs associated with marketing orders and
agreements?
Answer: Our proposal this year is consistent with budget
decisions reached by the Administration and Congress 1ast September
when the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act was enacted.
FEDERAL SEED ACT
Question: The fiscal year 1989 budget recommends a
termination of AMS activities under the Federal Seed Act, with
one-year phase-out costs of $722,000, resulting in a net decrease
of $325,000 in federal funds.
The fiscal year 1986 budget also recommended a termination
of the Federal Seed Act, but the fisca1 year 1987 budget ca11ed for
user fees rather than the termination of AMS activities. Could you
please explain why your proposal has been revised several times
over the past few years?
Answer: Two years ago when we first proposed elimination of
the program we believed that states could effectively enforce seed
1aws without our assistance. Our position has not changed since
then.
When this proposal was initially made, opposition was
expressed by some State Departments of Agriculture and certain
segments of industry, and Congress ultimately restored funding for
this program. Although we still believed our involvement in the
program was not necessary, last year we heeded the concerns which
were raised and modified our proposal. Consequently, rather than
proposing elimination of the program, user-fees were recommended as
we believed seedsmen benefitted from our involvement in the
program. Once again, Congress restored funding for this program.
This year we are once again proposing elimination of the program.
We recognize there will be opposition to the proposal, however, we
do believe that states can effectively enforce seed trade 1aws and
that our involvement is not necessary.
Question: Do all 50 states have seed acts in effect?
Answer: Yes, all 50 States have seed laws in effect.
Question: Are these state 1aws uniform and do they provide
protection to sellers and buyers in interstate commerce?
Answer: The State laws are generally similar but do vary in
some respects due to individual State or regional concerns. State
1aws cover seed offered or exposed for sale within the State,
whether or not the seed originates within the State. This provides
protection to sellers and buyers within the State of seed
transported through interstate commerce.
Question: Precisely, what activities would AMS cease to
conduct under this proposal?
553
Answer: AMS will cease all Federal Seed Act enforcement
activities relating to interstate shipments of mislabeled seed
including 1aboratory testing, trueness-to-variety field testing,
investigation of complaints, and regulatory actions against
shippers.
Question: Would seed sample tests, investigations, and
enforcement of violations continue?
Answer: If there is sufficient demand, a seed testing
function will be maintained to test seed samples on a fee-basis
under the Agricultural Marketing Act. Also, we could continue to
conduct--on a fee-basis--check testing, seed standardization
testing, and seed analysts workshops. The responsibility of
investigation and enforcement activities would be with the States.
Question: The AMS budget notes that "In the absence of the
Federal Seed Act program, States can be expected to amend their
programs to deal with interstate seed shipments." What amendments
to state programs are anticipated?
Answer: In most States, 1egislation would be needed to
establish State 1aw provisions equivalent to the provisions of
Title V of the Federal Seed Act, which prohibits sale or
advertisement by variety name of non-certified seed on which a
plant variety protection certificate has been issued. Some States
may choose to amend their laws in other ways such as including more
specific provisions covering the naming of varieties and brands,
since those provisions are included in the Federal Seed Act but not
most State laws.
Question: Would any of the phase-out costs recommended be
used to help states identify how to amend their seed acts or to
conduct inspections tests and take administrative actions on their
own?
Answer: The close-out costs are needed to fund severance
pay, unemployment compensation and accrued annual 1eave for those
employees affected by the elimination of this program. Funds are
not specifica11y included to help States identify how to amend
their seed acts or to conduct tests and take action on their own.
Question: How 1 ong would it take states to adjust to the
termination of the seed act program?
Answer: Since States already have seed 1 aws in effect, we
do not anticipate a major problem with the States adjusting to the
termination of the program. The adjustment required will vary from
State to State, since the degree of cooperation in enforcement of
the Federal Seed Act varies among the States. The adjustments
required will be greater for those States that submit 1arge numbers
of complaints than for States who submit few or no complaints.
Question: Would states be required to implement 1egis1ation
to accommodate for termination of the federal program?
554
Answer: Although some States may want to amend the 1aws, we
feel that the States do have adequate enforcement powers under
existing laws.
Question: Has AMS taken into consideration that some state
legislatures meet on a biennial basis?
Answer: While this issue has not been specifically
addressed, we feel that seed consumers would continue to have some
protection under existing laws and these would prove adequate until
State 1egislatures meet to pass any additional legislation the
States feel is necessary.
Question: What would be the cost of implementation of seed
inspections and compliance with labeling requirements and quality
standards to be assumed by the states?
Answer: The increased cost would vary by State depending
upon their existing laws. While we do not know exactly what
additional costs would be incurred we would hope that these costs
would be minimal.
Question: Has AMS received comments on this proposal from
representatives of the seed industry? What has been their
position?
Answer: To date, AMS has received no official comments on
our fiscal year 1989 proposal to eliminate the program.
Question: Have State Departments of Agriculture expressed
approval or disapproval of this proposal?
Answer: Informal verbal comments which we have received
from State Departments of Agriculture have been opposed to the
proposal.
PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT
Question: Will AMS be making any recommendations to amend
the Perishable Commodities Act?
Answer: In conjunction with the fiscal year 1989 budget,
1egislation is being proposed to amend the Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act.
Question: What are these recommendations?
Answer: The proposed legislation would amend the Act to
increase the statutory annual license fee ceiling from $300 to
$500, the fee for each branch operation in excess of nine from $150
§ $300, and the total aggregate fee from a maximum of $3,000 to
5,000.
555
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Question: The fiscal year 1989 budget proposes to eliminate
the Federal share of Payments to States for marketing improvement
programs. In fiscal year 1987, 19 projects in 16 States were
funded through this program. Without the federal grants, do you
believe that State Departments of Agriculture would continue to
conduct market tests and identify new methods for product marketing
as has been customary since the federal-state marketing improvement
program was authorized in 1946?
Answer: If the States think the projects are worthy, we
feel that sufficient funds to conduct these projects would be made
available by the States, local governments or by industry groups.
It has been our experience that the States have additional funds
they would be willing to expend if additional Federal funding were
unavailable. It is our belief that these additional State funds
could be utilized to offset the 10ss of Federal funds if the
program were eliminated.
Question: In providing payments to states for cooperatively
sponsored marketing projects, has there always been a match
requirement imposed?
Answer: Yes, the matching requirement was specified in the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 which is the enabling
1egislation for this program.
Question: What has been the traditional share contributed
by the states?
Answer: Our 1egislation requires that the matching share
must be at 1east 50 percent. However, in fiscal year 1987, the
States contributed approximately 13 percent more than the Federal
contribution. These contributions are generally made by State
agencies or the private sector.
Question: When will fisca1 year 1988 grants to states be
provided?
Answer: Grants are typically awarded no earlier than April
so as to allow the States ample time to submit their proposals as
well as to permit us to compare and evaluate the various
proposals. Subsequent grants are awarded 1ater in the year,
usually in July and September.
Question: For how many projects?
Answer: Announcement of the availability of funds went to
the States in January and we are now receiving proposal requests
for grant funds. It is difficult to determine at this time how
many projects will be approved. Last year, we funded 19 projects
in 16 States.
Question: Please specify the States that will receive grant
awards and the type of projects to be approved.
556
Answer: Until we have had an opportunity to receive, review
and evaluate the various proposals, we cannot determine how many
grants will be awarded or which States will receive funds.
Question: What is the duration of grants approved for these
cooperative projects with the States?
Answer: Grants are typically made for one year, although a
few are extended to two year projects.
Question: Would termination of payments to States result in
the disruption of any ongoing projects? If so, in which States and
on what specific projects?
Answer: In most cases the termination of payments would not
result in the disruption of ongoing projects. Projects that may
not have been fully funded in the first year have typically been
divided into discrete parts with the understanding that there is no
guarantee of funding for the second year. An example of this is a
project to conduct an evaluation of value determination systems for
the U.S. beef cattle industry being conducted by Texas. They are
conducting their studies of value differences between animals of
varying yield grades on steers, with plans to include heifers this
year if they are successful in obtaining funds for a second year.
Question: Has AMS ever undertaken any followup survey of
the payments to States projects to determine the efficiency and
benefits of these marketing projects upon their completion?
Answer: No, we have not conducted a survey of the benefit
of these projects. However, we do receive final reports for most
projects that provide us with a good indication of the success of
the project.
Question: Are the marketing improvement programs supported
through payments to States grants unique, or are they duplicative
of the efforts being undertaken by State or local entities.
Answer: There may be other grant programs in different
agencies but this is the only one designed to promote studies to
improve agricultural and food marketing efficiencies.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Question: How many employees are currently enrolled in the
Federal Employee Retirement System?
Answer: There are currently 1,038 AMS employees enrolled in
the Federal Employee Retirement System.
Question: How many are expected to enroll in fiscal year
1989, and what will be the cost associate with this increase?
Answer: In fiscal year 1989 an additional 350 employees are
expected to enroll at an estimated cost of approximately $1.1
million.
557
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
HVI COTTON CLASSING
Question: AMS has been converting its cotton classing
operations from manual to high volume instrument (HVI) classing.
What areas of the country have the greatest levels of participation?
Do you expect the trend of increasing usage to continue into the
future?
Answer: Automated classing is performed at the option of the
producer at an additional fee of $0.50 per bale. HVI classing
provides fiber quality data (strength, 1ength uniformity, and
instrument color) not available with manual classing. This
additional data relates to processing efficiency and is therefore
preferred by manufacturers.
Surveys are taken prior to each cotton season to determine the
level of interest in instrument classing in an area. HVI classing
was original1y introduced in the Southwest. Texas and Oklahoma have
the highest participation percentage at approximately 90% of all
cotton classed.
Alabama and Georgia are now close to 90% in HVI usage.
Unfortunately, the demand in North and South Carolina did not prove
strong enough to continue offering HVI services in those states. HVI
usage in the Mid-South has been comparatively 1ow, at approximately
20% of cotton classed.
Interest in the Western States - California and Arizona - is so
light that HVI classing is not currently offered there. These States
have established a reputation for high quality cotton and do not
perceive a need for the additional fiber quality information that HVI
classing provides. This situation could change as general industry
demand for HVI services increases. Many of the States with high
demand for HVI have acquired a reputation for poorer quality cotton.
HVI data can be used to refute the poor reputation of a growing area.
At its January 1987 annual meeting, the National Cotton Council
endorsed the use of HVI classing to the cotton industry.
For the 1987 season, 40% of all cotton classed was done on HVI,
compared to 28% for the 1986 season. We expect this trend in HVI use
to continue. The significant proportional increase in HVI classing
in FY 1987 occurred 1argely in the Southeast and to a 1esser extent
in the Mid-South. Next season, we expect the largest demand increase
to occur in the Mid-South.
COTTON GRADE EXPANSION STUDY
Question: An amendment to the Cotton Statistics and Estimates
Act required AMS to conduct a study to determine why an increasing
proportion of the cotton crop is being classified as Light Spotted.
Please proxide information concerning the status of the report and
the methodo1 ogy being employed to conduct the study. An initial
report is due October 1, 1988. Is the project on schedule to meet
that reporting date requirement?
558
Answer: AMS and the Agricultural Research Service are
cooperating on the study to determine why an increasing proportion of
the cotton crop is being classed as Light Spotted. Samples of White
and Light Spotted cotton are being analyzed chemically for terpenes,
carotenes, chlorophyll, sugar and tanning--all chemical compounds
which an cause discoloration in cotton lint and result in a Light
Spotted classification. These analyses will be completed by July 1,
1988, in time to be included in the October 1, 1988 report. Samples
were taken from an extensive study of the use of irrigation to
determine whether addition of water affects 1 int discoloration.
Samples will be classed and results analyzed in time for preparation
of the report. Cotton has been left on the plant in the field and
exposed to weather to determine how this exposure affects the 1int
color and whether the weathering causes discoloration that will
result in Light Spotted classification. Samples of cotton stored in
module and cotton from the same fields sent directly to the gin have
been classed to determine whether module storage causes the 1int
discoloration to develop. The project is on track to provide a
preliminary report by October 1, 1988. It may take 3 years to
satisfactorily determine the causes of Light Spotted cotton and
project plans are being made to continue beyond the initial year.
COTTON CLASSING FEES
Question. In 1987 Congress passed an amendment (Uniform Cotton
Classing Fees Act of 1987) to the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act
which authorized USDA to utilize a new formula to establish the
annual cotton classing fee. Has the new system worked effectively
and have the additional funds generated by the new fee structure
proved adequate for AMS to offer efficient and accurate classing
services to the cotton industry?
Answer. The Uniform Classing Fees Act of 1987 has permitted AMS
to establish classing fees at 1evels which, in 1987, recovered the
costs of providing an efficient and accurate cotton classing service
to the cotton industry. Because of the 1arger than expected cotton
crop in 1987, AMS will increase its operating reserves for this
program at the end of FY 1988 to approximately $3,800,000, or about
19 percent of FY 1988 expenditures. AMS expects to class 13,588,000
bales in FY 1988.
Question. P1 ease provide for the record a table showing income
and expenses for the 1987/88 season.
[The information follows: ]
559
Cotton Classing Income and Expenses
1987–88 Crop Year Expenses
REVENUE
Carryover from FY 1987 $ 2,329,954
Classing Fees 18,033, 208
Samp1e Sales 3,497,029
Other Income 500,000
Total Available Funds $24,360, 191
COSTS
Total Projected Expenses $20,480, 206
Carryover to Fisca1 Year 1989 $ 3,879,985
Question. Based on current projections, do you expect the
1988/89 classing fees to decline?
Answer. Based on current projections, AMS expects 1988/89
classing fees to decline significantly. At present, we are proposing
to reduce the base fee by 17 cents per sample, from $1.20 in 1987/88
to $1.03 in 1988/89.
Question. Do you project any significant capital expenditure
for new buildings or equipment in the next three years?
Answer. We do not project any significant increases in
expenditures for building during the next 3 years. Expenditures for
equipment will increase if an increasing portion of the crop is
classed by High Volume Instruments (HWI). In the 1987/88 crop year,
producers requested HVI classing on approximately 40 percent of the
samples submitted. We expect this percentage to increase during the
next few years, which will necessitate the purchase of additional
instruments. The additional user fees charged for HVI classing will
recover expenditures for any extra instruments needed.
Question. AMS collects fees for classing cotton and has
authority to invest any surplus in insured, interest-bearing
accounts. Are there other sources of income derived from the cotton
classing program, such as sale of standards, samples, etc. which
sometimes result in temporary surpluses but which cannot be invested
in insured, interest-bearing accounts? If so, is this an
administrative decision or does USDA lack legislative authority to
invest these funds? If authority to invest income generated by these
activities was granted, approximately how much interest would be
earned and how might these funds be used?
Answer. AMS has investment authority only for funds collected
under Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act programs. We also provide
classing services, standards, calibration cottons, etc. , to the
industry under the authority of the Cotton Standards act. We do not
have investment authority for funds collected under this program.
If we had investment authority for Cotton Standards Act funds, it is
estimated that approximately $32,000 in interest could have been
earned.
560
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
FEDERAL SEED ACT
Question: The Federal Seed Act is described as a
truth-in-labeling 1aw which regulates agricultural and vegetable
seeds moving in interstate commerce. You state that the States can
be expected to amend their programs to deal with these seed
shipments. Interstate commerce comes under the purview of federal
legislation and responsibility.
How would the states 1egislate these regulations and why
should states fund interstate seed labeling?
Answer: The Department feels that the States have adequate
seed regulatory authority under their existing State 1 aws to
regulate seed without the specific regulation of seed in interstate
commerce. Seed moving in interstate commerce will eventually come
to rest in a State and be subject to the State 1aw. However,
States may want to amend their laws to include provisions
equivalent to the provisions of Title V of the Federal Seed Act,
which prohibits sale or advertisement by variety name of
non-certified seed on which a plant variety protection certificate
has been issued.
WHOLESALE MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND PAYMENTS TO STATES
Question: While I recognize these are different program
areas, I have aggregated these areas because the same arguments pro
and con exist for each. You seem to believe that this form of
financial support only benefits 1 ocal and private sectors. I can
understand the point that the 1 ocal or regional suppliers and
producers will benefit from new or improved markets. In the case
of payments to states, their cooperation with funding is required.
I believe an alternative perspective was the basis for the original
program. The national consumer also benefits from new products or
1ower cost alternatives to other products. What has changed to
invalidate the national consumer's benefits from new products or
1ower cost alternative products?
Answer: Work currently done under the wholesale market
development program is geared primarily towards improvement of
1ocal or State market facilities. Similarly, many of the
cooperatively funded activities undertaken in the Federal State
Marketing Improvement program are also directed at 1 ocal or
regional marketing problems. Because these projects are 1 ocal in
nature, we believe the States or private entities should fund these
projects rather than the Federal government.
561
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator BURDICK. The committee would like very much to thank all
of those here today, and also the people representing the Department
of Agriculture. Our next hearing will be held at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 15, in this same room. At that time the committee will hear
from representatives of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Commodity Credit
Corporation.
Until then, the Subcommittee Stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., Thursday, March 3, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 15.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1989
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1988
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, Sasser, McClure, and Specter.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOLDBERG, ACT ING UNDER SECRETARY FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND COMMODITY PROGRAMS
ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF MILTON J. HERTZ, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID C. HALL, DIRECTOR, BUDGET DIVISION
OPENING REMARKS
Senator BURDICK. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today, we
will be hearing testimony from representatives of the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Serv-
ice regarding conservation programs as well as programs operated
through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
With us today is Mr. Richard Goldberg, Acting Under Secretary for
International Affairs and Commodity Programs and a resident of the
great state of North Dakota; Milton Hertz, Administrator of ASCS, also
a great representative of North Dakota; Wilson Scaling, Chief of the
Soil Conservation Service; and Stephen Dewhurst, Budget Officer for
the Department of Agriculture.
No two agencies were more significantly affected by the 1985 farm
bill than ASCS and SCS. The farm programs were changed significantly
and the conservation title of that act instigated major new programs.
I believe that these two agencies have done a commendable job of
implementing these programs and carrying out the wishes of Congress,
and I want to congratulate you for your diligent work in that regard.
The budget that you are presenting today is notable for several reasons.
(563)
564
First of all, the costs of the farm programs continue to decrease. The
estimated cost in 1989 of just over $17 billion is a significant reduction
from the $26 billion price in fiscal year 1986.
We are also beginning to see the magnitude of the Conservation
Reserve Program. With 23 million acres currently entered into the
program, the budget request for the CRP is increasing by $733 million
this year, to a total estimate of $1.9 billion for fiscal year 1989.
The budget is also notable for its attempt once again to eliminate the
conservation cost-share programs, as well as reduce the water Surveying,
planning, and construction activities.
Congress has never seen fit to eliminate these programs because it
has never been demonstrated that the Conservation Reserve Program
will take up the slack that these other important programs would leave
if they were eliminated.
With this brief summary, I will leave the further explanation of the
budget and programs to you.
Again, welcome to the committee. I look forward to discussing these
programs with you.
I believe we have the Senator from Tennessee and he is recognized.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SASSER
Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a
couple of brief observations.
First, I believe the two agencies before us today have the most bear-
ing on the day-to-day activities of farmers, especially since the im-
plementation of the 1985 farm bill. These agencies, ASCS and SCS,
help administer the guidelines under which most farms operate. And it
is very important that ASCS and the Soil Conservation Service have
competent individuals, especially at the local level, to help translate cur-
rent legislation into Sound farm policy.
I might Say, Mr. Chairman, in my home state of Tennessee Soil ero-
sion continues to be one of the most significant problems that our
farmers face. We have in Tennessee Some of the most serious Soil ero-
sion problems in all of the 50 states. Now implementation of conserva-
tion plans are moving along well, but I do not believe we should slow
our effort after the 1990 deadline for having soil conservation programs
in place. And I plan to play a large part in ensuring that further educa-
tion in Soil conservation programs is part of the 1990 farm bill.
I also believe it is very important that we make plans to keep a large
percentage of these lands placed in the Conservation Reserve Program
out of crop production.
We initially experienced some problems in relating the programs of
the 1985 farm bill to our farmers, but it appears that we passed that
stage. We must now ensure that ASCS and SCS have the manpower
and the expertise to continue not only education of the farmers but also
implemention of the best programs possible.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have a couple of questions I
would like to submit for the record. As you know, we have got four ap-
565
propriation Subcommittees meeting simultaneously this morning and I
am going to have to get to the Energy and Water Subcommittee. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. I will see that your questions are propounded, and
thank you for your remarks.
I would like to call on, first, an old friend, Dick Goldberg from
Fargo. Proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOLDBERG
Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be here before your Subcom-
mittee this morning. I have with me Mr. Milton Hertz, the Adminis-
trator for ASCS, and Mr. Wilson Scaling, the Chief of the Soil Con-
servation Service. Both of these gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, have
prepared remarks, which they will submit for the record, and they will
discuss with you in more detail the 1989 budget for their respective
agencies.
Before we get to their testimony, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
make a few observations, if I may. *
As you know, Secretary Lyng appeared before your committee last
month and described the recent improvement in the agricultural econ-
omy. It is attributable, in large part, to the provisions of the 1985 farm
bill. -
Evidence of it can be seen in the improved export performance that
has been going on, and the outlook is brighter for next year than this
year. Surplus commodity stocks are declining and we have had a
strengthening of farm prices.
As a direct result of these positive developments, CCC's spending in
price and farm income support programs is now falling. CCC net out-
lays are projected to reach $17.7 billion in fiscal year 1988, which is
$8.1 billion below the record level established in fiscal year 1986.
For fiscal year 1989, we expect a further decline in net outlays down
to roughly $17 billion.
While the level of farm program costs remains much higher than we
would prefer, the trend in CCC's spending is expected to continue
downward as provisions of the Food Security Act become fully effective
and our farm program may become more market oriented.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, you remember Congress increased the ceil-
ing on CCC borrowing authority to $30 billion. That is an improvement
from our point of view. We appreciate the action that was taken, and it
will help avoid the unnecessary interruptions that CCC has experienced
in recent years with respect to running out of money for our price sup-
port operations.
In the 1989 budget proposals we are requesting a current, indefinite
appropriation, which has now been authorized. This action, coupled
with the increase in CCC's borrowing authority, should eliminate the
possibility of CCC payment disruption in 1989 and in future years.
566
In the soil and water conservation area, our proposal requests a level
of funding which is necessary to implement the provisions authorized in
the conservation title of the Food Security Act of 1985. The overall
program level for 1989 is estimated at $2.8 billion, up from $1.5 billion
in 1987. .
The largest component of this funding is for the fourth year of the
Conservation Reserve Program. CRP is administered by ASCS, while
SCS provides technical assistance for identifying the highly erodible
land and preparing adequate conservation plans.
The Soil Conservation Service is also providing the technical assist-
ance to identify wetlands affected by “swampbuster” provisions, and
highly erodible croplands needing additional conservation in order to
remain eligible for the commodity price and income support programs.
In addition, our fiscal year 1989 budget includes proposals to reform
the watershed programs and to manage the Resource Conservation and
Development Program to achieve important rural development objec-
tlveS.
As in previous years, many of the conservation cost-share programs
are not being proposed for funding for fiscal policy reasons.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. And at this time, I would
like to turn over the remarks to Mr. Hertz.
Senator BURDICK. On one condition, that I get a chance to ask you a
question or two before you leave.
Mr. GOLDBERG. I am going to stay here a little while, Mr. Chairman.
Or you can go ahead now if you want to.
SUNFLOWER OIL PROGRAM
Senator BURDICK. All right. I want to ask you this question.
I understand that you had direct responsibility for the Sunflower pur-
chases that are mandated by the fiscal year 1988 appropriations act. The
importance of this program to the Sunflower growers is significant and
the results should be extremely beneficial. y
The intent of the legislation is to use the Sunflower oil that you pur-
chase as a type of export enhancement or bonus to promote our oil
Sunflower products abroad.
Are you planning to implement this and how Soon can we expect
Some positive results?
Mr. GOLDBERG. Mr. Chairman, the so-called SOAP program—your
program that was initiated last year—that is the program that you are
referring to.
The Foreign Agricultural Service and our Office of General Counsel
are in the process of working out the details as far as the rules and
regulations that have to be implemented, and it has progressed quite a
ways. It is working its way through the process.
I cannot give you an exact date, Mr. Chairman, but we expect that
the Department will fully implement and carry out that program within
this year.
567
Senator BURDICK. Well, thank you very much.
Now you can leave if you wish.
Mr. Hertz.
STATEMENT OF MILTON HERTZ
Mr. HERTz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity
to be here today and discuss the budget request for ASCS.
I would like to summarize briefly the proposals outlined in my
prepared statement and to submit it for the record.
Administrative operations in ASCS offices have been severely
Strained since the 1985 Food Security Act was enacted. We have ex-
perienced record participation in CCC programs, and in fiscal year
1987, our county office staff-year use was the highest since 1970, total-
ing nearly 18,000 staff-years.
We anticipate similar workload activity for fiscal year 1988. During
this same period we have devoted major personnel resources to imple-
ment our state and county office automation project, commonly
referred to as SCOAP.
We will realize increased efficiencies from this automation effort in
fiscal year 1989. Due also to anticipated reduced loan activity and a
lower level of program participation, we anticipate a reduction of ap-
proximately 1,600 county office staff-years in fiscal year 1989. In federal
offices, we also expect to see Some workload savings associated with
SCOAP.
For fiscal year 1989, we are requesting CCC transfer authority of
$580 million for ASCS salaries and expenses.
COMMODITY PROGRAM OUTLAYS
For commodity programs, fiscal year 1987 was the first full year that
the Food Security Act was in effect. Net CCC outlays, which mainly
reflected 1986-crop spending, totaled $22.4 billion, down substantially
from the record $25.8 billion spend in fiscal year 1986.
In response to the act, marketing and production decisions began
reflecting greater market orientation. Price support rates during the
1986 marketing year were lower, exports began to increase significantly,
and stocks began to decline.
For fiscal year 1988, total CCC net outlays are expected to decrease
by $4.7 billion to $17.7 billion, due mainly to improvements in the
supply/use situations for wheat, feed grains, and cotton.
In fiscal year 1989, we project that CCC outlays will further decline
to a level of $17.1 billion, mainly due to smaller feed grain outlays and
reduced dairy program costs. Budget Savings attributable to the Recon-
ciliation Act of 1987 are incorporated into these net outlay projections.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, CCC has experienced a number of
funding emergencies in recent years when its available borrowing
authority fell to such low levels that the Corporation had to suspend
paymentS.
Because of the enacted increase in the CCC borrowing authority ceil-
ing to $30 billion, combined with the projected decline in net outlays,
we do not anticipate similar shutdowns in fiscal year 1988.
568
We appreciate this committee's help in getting this much-needed cap-
ital increase. We believe, however, that the current, indefinite appropria-
tion authorized in the 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act is needed to
address the longer term financial requirements of farm price Support
legislation.
For fiscal year 1989, the budget proposes a current, indefinite ap-
propriation for reimbursement of realized losses and elimination of the
CCC operating expenses appropriation enacted this year, which we
believe imposes unnecessary administrative restraints on entitlement
spending that is mandated by farm program legislation.
Since CCC funding needs can change drastically over Short periods
of time, a very real potential for future program disruption exists if this
type of appropriation, with present spending authorizations, is con-
tinued.
CONSERVATION RESERVE
We also appreciate the flexibility shown by this committee in ap-
propriating for fiscal year 1988 the amount of the updated USDA es-
timate for the Conservation Reserve Program.
As you know, signups held after the original budget Submission and
revised policy decisions regarding how annual payments will be made
can greatly affect the appropriation needs for this program. In the case
of fiscal year 1988, these changes acted to lower the appropriation
needs for CRP.
Cumulative CRP enrollment through the fifth signup, held in July
1987, is approximately 23 million acres, of which 14.6 million, or about
64 percent, are commodity base acres. Included in the total enrollment
were 7.1 million 1988-crop acres entered in advance. However, final
data for the fifth signup indicates that total acres enrolled for the crop-
year 1988 are 6.4 million.
During fiscal year 1988, at least two signup periods will be held. The
first took place February 1 to 19, and the Second will be scheduled for
the summer. The eligibility criteria were expanded for the February
signup to provide incentives for improvement of the nation's water
quality and for increased tree plantings.
The budget projects enrollment of approximately 5.9 million addi-
tional 1988-crop acres, which would bring total participation for the
1986 through 1988 crop-years to about 29 million acres. The sixth
signup bids are being analyzed, and an announcement of the acceptable
rental rates for each county should be made by mid-March. Preliminary
information indicates, however, that bids were received on 4.5 million
acres. The final bid and enrollment data will be available in early May.
This process is taking significantly more time than previous signups
because the county ASCS committees have the responsibility for ensur-
ing that rental rates under CRP contracts are not in excess of prevailing
local rental rates for an acre of comparable land, as required in the
1988 appropriations act.
569
For fiscal year 1989, the appropriation request of $1.9 billion would
provide $660 million for cost sharing on approximately 12 million 1989-
crop acres, $8 million for technical assistance, and $1.2 billion for the
majority of the $1.5 billion in annual rental payments estimated to be
due in fiscal year 1989.
Section 1234(d) of the Food Security Act provides the authority to
make rental payments in cash or commodities or Some combination
thereof, and the budget proposes that the remaining rental payments
due in fiscal year 1989, an estimated $297 million, be paid with com-
modity certificates.
OTHER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
In view of the critical need to reduce federal spending, no funding is
proposed in fiscal year 1989 for the Agricultural Conservation Program,
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the Forestry Incen-
tives Program, the Water Bank Program, the Emergency Conservation
Program, or the Dairy Indemnity Program. Fiscal year 1988 allocations
have been issued to states. Existing contracts will be honored.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to
respond to questions. .
Senator BURDICK. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
570
STATEMENT OF MILTON HERTZ
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before
you today to discuss the fiscal year 1989 budget request for the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. First I would like to summarize our
proposals for the ASCS Salaries and Expenses Account and the Commodity Credit
Corporation, then highlight our requests for the conservation programs.
Administrative Support
Mr. Chairman, administrative operations at all levels of ASCS, but
particularly in county offices, have been severely strained since the
Food Security Act of 1985 and its amendments were enacted. During this
period we have experienced record producer participation in CCC agricultural
programs, and in FY 1987 our county office staff-year use was the highest
since 1970, total ing 17,842 staff-years. We anticipate similar workload
activity for FY 1988. During this same period we have also devoted
major personnel resources to fully implement our State and County Office
Automation Project, commonly referred to as SCOAP. In FY 1989, however,
we anticipate some workload decreases. Provisions of the Food Security Act
will continue to improve the farm economy, leading to reduced loan activity
and a somewhat lower level of program participation, reducing staff-year
requirements in the county offices. In addition, SCOAP should be fully
implemented by the end of FY 1988, resulting in more efficient county
operations. Total FY 1989 county office staff-year needs are projected to
decrease by approximately 1,600 staff-years. In Federal offices, we also
expect to see workload savings associated with SCOAP, since most of the
significant software applications will be operational by the end of FY 1988.
For FY 1989 we are requesting a CCC transfer of $580 million for ASCS Salaries
and Expenses. This amount would enable ASCS to continue to administer the
mandated activities of the Food Security Act of 1985 in addition to changes in
farm program activities mandated by the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.
57.1
Commodity Credit Corporation
Commodity Program Outlays
FY 1987 was the first full fiscal year in which the Food Security Act of 1985
was in effect for commodity programs. Net CCC outlays in fiscal year 1987,
which mainly reflect 1986-crop spending, totalled $22.4 billion, down
substantially from the record $25.8 billion spent in fiscal year 1986. In
response to the 1985 Act, marketing and production decisions began to reflect
greater market orientation. Price support rates were lower than those for the
1985 crops. With lower price levels for U.S. commodities, exports during the
1986 marketing year began to increase and stocks began to decline. Corn
exports rose 21 percent, while wheat exports were up 10 percent. Also,
foreign purchases of U.S. cotton increased by 250 percent, and rice shipments
rose 45 percent.
For fiscal year 1988, total CCC net outlays are expected to continue their
downward trend, decreasing to $17.7 billion. This $4.7 billion decline in
outlays from 1987 is expected to result mainly from improvements in the
supply/use situations for wheat, feed grains and cotton. In the 1987
marketing year, exports of grains and cotton are continuing to strengthen.
Strong domestic demand also has been an important factor in reducing stocks,
particularly for corn and cotton. As a result, CCC costs associated with
these crops will be down.
CCC net outlays are expected to decline further in fiscal year 1989 to
$17.1 billion, mainly due to projections of smaller feed grain outlays caused
by continued strong demand and smaller surplus stocks. Dairy program costs
are also projected to decrease as the lower support rate raises consumption
and reduces net CCC purchases of surplus dairy products.
Budget Reconciliation Act Changes
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 legislated certain changes in
the commodity programs administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. Among the major changes are: a 1.4-percent decrease in
the 1988 and 1989 target prices; adjustments to 1988- and 1989-crop loan
572
rates; a 10-percent paid diversion program for 1988- and 1989-crop feed
grains;.. a reduction in outlays for non-target price commodities; and a
reduction in CCC storage, handling, and transportation costs over the next two
years. In addition, the Reconciliation Act requires advance deficiency
payments on the 1988 through 1990 crops and provides for a so-called "0/92"
program for wheat and feed grains, which eliminates planting of the program
crop as a requirement to receive deficiency payments. Finally, the 1987 Act
tightens up the definition of "persons" who are entitled to program payments
under the commodity programs. Budget savings attributable to the provisions
of the Reconciliation Act are incorporated into our CCC net outlay projections.
CCC Financing
As you know, Mr. Chairman, CCC has experienced a number of funding emergencies
in recent years when its available borrowing authority fell to such low levels
that the Corporation had to suspend payments until additional funding could be
appropriated. We do not anticipate similar shutdowns in fiscal year 1988.
The enacted increase in the CCC borrowing authority ceiling to $30 billion
and declining net outlays will combine to make a payment suspension extremely
unlikely. We appreciate this Committee's help in getting this much-needed
capital increase.
While the increase in borrowing authority will help to alleviate cash flow
crises, we believe it must be coupled with the current, indefinite
appropriation authorized in the 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act in order to
address the longer term financing requirements of farm price support
legislation. For FY 1989, the President's Budget proposes a current,
indefinite appropriation for reimbursement of realized losses, and elimination
of the CCC operating expenses appropriation enacted this year, which we
believe imposes unnecessary administrative restraints on entitlement spending
that is mandated by farm program legislation. Since ccº funding needs can
change drastically over short periods of time, a very real potential for
future program disruption exists if this type of appropriation, with preset
spending authorizations, is continued.
573
Conservation Reserve
We very much appreciate the flexibility shown by this Committee, Mr. Chairman,
in appropriating for fiscal year 1988 the amount of the updated USDA estimate
for the Conservation Reserve Program. As you know, signups held subsequent to
the original budget submission, as well as policy decisions regarding how
annual rental payments will be made, can greatly affect the appropriation
needs for this program. In the case of FY 1988, these changes acted to lower
the appropriation needs for the program.
Approximately $1.066 billion of the $1.131 billion appropriated in 1988 will
be used to share the cost of establishing cover, largely for the estimated
13 million 1988-crop acres expected to be enrolled by the end of FY 1988.
Other FY 1988 cover cost expenditures are for amounts due farmers who did not
request payments in fiscal year 1987 for 1987-crop acreage. As directed by
the appropriation language, $45.24 million has been transferred to the Soil
Conservation Service for carrying out the conservation provisions of the Food
Security Act.
The balance of $19.76 million will be used to fund SCS and Forest Service
technical assistance specifically for the CRP. No funds were needed for
annual rental payments due in FY 1988 since these payments were made entirely
in CCC commodity certificates early in the fiscal year.
Cumulative enrollment through the fifth signup, held in July 1987, is
approximately 23 million acres, of which 14.6 million, or about 64 percent,
are commodity base acres. Included in the total enrollment are 7.1 million
1988-crop acres entered in advance.
During FY 1988, at least two signup periods will be held: the first took
place February 1 - 19, and the second will be scheduled for the summer.
The Budget projects enrollment of approximately 5.9 million additional
1988-crop acres, which would bring total participation for the 1986 through
1988 crop-years to about 29 million acres. Sixtb signup bids are being
analyzed, and an announcement of the maximum acceptable bid rates for each
83–470 O - 88 – 19
574
county should be made by mid-March. Preliminary information indicates,
however, that bids were received on 4.5 million acres. The final bid and
enrollment data will be available in early May. This process is taking
significantly more time than previous signups because the county ASC
committees have the responsibility for ensuring that rental rates under the
CRP contracts are not in excess of the prevailing local rental rates for an
acre of comparable land as required in the 1988 Appropriations Act. It is
anticipated that some counties in the Great Plains States will reach the
25-percent limitation on enrollment of cropland, so that no further bids under
the CRP will be accepted in those counties. To date only 42 counties have
requested exception to this rule and 40 were approved.
The Conservation Reserve Program eligibility criteria were expanded for
the February signup to provide incentives for increased tree
plantings and for the improvement of the nation's water quality.
Specifically, filter strips -- cropland areas 66-99 feet wide next to
streams, lakes and estuaries -- were eligible for the CRP even if the
soil erosion criteria were not met. This change permits farmers to use
CRP enrollment as a cost-effective option in establishing permanent cover
to control nonpoint source pollution of valuable water resources.
To attract increased tree acreage, the erosion criterion was changed from 3T
to 2T -- that is, two times rather than three times the normal soil loss
tolerance -- for producers opting to plant trees on the designated areas, and
the highly erodible predominance criterion has been changed from two-thirds to
one-third of the field.
The FY 1989 appropriation request of $1.864 billion would provide $660 million
for cost-sharing on approximately 12 million 1989-crop acres, $8 million for
technical assistance, and $1.196 billion for the majority of the
$1.493 billion in annual rental payments estimated to be due in FY 1989.
Section 1234(d) of the Food Security Act provides the authority to make rental
payments in cash or commodities or some combination thereof, and the Budget
575
proposes that the remaining rental payments due in FY 1989, an estimated
$297 million, be paid with commodity certificates.
Other Conservation Programs
. In view of the critical need to reduce Federal spending, no funding is
proposed in FY 1989 for the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Colorado
River Basin Sal inity Control Program, the Forestry Incentives Program, the
Water Bank Program, or the Emergency Conservation Program.
In FY 1988, the Agricultural Conservation Program will continue to focus on
solving critical conservation problems and meeting water quality goals.
Instead of targeting to selected geographical areas, the program will be
targeted nationwide to the most cost-effective practices by using data from
the Conservation Reporting and Evaluation System. FY 1988 allocations have
been issued to States. The 1988 program is expected to save 39.5 million tons
of soil and conserve 568,000 acre-feet of water.
Under the Colorado River Basin Sal inity Control Program in FY 1988, ASCS will
use $1.8 million for the Grand Valley, Colorado, project and $2.3 million for
the Uinta Basin, Utah, project to continue installation of on-farm measures to
reduce salinity levels in the Colorado River. In addition, $575 thousand will
be used to begin implementation of the Lower Gunnison project in Colorado and
the Big Sandy project in Wyoming. Finally, $220 thousand will be provided for
pre-implementation technical assistance at McElmo Creek, Colorado, and for
planning at Price-San Rafael, Utah. In accordance with the Colorado River
Basin Sal inity Control Act of 1974, as amended, the Basin States will reimburse
the Treasury from hydro-electric power revenues 30 percent of ASCS cost-share
costs, thereby reducing the Federal investment to 49 percent of the project at
the maximum cost-share payment of 70 percent.
Dairy Indemnity Program
In FY 1988, available carryover funds will be used to complete payment of two
claims from dairy producers in Missouri and Oklahoma for milk and milk
576
products still off the market due to heptachlor contamination in 1986. All
producers are expected to be back on the market by April, 1988.
USDA is working with producers in Arkansas to recover losses from various
insurance carriers and from feed companies responsible for the 1986
contamination incident. Also, in December, 1987, a settlement was reached
with Hawaiian producers in which USDA recovered $5.3 million of the
$6.3 million paid by ASCS under this program for Hawaiian claims in 1982.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to respond to any
questions.
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF WILSON SCALING, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MANLY S. WILDER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF
GALEN S. BRIDGE, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR PROGRAMS
ROBERT R. SHAW, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR TECHNOLOGY
JOHN W. PETERSON, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR ADMINISTRATION
JUDITH C. PALENSKY, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUDGET PLANNING AND
ANALYSIS STAFF
BUDGET REQUEST
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Scaling.
Mr. SCALING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here with
you today.
I would like to make a few remarks and submit my prepared state-
ment for the record
We in SCS believe that the total 1989 budget request of $602.8 mil-
lion for SCS programs is a positive recommendation that would con-
tinue the substantial effort this nation has been making in Soil erosion
control, water resources protection, and rural development. This budget
request recognizes both the enormous effort now under way to imple-
ment the Conservation Title of the 1985 Food Security Act, and the sig-
nificant continuing demand and Support for ongoing SCS conservation
programs.
As in prior years, the budget continues to emphasize the technical as-
sistance role of the federal conservation programs. Funding provided in
1988 for implementing the Food Security Act—for the technical assis-
tance and the Soil Surveys—would be maintained in 1989. This would
enable us to meet these urgent responsibilities for protecting our critical
Soil and water resources. At the Same time we are doing everything pos-
sible to continue other conservation program activities at the State and
local levels.
We are seeing good progress toward meeting the Food Security Act
workload.
As of January 1, 1988, we had completed about 80 percent of the
highly erodible land determinations and 25 percent of the planning. We
believe that with the help of the entire conservation partnership and
some improvements in our own productivity, we will be able to meet
the 1990 planning deadline, provided that producers recognize their
responsibilities and do not wait until the last minute to ask for assist-
3IICC.
The budget request also seeks to strengthen further the state and lo-
cal role in planning and implementing conservation activities. To this
(577)
578
end, continued funding is requested for the Resource Conservation and
Development Program, recognizing its key role in promoting inter-
agency cooperation and pooling of resources from all sources to help
revitalize our rural communities and conserve soil and water resources.
Likewise, a continuing, although reduced, water resources program is
proposed. N
A number of legislative and administrative changes are being pro-
posed which are intended to improve the effectiveness of these im-
portant programs, and also to ensure that our federal program dollars
are allocated to the highest priority needs, especially during these times
of constrained budgets. -
These proposals are described more specifically in my prepared tes-
timony and in our budget justification materials.
We look forward to the opportunity for some open discussion on
these issues. The budget does continue proposals made for the past
several years to terminate conservation cost-sharing programs, including
the Great Plains Conservation Program, reflecting continued concerns
with the overall level of federal spending.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraged by past Support for the
SCS technical role in soil and water conservation. This budget is our
best estimate of SCS needs based on balancing resource conservation
needs and budgetary constraints. -
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement and biographical sketches follow:]
579
STATEMENT OF WILSON SCALING
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a privilege to be here
today to discuss our 1989 budget proposals for the Soil Conservation Service.
We have been optimistic, yet prudent, in developing these proposals. The
funding requested continues the substantial effort this Nation has been
making in soil erosion control, water resource protection, and rural
development. In addition to the federal dollars we are spending, there is an
increasing level of state, local, and private-sector contributions to the
conservation effort.
FY 1989 BUDGET REQUEST
The total budget request for Soil Conservation Service activities is
$602.8 million for fiscal year 1989. Although this is $73.8 million less than
the 1988. Appropriation level, it is an increase of $126 million above the
President's budget request for FY 1988. Gone are many of the past
recommendations to terminate ongoing financial and technical assistance
programs. This more positive recommendation recognizes both the enormous
effort now underway to implement the Conservation Title of the 1985 Food
Security Act and the significant continuing demand, and support, for ongoing
SCS conservation programs.
Other important national conservation priorities would be addressed,
including water quality issues and support for state, local, and
private-sector initiatives in resource conservation and rural development.
As in prior years, the budget continues to emphasize the technical
assistance role of Federal conservation programs. Accordingly, the requested
level for 1989 would permit us to maintain current operations for our
conservation technical assistance, soil survey, snow survey, and plant
materials programs. Increases totaling $11.3 million are requested to
maintain the buying power of these important programs. The additional funds
requested are to cover mandatory cost increases related to the January 1988
580
pay raise and the new Federal Employee Retirement System, and for increased
operating costs for nonsalary support items. The additional $45 million,
provided in 1988 as a transfer from the Conservation Reserve Program for
implementing the Food Security Act, is continued as part of the 1989 request
for conservation technical assistance. The funds requested will enable us to
meet these urgent responsibilities for protecting our critical soil and water
resources. We are doing everything possible to continue other program
activities at the state and local levels while, we respond to the new
Conservation Provisions.
We believe that this budget recommendation will put us in a strong
position in the years ahead to help farmers maintain the conservation now
going on the land under the Food Security Act. And, we will be in an equally
strong position to respond to public concerns on other conservation issues
such as the offsite effects of erosion and water quality. As we look down the
road, we foresee considerable demand for SCS technical assistance on water
quality issues. We believe that our 1988 update of USDA's National
Conservation Program will bear us out on this.
STATUS OF FOOD SECURITY ACT WORK
Implementing the Conservation Title of the 1985 Food Security Act remains
our top priority in the Soil Conservation Service. We are now in the peak
workload years for implementing these provisions, with major efforts largely
devoted to implementing the conservation compliance requirements.
We estimate that our field staff will be contacting about 1.2 million
farmers between now and the end of 1989 to verify existing conservation
systems and to develop new conservation plans. We know from our National
Resources Inventory that about 29 percent of the highly erodible land is
adequately treated and that another ll percent has been contracted under the
Conservation Reserve Program through the 5th program sign-up. That leaves us
with 60 percent, or about 100 million acres, that needs to be treated by the
end of 1994, if all these farmers participate in USDA programs.
581
As of January 1, 1988, we estimate that 80 percent of the highly erodible
land determinations and about 25 percent of the planning has been done. Our
nationwide goal is to complete 90 percent of the highly erodible land
determinations and 65 percent of the planning in calendar year 1988. We've
stepped up our soil survey program to meet the demand for highly erodible land
determinations. Mapping has been completed on about 90 percent of the
cropland and potential cropland subject to the FSA provisions. About 23
million acres of eligible lands have gone into the Conservation Reserve
Program, saving about 467 million tons of erosion annually. This financial
incentive is reducing erosion at about 20 tons per acre, increasing the
effectiveness of USDA assistance devoted to erosion control.
A number of states also are gearing up for a high workload because of the
swampbuster provision. I am expecting this swampbuster activity to pick up as
producers better understand the requirements.
Do we have the resources to help get all this conservation on the ground?
With the help of the entire conservation partnership, I think we can. SCS and
district people have been resourceful in balancing their workloads. Computer
automation has been a big help. In many parts of the country, traditional
one-on-one planning just is not enough to meet the 1989 deadline, so, many
conservation districts are turning to group planning.
Our workload predictions hinge on how well producers with highly erodible
land understand that they have choices, obligations, and deadlines. We must
continue an intensive public-awareness program, for we do not want a single
farmer who needs SCS help and who wants our help to go without that help.
Many producers have gotten the word. In some areas, we have found that many
farmers want their plan developed and put in place immediately. we are doing
our best to meet these demands.
582
MEETING OTHER NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PRIORITIES
Recognizing the need for greater accountability and cost effectiveness in
federal activities, we seek to further strengthen the state and local role in
planning and implementing conservation activities. USDA will continue to
focus its assistance on the most critical resource problems because the need
for restraint in federal spending requires that maximum benefits be achieved
with available funds. The conservation partnership has always been our
greatest strength in getting conservation measures on the ground. This budget
seeks to build on this strength.
For the first time in a number of years, we are pleased to present to the
Committee a funding request for a full-fledged Resource Conservation and
Development Program. RC&D areas focus the efforts of conservation districts
and other public and private groups on self reliance in finding local funds
and technical expertise. They also set priorities, making it easier to
determine where Federal assistance can do the most good for the money.
Overall, the RC&D program is a key part of the Department's rural development
initiative. The $25 million requested for this program will promote
interagency cooperation and pooling of Federal resources from all sources to
help revitalize our rural communities and conserve soil and water resources.
Likewise, for the first time in several years, we are proposing a
continuing, although a reduced, water resources program. A single -
appropriation would fund all the water resource related activities of the SCS,
including River Basin studies and watershed project planning and construction,
at $116 million, or about 62 percent of the 1988 level. This will require that
we be more Selective in the allocation of Federal resources for water resource
projects. The budget requests that we be permitted to calculate the benefits
of water projects free of price and income support incentives. The 1988
appropriation language regarding the method of computing normalized prices for
agricultural commodities in evaluating Federal water resources development
projects is proposed to be discontinued in FY 1989. Legislative changes are
proposed to authorize local or sponsor cost-sharing for flood control projects
583
and to establish a requirement that the agricultural benefit component of SCS
projects be at least 20 percent. We look forward to the opportunity for some
open discussions with the Congress on these issues as we seek to negotiate
some improvements in the delivery of these important programs.
As in past years, the budget includes proposals to terminate USDA
conservation cost-sharing programs, including the Great Plains Conservation
Program. This decision was not easily made. However, we are still faced with
the need to constrain federal spending.
In summary, we are encouraged by past support of the SCS technical role in
soil and water conservation. The proposed budget for 1989 is our best
estimate of SCS needs based on balancing these resource conservation needs and
budgetary constraints. We ask your support.
I would like to provide for the record tables showing a summary of the SCS
budget and of funds appropriated by state and local governments for soil
conservation programs for fiscal year 1988.
This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. With the help of my
staff, I will be happy to answer your questions.
584
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
. FY 1989 8
Ul • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(In thousands of dollars) -
FY 1989
FY 1987 : FY 1988 TºyºtöstEFFSFFFTrôtil
Actual : Enacted : and fiſs :Changes : Request
CUNSERVATIONTUPERAnus: -
Triaſſaſſrººt=Tay. e - - © e º 'º - © e º 'º - e. e º 'º - © $311,986 $320,718 $43,804 $+51,484 $376,006
Transfer from CCC/CRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © e º e º 'º e 20,000 45,240 tºº ~45,240 gº-
Subtotal, Technical Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . o o *3, o o
2. Soil Surveys. . . . . . . . º º e º e º º © C e º 'º e º 'º º e - e º e - e. 58,156 67,717 +486 +440 68,643
3. Snow Surveys & Water Forecasting. . . . . . . . . . . 4,976 ‘5,379 +26 +89 5,494
4. Operation of Plant Materials Centers....... 3,553 4,856 +37 +l 72 5,065
Total, Conservation Operations................ 399,671 443,910 +4,353 +6,945 455,208
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION:
• River n Surveys and Investigations..... 12,051 12,051 tºº- -2,242 9,809
2. Watershed Planning and Construction: -
& . Planning. . . . . . . . tº e º º ge .e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. . . . . . . . . . . • . * - - - 9,939-- - 9,905 - - tº- -l ,738 8, 167
b. Construction:
(l) Technical assistance...... e e e º 'º e º e s - e. 71,419 66,845 gº- -9,37] 57,474
(2) Financial assistance for construction 89,411 94,019 tºº- -56,089 37;930
Subtotal, Watershed Planning & Construction o o tº-º- •ow , s
3. Emergency watershed protection operations.. 14,755 3,500 tº-be- -1,000 2,500
4. Loan Services. . . . . . . & © tº e º e º e º 'º e º e º e • - - - - - - - 255 _255 tº eq P -135 120
Total, Water Resource Management and Protection 197,830 186,575 º -70,575 116,000
GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATION PROGRAM - te
º O$ ºn tº ng Clº 1515 Cº. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A. - - - ll ,413 11 ,559 gº •ll ,559 º
2. Cost-share programming and contract adºin.. 2,900 2,853 º- -929 1,924
3. Technical Assistance e º 'º e e... • * * * * * * * * * * o º ºs e º 'o e 6,161 6,062 -l 1973 4,089.
Total, Great Plains Conservation Program...... 20,474 20,474 tº e- -14,461 6,013
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
- QChri 1 C& $1$t&nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © e º e - © tº 17,743 18,094 tºº- +1,766 19,860
2. Financial Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,202 6,966 cº- -1,866 5,100
3. Loan Services e - e º e o e e º ºs e - G - e. e. e. e.• - - - - - © & © tº e > 75 60 tº- -- 60
Total, Resource Conservation and Development.. 25,020 25,120 — -100 25,020
Subtotal, SCS Appropriated funds............ 642,995 676,079 +4,353 –78,191 602,24]
RURAL ABANDOMED MIME PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . tº e - © tº (9,400) (15,000) - (-15,000) º-
TRUST FUNDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . e - © tº e º 'º - • • * * * * * * * * * * * 293 560 º-º- --- 560
TOTAL, SOIL COMSERVATION SERVICE. e G e º Q & de © e º e º ºs *—iliº-tº-lâalºl-Bººl
Ceiling Staff Years.... © tº º tº º º º e e º e º º º º © e º 'º - e º 'º 12,395 14,177 tºº sº--> 12,395
a/ Includes funding for Inventory
• . activities. . . . . . .
b/ Program termination costs
and Monitoring, and Resource Appraisal and Program Development
b.


585
STATE
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee.
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL -
FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
STATE
GOVERNMENT
165,760
1,205,889
869,629
1,393,500
4,113,000
772,602
2,850,850
3,453,400
6,427,625
2,136,000
2,535,572
11,057,172
6, 792,100
11,976,247
6,164,062
3,765,102
5, 189, 600
3,519,000
419,000
7,007,202
274,020
7,549,500
32,188,56]
20,149,952
322,103
1,761,000
8,377,642
697,398
4,131,053
84,919
2,446,000
559,57]
13,001, 400
14,974,602
5,967,471
3,317,550
376,811
743,000
3,923,433
258,250
2,845,300
326,457
.l., 239,193
3,421,263
57,462,900
7,164,018
404,900
2,284,347
6, 261,214
1,252,321
604,500
2 9
FISCAL YEAR 1988
L00AL
GOVERNMENT
11,450
712,958
836,967
13,061, 184
l,536,000
454,510
896, 200
654,480
1,959,675
2,840,000
l,l 78,404
l,083,351
126,985
4,646,036
2,416,374
4,368,621
2,062,200
210,000
179,000
2,111,828
447,05]
l,510,800
34,524,52]
242,290
3,220,404
1,065,000
9,380,170
1,326,200
22,042,268
222,185
3,376,333
547,710
749,492
4,218,675
4,134,032
1,720,094
l,l 20,331
115,000
790,874
17,016
l,780,140
728,617
1,343,623
3,415,660
224,650
3,513,500
37,570
1,309,830
4,720,883
2,100,791
236,500
TOTAL
l 77,210
1,918,847
1,706,596
14,454,684
5,649,000
1,227,112
3,747,050
4,107,880
8,387,300
4,976,000
3,713,976
12,140,523
6,919,085
16,622,283
8,580,436
8,133,723
7,251,800
3,729,000
598,000
9,119,030
721,07]
9,060,300
66,713,082
20,392,242
3,542,507
2,826,000
17,757,812
2,023,598
26,173,321.
307,104
5,822,333
1,107,281
13,750,892
19,193,277
10,101,503
5,037,644
l,497, l 42
858,000
4,714,307
275,266
4,625,440
l,055,074
2,582,816
6,836,923
57,687,550
10,677,518
442,470
3,594,177
10,982,097
3,353, 112
841,000
586
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
MANLY S. WILDER
ASSOCIATE CHIEF
Mr. Wilder is a native of Nash County, North Carolina. He received his
B.S. Degree in Agriculture, from North Carolina State University and a
Master of Science in Administration, from George Washington University.
Mr. Wilder began his career with the Soil Conservation Service in June
1961, as a Soil Conservationist Student Trainee in Nashville, North
Carolina. He served as the District Conservationist in Snow Hill and
Goldsboro, North Carolina from 1962–1966.
In July 1967, he transferred to the National Headquarters in Washington,
D.C. He worked as an Employee Relations specialist becoming the Chief of
that branch in September, 1973. In July 1974 he became Chief of the
Career Development and Staffing Branch.
He was transferred to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1976 as the Deputy State
Conservationist and was later promoted to State Conservationist of
Virginia. He has also served as an Assistant Chief for the South. On
January 3, 1988, Mr. Wilder was named the Associate Chief for the Agency.
JUDITH C. PALENSKY
Judith C. Palensky, a native of Norfolk, Virginia, attended Old Dominion
University and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1969 from Houghton
College, Houghton, New York, with concentrations in English Literature and
Business Administration.
She joined the Department of Agriculture in 1970 as a budget analyst for
Departmental Administration. Beginning in 1976, Mrs. Palensky served in
the Office of Operations and Finance as the Budget Officer for the
Departmental staff offices. She joined the Soil Conservation Service in
1979 and is currently serving as Acting Director of the Budget Planning
and Analysis Staff.
Mrs. Palensky and her husband are residents of Davidsonville, Maryland.
SWAMPBUSTER VIOLATIONS
Senator BURDICK. Thank you, Mr. Scaling.
Mr. Hertz, I will ask you a few questions first.
Nationwide, I am advised that only about five violations of the
Swampbuster provisions have been identified to date. Is that correct?
Mr. HERTZ. Mr. Chairman, at the present time, we are looking at
about 295 potential violations. This is nationwide, and possibly 14 of
those are in North Dakota.
Senator BURDICK. You are looking at them? There has been no final
determination? -
Mr. HERTz. No; that is right. They are either in the appeals process
or in the investigative process.
Senator BURDICK. Do you have any information on the total number
of acres that have been identified as wetlands on these farms;
587
Mr. HERTZ. I don't have that with me, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. I am concerned that investigations into potential
violations and the appeals of these investigations may take a very long
time, leaving the farmers without benefits during this time. How long
after a potential violation is reported or discovered does it take to begin
an investigation? How long does it take to complete the investigation?
Mr. HERTZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it would depend on the
amount of information that would have to be put together to support al-
legations of a violation of either the Sodbuster or the swampbuster, or
for the farmer to Support his claim that he was not in violation.
We provide for the appeals process through ASCS. Once a farmer
has been notified that he is in violation, he has 15 days to appeal that
determination to the county committee. And after they make that deci-
Sion, if it is an adverse ruling, he has further appeal rights through the
State committee and, ultimately, through our appeals staff here in
Washington.
Again, depending on the amount of information that has to be put
together, or how well the appeal is structured, these appeals can take up
to 6 months.
Senator BURDICK. What I am naturally concerned about is whether
this process can be completed in most cases in time to seed the crop.
Mr. HERTZ. In most cases, I would think that the ultimate decision
would be made at the county level. But if the decision that the county
makes is adverse to that appellant and he wants to appeal further, then
it is going to cost him. Some time. If the county committee finds in his
favor, he is eligible right away.
Senator BURDICK. Has the Department considered instituting an ap-
peals procedure that has definite time limits, such as 30 days for initial
appeal at the county level, 15 to the state level, and 15 at the national
level, with a presumption of no violation if these given deadlines are
not met?
Mr. HERTZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do provide for timeframes. After
a county committee has passed judgment, then there is a 15-day time
period for the appeal to get to the state. Our State committees meet
once a month, and, well, if the timing were right, it could be very close
to that 15-day timeframe.
Senator BURDICK. After an appeal comes to the county, how Soon
does the county have to act?
Mr. HERTZ. Once they receive it they would act at their next meeting.
The county committee also meets once a month.
Senator BURDICK. What is the time limit, 24 hours, 1 week? How
long?
Mr. HERTz. Well, if the appeal were received by the county com-
mittee the day before their meeting, it would be within 24 hours. If
they receive it the day after their meeting, it could be close to 30 days.
I might point out, Mr. Chairman, we did a Survey on our appeals as
they were initiated at the county level, using 1986 data, I believe.
Nationwide, we had about 75,000 appeals, and less than 2 percent of
588
those appeals came to Washington. So the adjudication of most of these
problems was taken care of at the local level, and that would be the
speediest way. Probably only the most severe cases are the ones that
come to Washington.
Senator BURDICK. And we have that same proficiency in North
Dakota, don't we?
Mr. HERTz. I would hope so, sir.
WETLAND DETERMINATIONS
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Scaling, I would like at this point to ask you a
question or two about this subject.
Mr. SCALING. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDICK. Under the Swampbuster provision, I assume that
SCS had been working overtime to make the wetland determinations.
Mr. SCALING. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDICK. I think that is a correct assumption, isn't it?
Mr. SCALING. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator BURDICK. And to what degree are the farmers agreeing with
or contesting your wetland determinations?
Mr. SCALING. Do you want to answer that, Galen? This is Galen
Bridge, my deputy for programs, who is our expert on that particular
Subject.
Senator BURDICK. That is fine.
Mr. BRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, we have made about 46,000 wetland
determinations nationwide involving about 1.3 million acres. I think the
best record we have on this is in North Dakota—in the Red River
Valley—where we have made about 8,000 determinations involving
400,000 acres.
Recent meetings with these producers indicate that there is a high ac-
ceptance of the determinations. I believe Mr. Myers, the Deputy
Secretary, sent you a report recently that indicated that we met with
several groups of producers numbering 125 to 150. We had very limited
objections to the wetland determinations that were made in the valley.
This is the most recent information that we have available.
Senator BURDICK. According to the press reports, they say that there
is a very small percentage of violations found in those first eight
counties.
Mr. BRIDGE. That is correct.
Senator BURDICK. And that 90 percent are grading properly and
legally.
Mr. BRIDGE. That is correct.
Senator BURDICK. What percentage of farms in North Dakota, as well
as nationwide, have had wetlands identified on their farms?
Mr. SCALING. We don't know, but we can certainly get the answer
and get it back to you at a later date, Sir.
Senator BURDICK. Well, if you could we would appreciate it.
Mr. SCALING. Yes, sir; that will be done.
589
[The information follows:]
We are monitoring only the number of farms that have wetlands identified. We have
not kept track of the number of farms on which an inventory was made but no wet-
land was identified. Nationally we have identified wetlands on about 4 percent of the
farms that are presently participating in the USDA programs. In North Dakota we
have identified wetlands on about 18 percent of the North Dakota farms.
STAFFING IN FIELD OFFICES
Senator BURDICK. I am still concerned about the level of staffing in
our SCS field offices. Do you believe that there is adequate staffing for
SCS traditional conservation duties, as well as those imposed by the
1985 farm bill, and imposed by this swampbuster problem?
Mr. SCALING. Naturally, the Food Security Act is the driving force be-
hind Our agency right now. But we are still doing everything we can to
continue the ongoing programs.
Senator BURDICK. Are you keeping up?
Mr. SCALING. We are doing our best, sir, and right now, I think we
are keeping up.
TRAINING MATERIALS FOR WETLAND DETERMINATIONS
Senator BURDICK. I understand that SCS has provided a wetland train-
ing kit for SCS state office staffs. Do you have one of those kits avail-
able?
Mr. BRIDGE. We have given out a variety of information to each of
the state office staffs that concern training for wetland determinations.
The complete Food Security Act training package consists of a student
workbook, eight detailed lesson plans, and approximately 200 slides. A
copy of the wetlands portion of this material will be provided to you.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
CALLING OF RESERVE GRAIN
Mr. Hertz, I am going to return to you again in another area.
USDA's announcement that it is calling in wheat and feedgrains from
the farmer-owned reserve has created quite a stir among our farmers.
On one hand, they see this as a positive sign that we are reducing Our
stocks. On the other, they are concerned that much of the grain will
find its way into commercial storage and just sit there where the Storage
costs are higher. Can you offer an assurance that this grain will move
quickly into the market?
Mr. HERTz. Well, Mr. Chairman, given the transportation problems
we seem to be hearing about, to guarantee that it will move into the
market very quickly would be a problem. But we believe that given the
need to have that grain to fill our export commitments, that we need to
have it moving so that it can get into the market channels.
Senator BURDICK. Do you move any grain at this time without the ex-
pectation of putting it into the export market just for the purpose of
Storage?
Mr. HERTz. I'm sorry, would we be moving any grain just to get it
into commercial storage?
590
Senator BURDICK. That is correct.
Mr. HERTZ. No, Sir.
One point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that in the crop
years 1985 and 1986, we ran into a critical storage situation nationwide,
and we used every possible means to make available all storage space,
which included a lot of farm space, and some of the decisions we made
then were to extend 9-month loans and to extend reserve contracts that
at that time the law said had to be settled, if you will, after a 5-year
period. -
The main reason we did that was because we didn't want all the
emergency and temporary Storage grain getting piled on the ground,
creating eyesores around the countryside. We utilized every last inch of
Space.
We want to get back on a normal track now that we aren't in a
storage mode, and we want to have this grain find its way to the
market.
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK
Senator BURDICK. In the last few days I have had reports from
farmers in North Dakota that no cars were available for shipping. Do
you know what the situation is out in the Midwest?
Mr. HERTz. We understand that there is a critical shortage of hopper
cars in the upper Midwest. We have done a Survey in a cross Section of
North Dakota, and we have found that warehouse or elevator storage
space is available in most cases. On the other hand, most warehouses
are waiting for cars, because they would like to move grain for which
they have exchanged certificates through our catalog exchanges. They
have cash grain on hand and they are having a hard time moving it.
Senator BURDICK. Do you expect any alleviation of the problem in
the near future?
Mr. HERTz. Representatives of Burlington Northern say that they
have about 60 percent of their fleet committed to the bid process that
warehouses are now having to use, and their commitment Seems to be
sincere that they will get hopper cars there. I have no way of knowing
whether that will happen or not.
Senator BURDICK. Well, to repeat, you are just hauling all grain that
you have an export possibility for at the present. You are not just
moving grain from the country elevator into the big warehouses?
CORN RESERVES
Mr. HERTZ. No, we are moving grain that we have contracted for un-
der either the farmer-owned loan reserve or extended 9-month contracts
and that needs to be moved into the market channels.
I might point out too, Mr. Chairman, that we have not made the de-
cision on corn relative to the reserves and 1-year loan extensions, or spe-
cial producer Storage programs. There has been no announcement made
on that.
Senator BURDICK. We are not a corn State, as such, and I am not
familiar with corn. Are we getting any problems in that area?
591
Mr. HERTZ. Well, as I said, we have not made the announcement.
Corn is different in that the available supplies are much, much higher
than the tight wheat supplies.
COMMODITY CERTIFICATES
Senator BURDICK. Producer groups who view this movement situation
have made Some suggestions. One suggestion is that USDA should find
a more orderly way to move this grain whether or not it be disruptive
of our farmers. One suggestion is to increase the face value by 20 per-
cent of certificates used for the purpose of redeeming farmer-owned
reserve loans. Does that have merit?
Mr. HERTz. I believe, Mr. Chairman, my first concern is that the cer-
tificate has a dollar value that is used as a payment for a program par-
ticipant. This payment is based on earnings that a farmer can get from
participating. I would think that if we changed that face value it would
distort the earnings that he really is entitled to receive.
Senator BURDICK. In other words, you don't approve of the sugges-
tion?
Mr. HERTz. Well, I wouldn't say that there is no possibility of work-
ing out something like that, but I don't think we could change the
value of the certificate.
COUNTY DIFFERENTIALS
Senator BURDICK. Increasing the county differentials for wheat to
reflect the increased transportation cost due to rail or car shortages, is
that a possibility?
Mr. HERTZ. Yes; at any time that we have a widening basis because
of transportation costs or any other market factors that would cause a
change in the differential between a terminal market and a local
market, yes, we would adjust those differentials.
Senator BURDICK. What about increasing county differentials for
wheat for those loans that will not be extended—what about that pos-
sibility?
Mr. HeRTz. If they reflected transportation costs and other associated
changes that we just mentioned, yes. If it means just to change the dif-
ferential to make the PIK-and-roll work, then no, because we want to
follow the market. And I believe that if we were to change the differen-
tial or start pricing our commodities in our county offices in a way
other than what the market trend dictates, we would be taking all the
integrity out of it. I don't think we would want to do that.
RESERVE LOAN EXTENSIONS
Senator BURDICK. One last suggestion is to reclassify maturing farmer-
owned reserve loans as special producer starter loans for the purpose of
extending their date of maturity an additional 12 months.
Mr. HERTz. We would have the flexibility to extend them for 12
months.
Senator BURDICK. When you have some time, will you reflect on that
and see if there is any possibility of doing something in that area?
592
Mr. HERTZ. Well, I believe that the Secretary has made the decision
that these grains with loans that are maturing should follow into market
channels. And I believe that is our position at this time.
Senator BURDICK. Well, maybe I will write to your boss and remind
him that he has these tools to work with if he would use them.
DELAYED GRAIN DELIVERY
Mr. HERTZ. Yes.
I might make one other comment, Mr. Chairman. If the transporta-
tion problems persist and grain cannot be delivered, you know, there
would not be a penalty to the farmer or that storing person. And if the
problem should persist past a certain point in time, why, the storage
payments would kick back in. So a farmer is somewhat protected that
Way.
And we realize that going into Spring's work now with road restric-
tions and elevators tending to be service elevators rather than merchan-
dising elevators for cleaning grain, and fertilizer and those kinds of ac-
tivities, that delivering grain this time of the year may be slowed down.
We will be flexible and work with the producers to accommodate them.
Senator BURDICK. Well, that is good news to the farmer.
Mr. HERTZ. Yes.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator BURDICK. I would like to ask a question too about the
Conservation Reserve Program. The continuing resolution for fiscal year
1988 included a provision which indicated that the bids may not exceed
the prevailing local rental rates for an acre of comparable land. How
are you enforcing this provision?
Mr. HERTZ. Mr. Chairman, we instructed our county committees to
compare the local prevailing rental to the maximum acceptable rental
rate [MARR] for the bidding pool as announced by the Secretary. If
the local rate were lower, they were to establish the local MARR accord-
ingly. The county committee was also required to review each bid as it
was received in this last signup and certify that it is not above the local
prevailing rental rate for comparable land. And I believe the prelimi-
nary information that we have at this point in time is that 320 counties
in the United States—seven in North Dakota—adjusted MARR's
downward to recognize prevailing local rental rates.
Senator BURDICK. The fact that the bids have been adjusted
downward, does that indicate that fewer people will be applying or not,
or more people? r
Mr. HERTz. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that if a county adjusted
its bid acceptance level down, there would be Some bids that would not
be accepted.
Senator BURDICK. A very important member of the committee has
just entered the committee room, So I am going to yield to him for the
next few minutes.
Senator MCCLURE. I am looking around to see who you are talking
about. [Laughter.]
593
BARLEY DEFICIENCY PAYMENT CALCULATION
I have just two or three areas that I would like to get into if I may,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hertz, as you know, I am concerned about the method that is
used in determining the barley deficiency payment rate, and I have writ-
ten to you about that. I wonder if you could again, for the committee,
explain how that 5-month average is determined.
Mr. HERTz. Senator McClure, the 5-month average is determined on
a nationwide weighted formula.
Senator MCCLURE. And what is the Source of the raw data that goes
into that computation?
Mr. HERTz. I believe it is the terminal markets Scattered throughout
the United States.
Senator MCCLURE. Is it done at the elevator terminal level?
Mr. HERTZ. Yes.
Senator MCCLURE. One of the concerns to me is that there is informa-
tion closer to the point of original sale at the county ASCS level that
might give us more current data than would be at the terminal level,
more pertinent to what is actually happening out there between the
farmer and the marketplace rather than further down the chain in the
marketplace.
Second, and a more serious question, is that there are at least two
markets for barley, at least in Idaho, and I think it is probably true else-
where. One is malting barley and the other is the feed grain barley, or
nonmalting markets, because barley does move into Several different
markets. But the malting barley I look at particularly because it is a
very separate market and a much higher priced market. And when the
malting barley is averaged into the rest of the market, it increases the
market price rather dramatically.
If my figures are correct, the 5-month average price for malting bar-
ley is $2.16 compared to the all-barley price of $1.86. Am I ap-
proximately correct in those figures?
Mr. HERTz. Approximately, yes, sir.
Senator MCCLURE. The deficiency payment, of course, will go down
dramatically if you take malting barley as a part of the average. Isn't
that correct? •
Mr. HERTZ. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCLURE. Is there a possibility that we could get the ASCS
to calculate the barley price without averaging in the malting barley seg-
ment of that market? Because nearly all of the malting barley is con-
tracted in advance. It doesn't move in the same markets at all.
Mr. HERTZ. Well, Senator McClure, I am not totally familiar with
how the markets operate or how malting barley would be used in rela-
tion to the feed barley. I know from a volume standpoint, the malting
barley would be much, much less. But we can take a look at it. And
what I would like to do is outline to you how we do calculate the price
and then take a look at whether—
594
Senator MCCLURE. I would very much appreciate that, because, as I
say, I know in my state what the practice is. The major brewing com-
panies go out, and they contract acreage in advance and it is grown for
that specific market under a contract that is almost totally removed
from the market movements in the general market, absent these con-
traCtS.
If you could take a look at that, it could make a substantial dif-
ference.
One of the concerns we have is that the price is not averaged until
July and there will be no deficiency payments until after that is done,
and there is time lag as well. And I wonder if you could address that as
you are looking at that and respond with your comments.
Mr. HERTz. Well, the first pricing on the 5-month marketing year is
done and those payments are made in December.
Senator MCCLURE. Yes.
Mr. HERTZ. And so it would be at the end of the 12-month marketing
year.
And I should point out too, Senator McClure, that the National
Agricultural Statistics Service are the folks who do these calculations for
us. But I will be in touch with them and we will check it out.
Senator MCCLURE. All right, if you would.
[CLERK's NOTE: See Submitted questions for additional information.]
DROUGHT RELIEF
Senator MCCLURE. I am also concerned about a problem that is
developing in the Western United States. It is not in this program, but
in the drought that is becoming so evident. No budget request was
made for any kind of relief in that area. And yet it seems to me that we
are going to have that question. All of the snow surveys indicate that
the average in Idaho is about 40 percent below average. Last year, it
was perhaps that or a little worse. Stream flow is down. Average reser-
voir Storage is only 54 percent of capacity. In most snow courses, we
will be lucky if we have 60 percent or 70 percent of normal stream
flow. And in those areas we are going to have a problem.
We already have one in Southwestern Idaho, where ordinary water
deliveries to the farm is around 3 acre-feet per acre. Last year, they got
a little over 1% acre-feet per acre—a little less than 1% acre-feet per
acre, about one-half the normal deliveries. And they have already been
notifying the farmers this year to expect less than one-half acre-foot per
acre. And if that is the delivery that they are going to have, that is a
real disaster for a large segment of the state. And yet there is no money
being requested, or no money has been requested, to meet that situa-
tion. And I just wonder how you are going to do it.
Mr. HERTz. Senator McClure, in cases of a severe drought, we do
have emergency conservation funds that would be made available to
move water to livestock and permanent plantings. We also have the
ACP funds that have been allocated to the state which could be used
for drought measures involving water utilization.
595
Senator MCCLURE. But no money has been requested above the
well, let me put it this way. There was some carryover money in some
of those areas and, therefore, no budget request at all for some of that.
Mr. HERTZ. Yes, sir; and it has been our experience in the past that
when there has been a major disaster that is not covered by federal
crop insurance, an emergency supplemental appropriation has followed
to take care of that emergency.
Senator MCCLURE. I am really concerned about it. And I guess I am
asking this question only because it is now obvious we have a major
problem, a major problem that is as predictable as the fact that the sun
will come up in the East tomorrow morning.
Mr. HERTz. One program available this year, sir, which I suggest
would help a lot, is the zero-92 program.
Senator MCCLURE. Yes.
Mr. HERTz. Even though we are looking to limit that to ap-
proximately 50 percent of the base acreage being retired, if it is used in
a disaster context there would be no limit on the amount of acreage
that could be involved in that program.
Senator MCCLURE. There are no county limits?
Mr. HERTZ. That is correct.
If as we go down the road there is a disaster, a farm can enter into
the zero-92 program, and the base limit would not apply.
Senator MCCLURE. I am concerned. I will be working with you, and I
am sure you will be working with the state offices in trying to make cer-
tain that we do have some kind of a handle on that and we can do
Something with it. But I am extremely concerned because that certainly
is a problem that we are going to have to deal with.
Mr. HERTz. We appreciate your concern, Senator. And I know that
there are a couple of sister states out there that are probably going to
be in a similiar situation. And we have our ASCS folks out there keep-
ing us informed as much as they can so that we can respond.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CRP
Senator MCCLURE. Which leads into the other question of what do
we do with the CRP program where you have high levels for participa-
tion? What happens to dependent communities? Most of the economic
surveys that I have seen done to this time do a pretty good job of track-
ing what happens to the economics of the farm units, but there has
been very little done with respect to what happens to the farming com-
munities that are dependent upon that farmland.
Now we all say, well, we will put in CRP, and if we ever need
production, it is easier to move it back out. But if all of the support in-
frastructure in those communities has gone, it is going to be a lot hard-
er to move back, let alone the impact that we have right now.
I have requested that some Studies be done with respect to the com-
munity impact of high levels of CRP acreage. Is that a matter of con-
cern to you?
596
Mr. HERTZ. It certainly is. In our procedures, we say that no more
than 25 percent of the farmland in an individual county can be in this
program. But we have seen too that even at that 25-percent level, it is
having an adverse economic impact on Some of the rural communities.
SCS STAFFING LEVEL
Senator MCCLURE. Mr. Scaling, as we move toward the implementa-
tion of the highly erodible acres provisions, we are going to see an aw-
ful lot of demand for farm conservation plans. Are you adequately
staffed and prepared to meet all those requirements for a 1990 date?
Mr. SCALING. Yes, Sir.
Senator MCCLURE. And you do not anticipate any problem coming
up with your side of the cooperation with the farmers in developing
conservation plans to meet that timetable. Is that correct?
Mr. SCALING. Senator McClure, I feel sure that we can have a plan
for every farmer who wants one. .
Senator MCCLURE. Well, they are going to want one. In one of my
areas in Idaho, from 35 to 40 percent of the land is now classified as
highly erodible under current standards.
Mr. SCALING. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCLURE. If you have to have a farm plan for 35 to 40 per-
cent of the entire acreage in the Palouse area of Idaho and Washington,
you are going to have an awful lot of work to do.
Mr. ScALING. We can do it, Sir.
Senator MCCLURE. Then I would suggest if you can do it that easily
you must have been overstaffed already. [Laughter.] -
Mr. ScALING. No, sir; we were not overstaffed. We are just working
harder now. [Laughter.]
Senator MCCLURE. I know you weren't overstaffed. That is the reason
I said it exactly the way I did, because you have been cut back on per-
Sonnel year upon year upon year upon year to the point where you
were crying that you simply could not function any more.
Mr. SCALING. We are improving our productivity. I am certain that
we can meet the 1990 deadline. In fiscal year 1988, we received a
$45 million transfer from the Conservation Reserve Program for conser-
vation activities related to the Food Security Act. We have requested
these additional funds as a direct appropriation in fiscal year 1989.
We have a strong partnership out there between a lot of different
people. We have the private Sector involved in parts of the country
now, and I am Satisfied that we can meet the 1990 deadline on conserva-
tion plans.
FSA WORKLOAD
Senator MCCLURE. Well, let me ask a question that you may think is
argumentative, and it comes pretty close to that, I guess. How close did
you come to your 1987 plans? Did your projections on what you would
accomplish match with what you did accomplish?
Mr. SCALING. I am going to let Mr. Bridge answer that since he is in
charge of that program.
597
Senator MCCLURE. Sure.
Mr. BRIDGE. I believe we were entirely satisfied with the progress we
made in fiscal year 1987, in terms of making highly erodible land deter-
minations. This is critical to the program. We have about 85 percent of
those now completed. That defines who is going to have to have a plan.
We currently have completed about 25 percent of the total conserva-
tion plans needed in the country. We have a goal of having 65 percent
of the job completed by the end of this calendar year. We fully an-
ticipate that we are going to be able to meet it. -
I think it would be unfair not to say that this is coming at a cost. We
are trading off Some things, particularly in areas such as the state of
Idaho and other areas where highly erodible land is not evenly dis-
tributed. Some activities on irrigation and water management, such as
Some of the water quality activities, are taking a back Seat. At the same
time, we think the Food Security Act is so critical to the agency and
the public that we are putting full priority on that, and anticipate that
we are going to be able to complete the job.
Senator MCCLURE. And that is a thoughtful answer, and I appreciate
it, but it is also a real problem. If we cannot get that done in a Sensitive
way we are going to have a massive problem in farm country, as we try
to match the requirements of one statute with the capacity of your
agency.
Mr. BRIDGE. Yes; let me add to that. We are tracking this very care-
fully. Every 3 months we do a national summary of our progress. We
will continue to do that. The minute we see that we may be in trouble,
we will work with the administration and some other folks to see if
there is something we can do about that. At this point we are comfort-
able with what we are doing.
Senator McCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might yield to the
Senator from Pennsylvania for a unanimous consent request.
Senator BURDICK. Sure.
CRP PARTICIPATION IN PENNSYLVANIA
Senator SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I have a letter
which I have addressed to Deputy Secretary Myers and I would like to
make a copy available to you, Mr. Hertz, regarding the Conservation
Reserve Program in Pennsylvania for a response. And I do not want to
take any time to do it now because I have interrupted my distinguished
colleage from Idaho, but I have a commitment at 11 and have to leave.
But I just wanted to put that on the record at this time.
I thank the Senator from Idaho and I thank the chairman.
[The letter follows:]
598
LETTER FROM SENATOR SPECTER
MARCH 15, 1988.
Hon. PETER MYERS,
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
DEAR SECRETARY MYERs: I am writing regarding Pennsylvania's role in the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
As you may know, the number of Pennsylvania farmers in the CRP program has in-
creased in the past year as a result of USDA's implementation of water quality
eligibility and the establishment of a new Chesapeake Bay bid pool in Pennsylvania. I
am advised that, despite these encouraging developments, the level of CRP participa-
tion in Pennsylvania remains below the national average.
It is my sense that the Department of Agriculture could facilitate increased CRP par-
ticipation in Pennsylvania by raising the rental rate cap in Pennsylvania's new
Chesapeake Bay CRP bid pool. These higher rates would help bring farmers in the
Chesapeake Bay pool into CRP and bring Pennsylvania's participation closer to the na-
tional average of 35 to 40 percent of eligible lands. The ultimate result would be im-
proved water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.
Sincerely, A S
RLEN SPECTER.
SUGAR PROGRAM
Senator McCLURE. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I only have just a very brief period in addition, and I
will not burden you unduly, I hope.
The budget Summary report States that “No changes in price Supports
are proposed, other than for Sugar programs.” It is my understanding
that the sugar program is self-supporting and does not cost the govern-
ment anything. If this is true, I fail to see how the proposal will help
the budget deficit, which is the usual reason for these reductions. What
is the nature of the administration's proposal and the reasons for such a
proposal?
Mr. HERTZ. Senator McClure, I would like to defer to my colleagues
in the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the Under
Secretary to respond to that question.
Senator MCCLURE. I am concerned because, again, if our information
is correct, it does not match the usual reasons. And if it does not match
the usual reasons, I would like to know what the reasons are.
I would like also to know what the net cost of the sugar program
over the last 3 years is. If you could provide that for the record, please.
Mr. HERTZ. Yes, Sir.
[The information follows:
599
CDXXI OITY CREDIT CORPORATION
NET RER LITED GAIN 08 LDSS ON SUSAR OPERATIONS
(in thousands of dollars)
| | | | ||
| ITEM | FY 1986 I FY 1987 | FY 1988 || TUTAL
| ! Rctual l Retual | Estimate | |
|
| | | | ||
| Cost of Sales | 13,864 169,708 l (24,574) || 158,998
| — | | | | |
! - Sales Proceeds & 0 ther | | | ||
| Rºcoveries | 18, 162 46,211 | 15,590 || 79,963
| | | | | | —
| = Net Bain (-) or Loss | | | |
! on Sales I (4,298) 123,497 | (40,164) || 79,035
| | | | ||
1 * 8torage & Handling | 6,246 3,581 | 1,132 || 10,959
1 + Transportation | O | 0 | 83 || 83
! # Doºmstic Donations | 0 | 0 | 0 || 0
| | | | ||
| = Nºt Sain (-) or Loss on | | | ||
| Inventory Operations | 1,948 I 127,078 I (38,949) || 90,077
| | | | ||
| + Sugar Support Payments | 0 | 0 | 0 || 0
| + Bugar Bankruptcy | | | ||
| Compensation | 17,488 | 2 | 0 || 17,490
| + Miscellaneous Expenses I 9 | (164) | 0 || (152)
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
I = Total Realized Bain (-) | | | ||
or Loss | $19,438 $126,916 ($38,949) || 107,405
Note: FY 86-88 operations reflect the disposition of 86.2 million pounds of
sugar that had been forfeited in FY 85 and FY36. This consisted of
256 million pounds of 1984 crop best sugar and 607 million pounds of
1984 crop cane sugar.
600
Senator MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions which
I will ask to be submitted for response in writing.
Senator BURDICK. Sure.
Senator MCCLURE. And I wonder if we could get unanimous consent
that questions to be submitted by Senator Kasten be included in the
record.
Senator BURDICK. Certainly.
Senator MCCLURE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. I would like to ask the Senator from Idaho, do you
have sugar beets back there? -
Senator MCCLURE. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDICK. A good variety?
Senator MCCLURE. A good variety, good yields, good crop, and good
income. Good farmers, I might add.
Senator BURDICK. We raise a few ourselves.
Senator MCCLURE. Yes; I know that.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator BURDICK. Back to you, Mr. Hertz. You just completed the
signup for the Conservation Reserve Program, and your testimony indi-
cates that the maximum acceptable bid rates for each county would be
made by mid-March. Have you made these county announcements yet?
Mr. HERTz. Yes; we did. I believe last week we sent the acceptable
rental rate levels, determined by the Secretary, to each individual
county, and this week county committees are meeting and performing
their responsibilities in response to the requirement in the continuing
resolution. -
Senator BURDICK. What do they show?
Mr. HERTZ. Well, I mentioned earlier that 320 counties in the United
States had set the maximum acceptable rental rate lower than the
Secretary had proposed. And at this point in time we do not have the
final report back as to the total number of acres that would be accepted
under this last signup.
Senator BURDICK. Do you think the present program will attract
enough land in the program to satisfy that it is working properly?
Mr. HERTz. I believe, Mr. Chairman, at this point we feel very
pleased with the progress that we have made. But I think that as we
work toward the goal of 40 to 45 million acres, the attractiveness of our
own commodity programs is going to be one of our biggest competitors.
And I think too that Some of the land that is most attractive for enter-
ing into the conservation reserve is already in the reserve. We are going
to be looking at better land coming in from this point, and it will make
it more difficult. -
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator BURDICK. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank you,
gentlemen, for your testimony here this morning. Senators Sasser,
Cochran, Hatfield, Bumpers, Kasten, McClure, Grassley, and myself
will submit more questions to you for the record.
601
Mr. HERTz. And we will be happy to respond to them, Mr.
Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were sub-
mitted for response for the record:]
602
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
SWAMPBUSTER
Question: You have informed me that there are no planned
changes to Form AD-1026. I think it would be helpful to give
examples of activities that should be reported. I am concerned that
without examples, the form does not provide adequate notice for
farmers. For instance, should farmers answer "yes" to the questions
on the form if all they are doing is cleaning an existing drain?
Answer: ASCS is in the process of amending operating
procedures for sodbuster and swampbuster, including examples of how
to handle maintenance requests. We anticipate that these
clarifications will be available to State and county offices by the
middle of May.
FY 1988 APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE
Question: In your statement, you indicate that the method of
appropriation for fiscal year 1988 imposes unnecessary administrative
restraints on entitlement spending. Could you please elaborate on
these administrative restraints?
Answer: The enacted appropriation language for FY 1988 provides
for CCC operating expenses based on seventeen preset spending
authorizations and allows up to 7 percent of funds made available in
one spending category to be transferred to any other category. This
appropriation method, however, does not sufficiently recognize either
the timing or the fluctuation of CCC outlays and receipts. For
example, with commodities eligible for deficiency payments, season
average prices often change due to weather and market conditions
which could, in turn, result in deficiency payments significantly
different from the preset deficiency payment spending authorization.
If payments are higher than anticipated, program administration
changes and method of payment decisions based solely on the need to
comply with the spending authorization may be necessary.
Furthermore, the 7 percent transfer authority is well below the
historical variance in budget estimates as compared to actual
performance for most of the major spending categories and, therefore,
will likely not fully compensate in cases where the final outlay
exceeds the preset authorization. Congress recognized the volatility
of price support operations and the need to provide flexibility in
farm program administration when it established a CCC financing
mechanism more than fifty years ago, combining borrowing authority
from the Treasury with reimbursement for CCC's realized losses. In
order to restore this needed flexibility, we are proposing in the FY
1989 Budget to replace this operating expenses appropriation with the
current indefinite appropriation for reimbursement of realized losses
already authorized, but not yet enacted by the Congress. In the
meanwhile, a new system for tracking CCC outlays and some accounting
system changes have been required.
Question: Have you had to change your entire method of
accounting in order to administer this appropriation?
603
Answer: Operationally, the implementation of the FY 1988
language did require creation of a new management information system
and modifications to the existing CCC account structure for tracking
CCC outlays by program activity. New accounting entries have had to
be developed and automated, and new reporting concepts to Treasury
developed. Should CCC again be in a marginal fund availability
situation, the administrative burden at all levels of ASCS will
intensify.
Question: Are you anticipating any problems with funding any of
the CCC Programs because of how this appropriation is worded? If so,
what are they and how can they be alleviated?
Answer: We are not anticipating any problems funding CCC
programs in FY 1988 because CCC has several other funding sources
which it can utilize if individual spending authorizations are
exceeded. These include $4 billion of available borrowing authority
at the start of fiscal year 1988, a $5 billion increase in borrowing
authority from $25 billion to $30 billion, and incoming program
receipts. However, a very real potential for future program
disruption and shutdowns exists should CCC again be in the chronic
deficient funding situation characteristic of the last several years.
Anytime funds are again marginal, CCC would have to track out lays
daily at each of 2,800 county offices which would cause further
strain on county level resources and could cause delays in service to
farmers. Affected programs would have to be suspended until
necessary reprogramming decisions were made and communicated to
Congress. These unnecessary problems can only be alleviated, in our
view, by appropriating to CCC in the manner we have requested, which
Congress has already authorized.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Question: You have just completed the signup for the
Conservation Reserve Program, and your testimony indicates that the
maximum acceptable bid rates for each county should be made by
mid-March. As you proceed with enrollment in the CRP, have you found
the average size of the bids increasing in cost in order to attract
additional land into the CRP, or what has been the trend?
Answer: The average annual rental payments for the first five
signups are $42.06 in the first signup, $44.05 in the second signup,
$46.96 in the third signup, $45.30 in the fourth signup, and $48.03
in the fifth signup. Part of the increase is caused by a regional
shift in enrollment. In the earlier signups more acres came from the
Great Plains and western States where rental rates are lower. In the
later signups a higher percentage of the land came from the corn belt
region where rental rates are higher.
Question: I note that in this sixth signup, North Dakota bid
substantially more acres than any other State. To what do you
attribute this result?
Answer: This strong showing can be partially attributed to an
aggressive local interagency CRP promotion campaign. Also, with
2.8 million acres of highly erodible land, North Dakota has a
relatively large pool of eligible land.
604
Question: You also indicate that you expect some counties to
reach the 25 percent limitation on enrollment of cropland. Could you
please provide for the record the 42 counties that have requested
exemption to this rule, and provide also which 40 were approved for
exemption, and why?
Answer: Of the 42 counties that have requested the waiver
through the fifth signup, 39 have been approved. Wayne County, Iowa
withdrew its request when it was subsequently determined that actual
contract approvals would not exceed the limitation. Red Lake County,
Minnesota, and Bailey County, Texas, were denied waiver of the
limitation because of lack of support, if not opposition, by local
agri-business and other entities in the counties. The counties with
approved waivers are shown by State as follows:
Alabama: Greene, Perry, Marengo, Wilcox, and Sumter
Colorado: Baca, Crowley, Dolores, Elbert, Kiowa, Moffat, Montezuma,
Prowers, Pueblo, and San Miguel
Idaho: Bannock, Oneida, and Power
Kansas: Hamilton and Morton
Nebraska: Banner, Kimball, McPherson, Rock, and Cherry
New Mexico: Curry, Roosevelt, and Quay
Oklahoma: Cimarron
Texas: Andrews, Briscoe, Cochran, Donley, Kent, King, Oldham, and
Yoakum
Washington: Asotin and Douglas.
These counties were approved based on recommendations received
from a sample survey of local agricultural producers,
agri-businesses, county commissioners, and others in the county in
which a majority agreed that exceeding the 25 percent limitation
would not have an adverse economic impact on the local economy.
These waivers were also supported by U.S. Senators and Congressmen
representing the counties.
Question: How many counties, so far, have reached the 25
percent limitation? Please provide these counties for the record.
Answer: Fifty-nine counties have reached the 25 percent county
cropland limitation including the counties listed above. The other
counties, by State, are: .
Alabama: Chambers
Alaska: Delta
Colorado: Bent, Grand, Huerfano, and Rio Blanco
Georgia: Johnson and Wheeler
Iowa: Wayne
Minnesota: Pennington and Red Lake
Oregon: Sherman
Texas: Armstrong, Bailey, Collingsworth, Hall, Kinney, and Lipscomb
Utah: Box Elder and San Juan.
Question: While the primary objective of the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) is to reduce soil erosion by idling
40–45 million acres of highly erodible cropland, another objective of
the program is to improve the nation’s water quality. Forty-one
percent of all river miles and 53 percent of all lake acres that have
605
been evaluated to date suffer nonpoint source pollution -- pollution
that enters the water through runoff and seepage rather than as
discharge from pipes. Agricultural activity is the primary pollutant
source in 64 percent of these rivers and 57 percent of these lakes.
The Conservation Reserve Program has the potential to reduce
agriculture’s contribution to this problem.
Two recent analyses show that, while the CRP has significant
potential to improve water quality, its impact has been minimal for
the first 17.5 million acres enrolled. Studies show that it would be
possible to greatly increase the effectiveness of the program in
terms of water quality improvement while still meeting the objective
of reduced soil erosion, if the remaining acres are targeted to areas
with water quality problems related to agricultural activities. Will
you, if possible, quantify the water quality impacts of the CRP to
date?
Answer: ASCS is coordinating an interagency evaluation effort,
including representatives from EPA, that is in the process of
evaluating the water quality impacts of CRP. The evaluation group
plans to release the analysis results this spring and will furnish
them to the Committee at that time.
Question: Has ASCS or any Federal agency identified specific
areas subject to nonpoint source pollution that also contain highly
erodible agricultural lands that may be contributing to the problem?
If so, please provide details on those areas for the record.
Answer: The Second RCA Appraisal does provide some indication
of the areas subject to nonpoint source pollution. Because of their
complexity and extent, nonpoint source pollutants are extremely
difficult to quantify accurately. ASCS is committed to solving
nonpoint source pollution problems caused from highly erodible land,
and for the sixth signup, has created three new pools in the
Chesapeake Bay region and increased rental rates in nine pools within
the Chesapeake Bay watershed area.
Question: There is considerable overlap between the water
quality objectives of the CRP and EPA’s responsibilities under the
1987 Water Quality Act. What is USDA doing to coordinate the efforts
of the agencies to yield greater water quality improvements while
still meeting its primary CRP objective?
Answer: Initiatives have been implemented under CRP to achieve
significant water quality benefits while maintaining CRP" s primary
objectives of soil erosion reduction. To improve water quality on
highly erodible land, USDA recently authorized CRP enrollment of
crop land areas of 66-99 feet wide, next to streams, lakes, estuaries,
and other permanent bodies of water which are suitable for use as
filter strips, even though the strips do not meet normal CRP erosion
criteria. Adjustments in CRP bid pool boundaries and rental rates
were also made to attract participation in those regions where
significant water quality benefits can be achieved.
Question: EPA has mentioned the CRP as a tool to improve the
quality of public drinking water by making agricultural lands in
wellhead protection areas eligible for enrollment in the program. Is
83-470 O - 88 – 20
606
USDA considering making such land eligible for enrollment, and if
not, why?
Answer: The Administration’s policy, which is consistent with
the authorizing legislation, has been to manage CRP primarily as a
soil erosion program which treats highly erodible cropland. Use of
limited CRP authorities to place non highly erodible cropland under
contract lessens its availability for producers with highly erodible
land subject to conservation compliance, since the CRP is limited to
a maximum of 45 million acres. We believe that other concerns of the
Congress, such as water quality, should be separately legislated.
Question: If we were to appropriate all of the money required
by the contracts currently in force, and not just the money due and
payable in fiscal year 1989, what would that amount be? Please give
the amount showing the fiscal year in which the contract was entered;
the crop year the contract began; and your estimates entered into
fiscal year 1988 and fiscal year 1989.
Answer: Full advance funding of contracts currently in force
and estimated for crop years 1986 through 1988, together with the
fiscal year 1989 cover costs associated with enrolling 12 million
crop year 1989 acres, would total approximately $21.853 billion.
This estimate assumes that all program payments, including annual
rental payments, will be made in cash, instead of a combination of
cash and commodity certificates for rental payments. The following
tables reflect actual and estimated acres signed, consistent with the
Budget request, and the related life-of-contract costs not already
paid prior to FY 1989.
CRP Acreage Enrollment
By Crop and Fiscal Year
(Actual and Budgeted through FY 1989)
(Acres in millions)
Crop FY FY FY FY Crop Year
Year 1986 1987 1988 1989 Total
1986 2.0 2.0
1987 6.2 7.5 13.7
1988 6.4 6.6 aſ 13.0
1989 7.0 5.0 12.0
Total 8.2 13.9 13.6 5.0 40.
a/ 4.5 million 1988 crop acres were bid in the sixth signup. No
acres have been accepted as of March 16, 1988. A total of 6.6
million acres would have to be bid and accepted to reach the total
of 13 million 1988 crop acres budgeted.
Note: Some 1987, 1988 and 1989 crop year acres were or are
anticipated to be enrolled in advance of the actual crop year.
607
Conservation Reserve Program
Estimated Full Advance Funding in FY 1989
For Crop Year 1986 through 1989 Contracts
($ in millions)
Balance due on contracts a / Total
Crop FY FY FY FY Advance
Year 1986 1987 1988 1989 Funding
1986 $664 gº me tº sº tº º $664
1987 2,790 $3,375 tº a º &= & 8 6, 165
1988 -- 3,542 $3,608 -- 7, 150
1989 gº tº 4, 200 $3,674 7, 874
Total $3,454 $6,917 $7,808 $3,674 $21,853
a/ Reflects fiscal year in which contracts were entered and not when
payment is due. Excludes amounts already paid or estimated to be
paid through FY 1988.
Question: There is some concern that under the current
eligibility criteria and bid levels, the CRP will fall short of the
40 - 45 million acre goal, and some USDA analysts have estimated that
possibly as few as 33 million acres will be enrolled. In view of the
prevailing local rental rate restriction, do you believe that the 40
- 45 million acre goal will be met under current eligibility criteria
and bid levels?
Answer: We feel that signup of the currently legislated
40 to 45 million acre reserve can and should be completed with
minimal changes to the established program. Cumulative acres
designated through the fifth signup total approximately 22.1 million
acres. During the sixth signup another 4, 507, 170 million acres were
bid. We project that the goal of 40 to 45 million acres can be
achieved by 1990 as authorized in the Food Security Act.
Question: What are you doing to ensure that the minimum goal of
40 million acres will be met by 1990?
Answer: Several program initiatives have already been
implemented to encourage higher participation in the program, such as
use of the corn bonus incentives in 1987 and expansion of CRP
eligibility standards to increase tree planting and improve water
quality. We have also encouraged non-federal organizations to
provide additional incentives to bring eligible acres into the CRP.
Question: Do you plan to use bonuses such as the one offered
for corn-base acres to make the crop more attractive?
Answer: At the current time there are no plans to offer bonus
payments for cropland or tree planting incentives.
WATER BANK PROGRAM
Question: What is the amount and number of applications for
Water Bank funding that were not funded in fiscal year 1987?
Answer: In 1987, ASCS entered into 363 contracts, including
renewals of some of the 676 expiring 1977 contracts. Assuming a
70-percent renewal rate and an average cost per contract of $23,000,
608
an additional $9.7 million would have been needed to fully fund all
expiring agreements. Since the Water Bank Program is operated only
in 171 counties in 10 States, it does not include all areas where
there is a need for wetland protection. Therefore, it would be
difficult to estimate the total program demand if the program were
operational in other areas where wetlands are in danger of
destruction. The peak acreage protected by WBP agreements occurred
between 1981 and 1983 when almost 700,000 acres were covered by
agreements. There are currently around 550,000 acres covered by WBP
agreements.
Question: What is your estimate of the number and amount of
applications for Water Bank funding for fiscal year 1988?
Answer: To renew 555 expiring 1978 contracts would require
$11.5 million. Within established program areas, we estimate that
365 contracts could be signed at a cost of $8.1 million and that
$293,000 would be needed for technical assistance.
Question: How many of these applications will you be able to
fund?
Answer: Of the 555 agreements that expired in 1987, we estimate
that 365 or 66 percent could be renewed if all of the FY 1988 funding
were used for renewing expiring agreements. However, applications
for renewing agreements must compete with applications for new
agreements. Since WBP appropriations have decreased from $10 million
in 1972 through 1981 to $8.4 million in 1986 through 1988, and since
land rental rates have increased during this time, only the highest
priority wetlands can be protected under the WBP.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
Question: Your budget proposes no funds for the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program. Has the program achieved its goal?
Answer: No funds were proposed for this program due to the need
to reduce the deficit. However, the on-going Grand Valley, Colorado,
and Uinta Basin, Utah, salinity projects have been able to achieve
reasonable results. Through 1986, the average annual salt load
reductions from these projects were 33,600 tons in the Grand Valley
and 22,700 tons in the Uinta Basin.
Although the current salinity level of the Colorado River, due
to recent wet years, more than meets the salinity standard set for
Imperial Dam, it is estimated that the joint USDA and Bureau of
Reclamation programs need to remove about 1 million tons of salt per
year by the year 2010 in order to meet long-range program goals.
Question: What is the length of the program as outlined by the
Colorado River States, and what would be the level of funding
required under this program for fiscal year 1989 and remaining years
under the project?
Answer: The program is outlined by the States through the year
2010. The funding level recommended by the States is $10.4 million
for fiscal year 1989 and approximately $302 million to complete a
total of 11 projects, which will achieve the long-range goal through
609
f
2010 as currently set. However, 30 percent of Federal cost-share
assistance funds would be repaid by the Basin States. Proposed
funding by year is as follows:
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
($000)
Estimated
Year Cost 1/
1990 $15,388
1991 21, 748
1992 25,351
1993 24,491
1994 23,682
1995 21,760
1996 21, 124
1997 20,278
1998 19,794
1999 19,000
2000 16,474
2001 15,446
2002 14,506
2003 12, 232
2004 9,583
2005 7,676
2006 5,501
2007 4, 243
2008 2,216
2009 - 1,116
2010 867
Total $302,476
l/ Includes cost-share assistance, technical assistance,
monitoring and evaluation, and information and education.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Question: I note that your budget request contains a decrease
of $23,400,000 for reduced county office workloads because of several
factors, one of which is no new funding for regular conservation
programs. You go on to point out that the budget request includes
$8,293,000 for the administrative costs for conservation. Of that
$23,400,000 decrease, how much is that related to conservation
programs? In other words, how much money for Salaries and Expenses
in addition to the budget request would be required if the
Conservation Programs were maintained at fiscal year 1988 levels?
Answer: An additional $9,825,000 in Salaries and Expenses
funding would be required to carry out the traditional conservation
programs at fiscal year 1988 levels. This is the amount, together
with 571 county office staff years, that was not included in our
Budget request as a result of our conservation proposals.
Question: You also include an increase of $38,400,000 for the
loan service account. Please explain how this account is operated.
How does money enter it and for what is it used?
610
Answer: In the 1940’s, governmental policy established that
special services provided to government program participants were to
be self-sustaining. To carry out this mandate in CCC, the Executive
Vice President, CCC, was authorized to determine the amount of
service fees to be assessed producers who obtained commodity loans
from CCC. The service fees have two purposes: first, to defray or
partially defray the administrative costs of processing loans, and
secondly, to indemnify CCC for losses of uninsured commodities under
loan. While the rates charged producers have changed periodically
over the years to reflect CCC’s cost of operations, most of the
current fees, which cover farm-stored and warehouse-stored commodity
loans and sugar processor loans, have been in effect since the 1974
crop year for all related commodities, with the exception of the
sugar processing loans which have been in effect since the 1982 crop
year. Normally, the fees are collected by the county office through
an offset to the original loan amount. The collected amounts are
credited to CCC in a separate Treasury account; the collective
receipts from all loan service fees accumulate in this account, and
remain there until such time that the Administrator determines the
funds are needed to supplement normal CCC transfers and other
advances and reimbursement to cover essential agency administrative
workload operations.
Question: What has been the history of the account?
Answer: In FY 1986, the ASCS Salaries and Expenses account
began experiencing a severe drain on its CCC transfer authority to
fund unprecedented workload demands, especially for administering the
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, handling the large -
volume of loan forfeitures, and installing and implementing the State
and County Office Automation Project (SCOAP). Additional funds were
also needed to cover pay cost increases, the new Federal Employees
Retirement System, and above all, to fund losses sustained by CCC.
These losses were required to compensate the Corporation for losses
sustained by CCC resulting from damage to or destruction of
collateral for which the producer, in return for paying a service
charge, was not required to carry insurance. CCC, it should be
noted, is self-insured.
Before submitting our urgent requests for supplemental funds in
both FY 1986 and 1987, ASCS transferred the monies available in the
loan service fee account to minimize the need for supplemental
appropriations. In FY 1986 $24.9 million was transferred, with
$12.3 million being transferred in FY 1987. This account represents
the only flexibility ASCS has to cover the uncertain workload demands
of the extremely volatile CCC programs, and the 1986 and 1987
supplementals would have been significantly greater if the loan
service fees had not been available.
Question: What would have been the result if you had not been
able to transfer the $38,400,000 from the loan service account to
salaries and expenses?
Answer: Without the use of the account in FY 1988,
administrative operations would have been altered significantly
because the Bipartisan Budget Agreement specifically precludes
supplemental requests except in dire emergencies. ASCS had already
611
determined that a supplemental request would be required to provide
for all 1988 workload operations. -
With the Budget Agreement in place, it was determined that
available funds in the loan service fee account would be drawn down
to cover unfunded workload. This decision has avoided the need for
major changes in personnel policy and will permit the agency to
maintain service to farmers and essential operations. Since
anticipated available funds still fall short of the total funds
needed, all ASCS offices have been directed to reduce expenditures
wherever feasible to avoid a potential furlough or essential workload
curtailment. Based on current obligations to date, the total use of
the $38,400,000 in the loan service fee account will avoid a furlough
of approximately three weeks duration for all Agency employees.
I want to emphasize that our 1989 Budget request is absolutely
not for the purpose of restoring the loan service account. Rather,
it recognizes that with the depletion of the account this year, a net
increase in CCC transfer authority is needed in our base funding in
order to maintain administrative work load operations in FY 1989 at
even a decreased level. As reflected in our justification materials
to the Committee, our actual funding request is up only $15 million,
reflecting the combination of lower anticipated workload and the
one-time availability of the loan service account in FY 1988.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Question: What is the number and amount of claims pending for
dairy indemnity payments in fiscal year 1988?
Answer: Two producers, one in Missouri and one in Oklahoma, are
still off the market due to the 1986 heptachlor contamination
incident. It is estimated that monthly claims from the two producers
will total $100,000 before favorable test results are obtained.
There is also one claim from a producer in Alabama pending payment in
the amount of $4,919.99.
Question: How many and what amount do you expect to be
approved?
Answer: We expect to approve all three of these claims for an
estimated amount of $105,000.
Question: Do you expect any additional claims to be made in
fiscal year 1988?
Answer: We estimate that 10 additional dairy producers will
file claims for approximately $50,000 during the remainder of fiscal
year 1988.
Question: You are anticipating no carryover funds from fiscal
year 1988 to fiscal year 1989. Is it desirable to have some amount
of money in the fund to carry over from year to year? If so, what
amount?
Answer: Yes, it would be desirable. In many cases, the milk is
dumped late in the fiscal year and by the time the milk producer
obtains the required documentation to submit a claim, a new fiscal
612
year has started. In order to timely pay these claims it would be
desirable to have money carried over from one fiscal year to the
next. We feel a carryover of $50,000 would be sufficient to cover
our needs in a normal year.
EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Question: Recently, the State of Hawaii has identified
$2 million worth of exigent watershed projects due to flooding which
hit Hawaii this past December 31 and January 1. Have you made money
available from the Emergency Conservation Program for this work? If
so, how much?
Answer: As of February 10, 1988, $220,000 was made available
under the ECP to rehabilitate eligible farmland damaged by the flood.
SCS has also made available funding for this storm damage under its
authorities.
WHEAT BID/CERTIFICATE EXCHANGE
Question: USDA has been using commodity certificates in lieu of
cash payments since 1986. So far, the Department has issued well
over $10 billion in certificates. The payments have been made to
producers to grain handlers, exporters, and others. Recently, USDA
has held wheat auctions where holders of certificates, primarily,
grain handlers and exporters, have been able to exchange certificates
for government-owned wheat inventory. To the extent the auction bids
offered by certificate holders were less than the value of the
government’s wheat there was a cost to the U.S. Treasury. This
practice has led many to assert that the wheat auction was simply a
backdoor way to lower wheat prices and, thus, subsidize increased
wheat exports by grain companies. How much did the wheat auction
cost the U.S. Treasury?
Answer: As of March 16, 1988, about 333 million bushels of CCC
wheat had been exchanged with generic certificates through the offer
bid "auction" process. We intend to continue the auction, although
as supplies are deemed by the market to be sufficient to meet
anticipated needs, we expect interest in the program will wane.
Since cash out lays associated with the wheat being exchanged were
expended in previous fiscal years through the loan program, a net
savings to the Treasury is expected rather than a cost. These
savings, which are a result of reduced storage, handling and
transportation costs, are projected at $70 million in FY 1988 and
approximately $140 million in FY 1989. To the extent that CCC wheat
is exchanged with certificates valued at less than the original loan
amount, net realized losses to CCC will result; however, the amount
of these losses cannot be determined until the auction is completed.
Question: To the extent that wheat prices were lowered as a
result of more wheat coming into the marketplace, has USDA estimated
the increased budget exposure that has resulted or will result from
this activity?
Answer: Prior to the announcement of the wheat auction USDA was
estimating that the 1987 crop wheat prices would average $2.40-$2.60
per bushel. Our current estimate of the 1987 crop wheat price is
613
$2.55-$2.65 per bushel. Therefore, the season average price has
risen and our budget exposure has declined. Wheat deficiency
payments for the 1987 crop are projected to be about $90 million
lower than estimated prior to the beginning of the auction. The
auction combined with the Export Enhancement Program has helped to
achieve a 54 percent increase in U.S. wheat exports this year and a
reduction of nearly 550 million bushels in carryover stocks.
Question: Does USDA agree that the wheat auction was
essentially a backdoor way to subsidize exports? Please explain.
Answer: The auction may be considered by some as a backdoor way
of subsidizing exports. However, the wheat auction has helped move
needed U.S. wheat supplies into the marketplace at more competitive
prices and provided a means to counter the unfair trade practices of
some of our foreign competitors. These additional supplies are being
used to meet the significantly expanded export demand for the 1987/88
marketing year which is expected to increase U.S. wheat exports 54
percent above last year’s level. The wheat auction coupled with the
Export Enhancement Program is considered to be in the best interest
of the wheat sector and the reaction to the auction has generally
been favorable.
PAYMENT LIMITATION
Question: Last April, GAO projected that farm reorganizations
done in order to avoid the $50,000 payment limit could result in over
15,000 new persons receiving commodity program payments in 1988 and
1989. Payments to these new persons were projected to add over
$600 million to USDA out lays for those years alone. Congress changed
the payment limitations provision in the Reconciliation Bill by
redefining "person" and requiring that persons who receive payments
be actively engaged in farming. In the Department’s opinion, will
these changes be effective in cutting out the abuses we have all
heard about over the past several years? What does USDA estimate the
budgetary savings of these to be for fiscal years 1988–90?
Answer: The recent legislation redefining a "person" for
payment purposes will take effect beginning with the 1989 crops and
should go a long way to reduce some of the past abuses. Budget
savings are expected, due both to this change and changes which
reduce payments to foreign, State and political entities, and limit
payments to no more than three entities.
While payments could increase to spouses, minor children or
family members due to the liberalization of "person" determinations
for these entities, the redefinition of a "person" for payment
limitation purposes will likely save about $200 million in fiscal
years 1989 and 1990.
GAO also recommended that the ASCS Administrator:
o Revise implementing regulations and guidance to clearly
specify the extent of contributions necessary for an entity to be
"actively engaged" in farming and how contributions are to be valued
for this determination;
614
o Improve the guidance and training of state and county
officials who are responsible for approving farm reorganizations; and
o Improve headquarters" oversight of the person determination
activities of the State and county offices.
What actions has ASCS taken on GAO recommendations and to
implement changes as a result of the revised legislation relating to
the $50,000 payment limitation?
Answer: Since the passage of the reconciliation bill in
December 1987 took place later than the completion of farm operating
plans, State and county ASCS offices were instructed for the 1988
crop year to use the same rules that were in effect for the 1987 crop
year. Regulations are currently being drafted, to be published as a
proposed rule, to implement the "actively engaged" and other
provisions of the reconciliation bill.
Training meetings have been held with State office personnel to
improve their understanding of the current rules, and they, in turn,
have held meetings with county office personnel. Additional ways to
improve the oversight of "person" determinations, both at the county
and State level are being examined.
Once the new regulations are published as final, additional
training meetings will be held to familiarize State and county
personnel with these changes.
EXTENSION OF LOANS
Question: The fiscal year 1984 crop loans may be extended for
one year. Why did the Department exclude 1984 from its decision not
to extend loans?
Answer: The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 lowered the
farmer-owned reserve minimum quantity level to 300 million bushels
for wheat and 450 million bushels for feed grains. The decision to
permit, at the producer’s option, maturing 1984 crop wheat, barley,
and oats reserve loans to be extended for 1 more year was made to
ensure that reserve quantity levels would not fall below the
established minimums within the next 12 to 18 months, especially for
wheat.
DAIRY COMMISSION REPORT
Question: The Food Security Act of 1985 established a
commission to study and recommend ways to deal with the country’s
chronic dairy overproduction problems. This "Dairy Commission" is
now preparing a report detailing its findings, and proposing possible
solutions. The final report is expected to be issued at the end of
March, 1988. In light of the increasing production trends of the
dairy industry since the end of the Dairy Termination Program, and in
light of the budget pressure to reduce the deficit, the report is
particularly timely. What does USDA/ASCS plan to do with the results
of the dairy commission report?
615
Answer: The Dairy Commission’s report will be carefully
analyzed by USDA personnel after it is released. It is not possible
to determine the Department s response until after the report is
issued and analyzed.
Question: Will any new legislation be introduced? Please
explain.
Answer: It is impossible to predict whether any legislation
will be proposed by the Administration based on the Dairy Commission
report until its contents are made available and analyzed.
Question: What will be the budgetary impact of proposed
legislation?
Answer: The budgetary impact cannot be determined until the
Dairy Commission’s report is available to be analyzed and then only
if a legislative proposal is offered.
PRODUCTION REDUCTION
Question: The current farm program is geared significantly
toward reducing production. For example, in 1987, wheat growers were
required to reduce planted acreage by 27 1/2 percent. The set-aside
requirement is expected to be high again in 1988. In addition, over
23 million acres of crop land have been taken out of production as
part of the Conservation Reserve Program. Now, we have the 0–92
program, where producers can get 92 percent of their deficiency
payments for not planting a crop. These three programs will result
in significant decreases in domestic production. In the meantime,
many grain industry experts believe that international suppliers will
increase their production to compensate for the decreased U.S. level
and, perhaps, replace the U.S. supplier in some markets. We have
already seen this in many cases. How do you view this condition of
risking long-term market development in order to minimize the
short-term budget outlays by CCC?
Answer: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the 0/92
program were developed and are being implemented with distinct
long-term goals in mind. The CRP is designed to remove highly
erodible land out of crop production and discourage "sodbusting" and
"swampbusting." The 0/92 program is intended to break the link
between deficiency (income support) payments and planted acreage of
the program crop. Making income support independent of production
will encourage producers to make their planting decisions on the
basis of market factors, not on the basis of Government incentives.
The 0/92 program is expected to encourage high cost producers in
marginal production areas to idle their land for conserving use and
encourage crop production in those areas best suited for production.
Producing ample supplies of U.S. grain to service export markets
is not considered a problem. American agriculture currently has
excess productive capacity. This has required the use of acreage
reduction programs (ARP’s) as short-term supply control. The goal of
the CRP and 0/92 programs is to idle the marginal, less productive
land, and allow for lower or no ARP’s on the most productive areas.
616
In order to permanently regain the U.S. market share of exports,
U.S. agriculture must become competitive without the use of export
subsidies. To achieve this, price support loan rates must be reduced
to competitive levels. During this transition period to a more
competitive level, domestic programs such as the 0/92 are needed as
income support, as well as export market development programs such as
the Export Enhancement (EEP) program. The EEP is being used
extensively to foster export growth in several commodities and in the
1987/88 marketing year, the total volume of U.S. agricultural exports
is expected to reach 141 million metric tons, up 29 percent from 2
years ago.
Question: Has USDA analyzed the long-term impact that these
various programs will have on U.S. exports? On Government costs?
If not, why not? If so, what are the results?
Answer: The long-term budget and supply /demand impacts of the
CRP and 0/92 programs are addressed in the President’s Budget which
was prepared in January 1988. The 0/92 program is expected to idle
an additional 1 to 2 million acres of marginal acreage and will
likely raise average wheat and feed grain farm prices by $0.01 to
$0.03 per bushel. Minimal or no impact on exports is expected.
The CRP is expected to idle up to 45 million acres of marginal
land by the end of the 1985 Act. The eliminated production on these
idled acres is likely to be offset by lower ARP’s on the more
productive acres that remain under till. Thus, the CRP impact on
exports and prices is also expected to be minimal.
From a budget standpoint, the 0/92 program in combination with
the 50/92 program is projected to save from $200 to $500 million on a
fiscal year basis. These savings primarily result from a reduction
in nonrecourse loans made on the foregone production. The CRP
program, without quantifying the conservation benefits, is likely to
be a met cost program mainly because nonprogram-base crop land
acreage, which represents about 40 percent of CRP a creage, is allowed
to enter the CRP.
Economic analyses were prepared on these programs prior to the
President’s Budget. Further information on the CRP is available in
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Conservation Reserve
Program, dated April 3, 1986. Several analyses were prepared within
ASCS addressing the acreage, income and long-term competitive goals
of the 0/92 program. Copies of these analyses are available upon
request.
Question: In terms of the 0-92 provision, what are you finding?
Are many producers signing up? What will the effect on production
and costs of the farm program be?
Answer: Overall 0/92 participation is not expected to be
excessive in crop year 1988. Projections indicate that an additional
1 to 2 million acres will be idled beyond that which would have been
idled in the 50/92 program. Slightly higher commodity prices in 1987
have reduced projected deficiency rates, thus limiting the
attractiveness of the 0/92 program.
A 617
Enrollment in the 50/92 program included 3.5 million 1986 crop
acres and 7.2 million 1987 crop acres. The 1988 0/92 program
enrollment is expected to be about 9 million acres. Preliminary
reports indicate heaviest 0/92 enrollment in the southern plains and
the southeast regions. These areas generally face higher break-even
costs and have greater yield variability. The foregone production on
the additional 0/92 acres is roughly 100-150 million bushels of wheat
and feed grains. The budget savings from these additional 0/92 acres
for crop year 1988 is projected at about $150 to $200 million.
ESTABLISHING COMMON YIELDS
Question: Computing payments to farmers under ASCS "
target-price and acreage reduction programs requires that ASCS
develop an estimated crop yield for each participating farm unit.
The Food Security Act of 1985 prescribes the methodology for
determining yields for these programs through the 1990 crop year.
Essentially, the Act requires that program yields be calculated as
the average of the preceeding 5 years program yields, except that
beginning in 1988, actual documented yield data may be used for any
of the preceding 5 years if the data is available. This method of
estimated yield differs from that used by FCIC, even when the same
cropland is involved. What action has been taken in response to
GAO’s report recommending that USDA establish a common yield for
participants in USDA programs?
Answer: This matter has been investigated at various times.
However, such action would require
established in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, it does not
alternative of establishing yields
FCIC to use ASCS yields that are
Food Security Act of 1985. Under
appear that ASCS has the
in the manner which is currently
being used by FCIC.
Question: Is it feasible for ASCS and FCIC to develop a single
yield estimation method that will meet the objectives of each Agency,
thereby ending the practice of assigning two different yields to the
same crop land?
Answer: Although it would be feasible to develop a single yield
estimation method that would meet the objectives of each agency, both
ASCS and FCIC would have to make substantial changes in methods of
determining yields to achieve this.
Historically, ASCS State check yields with substantial
adjustments have been established based on the higher of the 10 year
average, 5-year average, or the adjusted 5-year average.
Additionally, farmers have been able to "prove" their yields based on
the actual production/harvested acreage. In accordance with the Food
Security Act of 1985, the 1988 yield is based on the average of the
farm program payment yields for the farm for the 1981 through 1985
crop years, excluding the years in which the yield was highest and
lowest.
FCIC has used a standard 10-year moving average, without
adjustment for weather. When actual production history is not
available, FCIC uses a "T-Table"-transitional yield.
618
Question: Would administrative cost savings accrue from having
just a single yield calculated for cropland enrolled in any USDA
program rather than the two or more estimates made now for some
cropland?
Answer: Yes, administrative cost savings would accrue. FCIC
could use ASCS’s yield as they are currently using in some areas and
not apply the T-Table, thereby eliminating the need for further
calculation with respect to establishing the yield. However,
depending upon the yield that is established, an increase in program
payments could offset any administrative cost savings.
PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN PERSONS
Question: As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1987, Congress made foreign persons ineligible to receive production
adjustment payments, price support loans, payments, or benefits
unless actively engaged in farming. Until the passage of that
legislation; however, such payments had been allowed and, according
to a GAO report, totaled $22.5 million for 1984-86. Can you estimate
budget savings attributable to this legislative change for the years
1988-90?
Answer: The legislative change will have very little impact in
fiscal years 1988–90 since the rule change takes effect with the 1990
crop year. Foreign entities currently receive about $40 million in
deficiency and diversion payments. However, the savings for the 1989
crop would be approximately $25 million because the overall level of
deficiency payments is declining. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1987 made foreign entities ineligible to receive Government
payments, except under limited conditions. Foreign persons may
receive payments if they are actually engaged in farming by
contributing land, capital and active personnel labor.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
ELIMINATION OF ACP
Question: I am disappointed to see the Administration calling
for the elimination of the Agricultural Conservation Program. This
program has helped in the development of water projects and forest
stands, as well as improving wildlife conservation and soil
retention. These are areas which I believe are still worthy of our
attention, and I continually hear requests for more funding for such
programs. I don’t believe that the Department of Agriculture or
other agencies have sufficient budgets to address these needs in the
first place, and now you are asking for further reductions. While we
are making efforts to improve our conservation programs, how can you
justify the elimination of a program which is making gains which
might otherwise be overlooked?
Answer: The ACP is proposed for termination in order to
contribute to the reduction of Federal spending. The proposal is
consistent with the Administration’s objective of shifting
responsibility for ACP-type conservation measures to State, local,
and private sources.
619
SERVICE TO FARMERS
Question: In some parts of Tennessee, farmers are disturbed by
what they consider uncooperative agents at the local level of the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. These agents
are often unfamiliar with programs and provide poor information to
farmers. (Examples: 1. Farmers told they were not eligible for
disaster loans when they were. 2. Farmers not receiving ASCS
bulletins and information. 3. Local ASCS offices giving information
contradictory to State information.) Is the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service making an effort to improve
services at the local level, and what steps can be undertaken to
ensure that local offices are distributing correct information?
Answer: We are continuing to take steps to improve services at
both State and local levels. For the month of February, all
incoming telephone calls were monitored and logged as to their
purpose, information requirements, the problem solution or the
individual to whom the problem was referred and the amount of time
taken to resolve the problem.
This information was analyzed and will be reviewed by a Task
Force consisting of three Program Assistants, two County Executive
Directors, and one District Director, who will meet on March 24–25,
1988 to study and find ways to improve our ability to transmit
information to county offices and to farmers more effectively and
efficiently. In addition to logging telephone calls, each county
has also been requested to submit concerns, criticisms, suggestions,
or any other matter they feel the Task Force should consider in
order to improve or assist counties in providing information to the
farmers.
The problem of farmers being told they were ineligible for
disaster payment may have involved some fruit growers, who, based on
the original law, were ineligible for the program, but were later
made eligible by an amendment to the law. Changes in the
eligibility requirement together with changes in the payment
calculation may explain local ASCS offices giving information
contradictory to State information. With these revisions, it is
possible that the information given in certain cases may not have
been the most up-to-date, although we make every effort to
disseminate the most recent changes to the local offices
as quickly as possible. Finally, regarding those farmers who did
not receive ASCS bulletins and information, these may have been
fruit growers exclusively, who had no previous participation history
in any of the ASCS programs. Thus, their names simply would not
have been on our mailing list. Information on disaster payments,
however, like other ASCS programs, was made available through press
releases and the media.
At all of our workshops and training sessions, we stress
courtesy and cooperation with other agencies and farmers and the need
to be as helpful and as accurate as possible in providing assistance.
620
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
PAYMENT LIMITATION
Question: In the Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress adopted
some necessary reforms of the payment limitation law. To give
farmers time to make critical adjustments in their farming
structures, the implementation was set for 1989. What is ASCS doing
now to prepare farmers so as to avoid unnecessary confrontation next
year?
* * *-*-*-** * * * *
Answer: Regulations are currently being drafted to implement
the reforms you refer to. These regulations will be published for
public comment in the near future, and publication of the final rule
is scheduled to take place prior to August 1, 1988. After that date,
farmers will have an opportunity to adjust their operations in
accordance with the final rule, which will be in effect for the 1989
crop year.
Question: Farmers throughout the country have loudly complained
that the ASCS rarely meets any of its deadlines or target dates for
payments, appeals determinations, etc. I know some of the fault lies
with Congress, but by no means, all. What positive effort is the
ASCS taking to resolve this problem? Do you have compliance
information for past years? How does the ASCS monitor chronic late
action?
Answer: The Agency has experienced an unprecedented workload
due to the tremendous participation in farm programs. In an effort
to cope with increased activities, we authorized last year additional
permanent full time employees in county offices. The use of
temporary office staff is extensive, but is limited by available
agency resources.
State and county ASC committees have been allotted additional
meeting days in order to deal with an increase in producer appeals.
In Washington, we’ve added additional hearing officers to deal with
the back log of appeals and to keep the process current. For example,
some payment limitation cases took up to six months or more. Now,
each person determination appeal must be acted upon within 60 days.
Until recently, all county offices mailed data to our
Kansas City Field Office where direct producer payments, such as
deficiency payments, were computed. Checks prepared in Kansas City
were then mailed back to the county offices where they were verified
for accuracy before being mailed to the program participant. We now
have the capability to prepare producer payment checks on site in
county offices. Each county has a printer primarily dedicated to
check writing.
When we discover a county office that is experiencing chronic
problems, management initiatives including training, closer
supervision, increased staffing, and staffing changes are employed to
improve service. Poor performance is not allowed to continue.
621
IMPACT OF CROPLAND RETIREMENT
Question: Through various programs, including 50/92, paid
diversions, 0/92, CRP, ARP, etc., farmers are given necessary options
to help retire marginal and other farmland from production. Congress
recognized, however, that if too much land was retired in any one
county, ag-dependent businesses and the remaining agriculture
producers will be adversely affected. Unfortunately, I have learned
that ASCS sees limits placed by Congress as advisory only. Is this
the position of ASCS?
Answer: ASCS’s position is that Congress placed such limits on
the amount of land to be taken out of production to provide an avenue
of protection for agri-business within a particular county. We
support this position wholeheartedly. However, to allow equitable
treatment within marginal agricultural counties and those whose main
source of income may be other than agriculture, we have provided for
some expansion of these limits. County ASC committees may request
such expansion by submitting adequate justification that such
expansion will not have an adverse effect on agri-business with
supporting statements from agri-businessmen and agricultural leaders.
Only justifiable requests are approved.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
COST -SHARE PROGRAMS
Question: You are again requesting the termination of the ACP,
Water Bank, Forestry Incentives, and Emergency Conservation Programs.
These programs represent very important efforts to conserving our
soil and water resources.
Have you made any studies of the effect of leaving these program
goals to be addressed by State and private concerns?
Answer: The National Conservation Program (NCP) is
strengthening and expanding cooperation among the USDA and local and
State governments. States are being encouraged to develop programs
that establish objectives, identify critical problems and areas, and
set priorities for corrective action. Approximately $4.38 million was
appropriated by State and local governments for conservation programs
for FY 1988.
Question: Do you have any projections as to what to expect in
States with limited resources, such as Mississippi ?
Answer: Mississippi has two State funded natural resource
programs -- the Forest Resource Development Program and the State
Conservation Program. The State may want to increase funding for
these programs to cover the decrease in funds that will occur with
the termination of Federal conservation programs. Undoubtedly, there
will be a variation in the capacity of individual States to increase
funding for State and local programs to make up for the loss in
Federal funding.
622
conservation RESERVE PROGRAM
Question: Recognizing certain changes made for the sixth CRP
signup, to encourage more tree planting, do you have estimates of the
results today? Specifically, what percent of total CRP acres are
enrolled for tree planting? (The Department objective is
12.5 percent). -
Answer: During the sixth signup nearly 12 percent or 536,000
acres were offered to be planted to trees. Cumulative acres
designated for tree planting through the fifth signup represented
approximately 5 percent of enrolled acres. The program is getting
closer to achieving the goal of 12.5 percent of total enrolled acres
planted to trees.
Question: I have forwarded a proposal for your consideration
which I believe will assist USDA in reaching its goal of achieving
12.5 percent of the total CRP acreage planted to trees. My proposal
-- making certain fields in the Delta region that are not highly
erodible, but are marginal for row-crop agriculture, eligible for the
CRP -- would simply build on the discretion you exercised in
preparation for the sixth signup. Have you had an opportunity to
review that proposal? Would you care to comment?
Answer: The Administration’s policy has been to manage CRP with
soil erosion savings as the primary objective. USDA will consider
further changes to make additional categories of land eligible for
the reserve. Your proposal to allow entry of Delta bottomland is one
of the changes being considered.
CCC PROGRAM SIGNUP
Question: Do you expect to complete signup by April 15, or will
you need to extend the deadline?
Answer: It is fully expected that signup will be completed by
the April 15 deadline. As with the 0/92 signup, State and county
ASCS offices will take necessary actions to ensure that signup is
completed within the scheduled enrollment period. We do not foresee
extending the enrollment period.
Question: Are there any major problems in signup this year?
Answer: As with any program with numerous changes, there have
been some minor problems but, to date, we have not encountered any
major problems.
Question: Have there been changes in regulations or
implementation procedures that would disqualify, for the 1988 crop
year, any farming plan that was approved in 1987?
Answer: State and county ASCS offices were instructed to use
the same rules for the 1988 crop-year that were in effect for the
1987 crop-year due to the timing of the Budget Reconciliation Act of
1987 vis-a-vis completion of 1988 farm operating plans. Therefore,
except in extenuating circumstances where additional information may
have been obtained, there would be no reason to "disqualify" a
farming plan that was approved in 1987.
623
Question: Please provide for the record, a report on the coc
program signup (open 2/16 – 4/15/88).
Answer: ASCS will be pleased to furnish a report on the acreage
reduction program signup as soon as possible after the close of
signup.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
BARLEY DEFICIENCY PAYMENT RATES
Question: I am very concerned about the current method of
determining the barley deficiency payment rate, and I have written to
the Department of Agriculture on this issue. The response I received
stated that the price is a national average based on data provided by
grain elevator operators, mills and other grain buyers operating in
each state. This information is obtained through samples and
questionnaires. My primary concern, and the concern of Idaho barley
producers who participate in the barley program, is that the method
for determining the average price is not accurate or fair. Will you
explain again for the record how the five-month average is currently
determined?
Answer: Average prices received by farmers are published
monthly by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of
USDA in the publication, Agricultural Prices. Prices for 47
commodities marketed by farmers are included. For barley, as for
most of the crops in the farm program, the prices are used in the
computation of deficiency payments and is factored into the
determination of release and call levels for the farmer grain reserve
program.
Monthly grain price surveys are conducted by the State
Statistical Offices of NASS in 35 States which include the major.
producing States for each commodity. Crops in the survey include
wheat, corn, oats, barley, sorghum grain, soybeans, flaxseed and
sunflower. A sample of firms or individuals who purchase grain from
farmers is asked to report the total quantity and value of grain
purchased from farmers during the previous month, and in addition a
mid-month average price for the current month. Nationwide, about
2,600 firms or individuals are sampled each month.
Each State’s sample is stratified by size of operation for
sampling efficiency. Large firms are sampled more frequently than
smaller firms. Each firm’s reported price is weighted by the
quantity of grain purchased from farmers during the month and
expanded by its sampling fraction. Each state’s average price is
weighted by the total expanded quantity for the State to calculate
the U.S. average price. This provides a weighted average price which
is based on actual marketings during the month. -
The published average prices for the entire month are used in
the calculation of the 5-month average price received by farmers for
wheat, barley, oats, corn and sorghum grain. For barley, the
weighted 5-month average price is determined by using these entire
month prices for the first 5 marketing months --- June–October. These
624
prices, in turn, are weighted by the percentage sold during each of
these 5 months. Percents sold are based on the survey monthly
expanded quantities sold as a percent of total sales during the
5-month period.
The 5-month average constructed for 1987-crop barley, is
illustrated below:
U.S. Average Percent of
Month Price Per Bushel Sales
June 1987 $1.74 18.9
July 1987 1.84 19.2
Aug. 1987 2.00 28. 7
Sept. 1987 1.87 17.9
Oct. 1987 1.74 15.3
5 Months $1.86 100.0
The Food Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Act) established the
method used to determine the national barley deficiency payment rate.
All barley producers receive the same per-bushel deficiency payment
rate. Deficiency payments are made up of two components: regular
deficiency payments and "Findley" or emergency compensation payments.
The payment rate for the regular deficiency payment is determined by
the difference between the target price and the higher of the 5-month
weighted average market price or the basic loan rate. The 5-month
payment rate for the 1987-crop barley was $0.74, the maximum
permitted under the 1985 Act. Thus, every barley producer received
the maximum 5-month payment permitted by law, even if the price had
been much lower.
The second component of the barley deficiency payment--the
"Findley" payment or emergency compensation payment--is determined by
the difference between the basic loan rate and the higher of the
12-month weighted average market price or the announced (reduced)
loan rate. The 1987-crop weighted average market barley price will
not be known until July 1988, so it cannot yet be determined if any
Findley payment will be made. However, barley demand has been
strong, and the 12-month price may possibly exceed the basic loan
rate of $1.86 per bushel, resulting in no "Findley" payment.
Question: According to information provided by the Department,
malting barley is included in the data used to establish the average
price. This is significant because malting barley accounts for
35-45% of the barley produced in the nation but it is sold primarily
to breweries and not for the government program. Idaho was second in
the nation in barley production from 1983-1987, with the majority of
the barley being sold directly off the farm to breweries and as
cattle feed. Also, the five-month average price for malting barley
is $2.16 compared to the all barley price of $1.86. Including
malting barley in the data used to determine a national average has
resulted in an artificially high average price that has resulted in
lower deficiency payments for barley. Since malting barley is not
part of the barley program, why is it included in the national
average?
Answer: Malting barley most definitely is part of the barley
program. A large portion of barley planted and domestically used for
feed is of malting barley varieties. The Secretary has the
625
/
discretion to exempt malting barley from the program, but has not
chosen to do so. Producers of malting barley have the option to
participate in the acreage reduction programs and if they elect to
do so, will receive deficiency payments at precisely the same payment
rate as producers of feed barley.
Currently, deficiency payments are made regardless of the end
use as feed or malt. Many producers plant malting barley varieties
hoping to achieve a high quality product and therefore a premium from
the malting industry. However, if the quality of their crop is poor,
or if there is a surplus of high quality malting barley from other
producers, the farmer often sells or uses his "malting barley" crop
for feed. It may be many months before the end use of the crop is
known. To attempt to treat feed and malting barley differently would
create confusion.
Question: If malting barley goes into the program as feed
grain, why isn’t the lower feed grain price used in computing the
national average instead of the higher malt barley price?
Answer: Since the program does not discriminate between malting
barley and feed barley--either type may be produced under the program
for identical loan and target price protection, and since both types
are grown and marketed by program participants, it appears that the
all-barley price is the appropriate one for deficiency payment
determination.
Question: The five-month average price was calculated in
December. Many barley producers received lower deficiency payments
because of the effect of including malt barley in the national
average. The twelve-month average price will be determined in July,
and it is very likely that barley producers will not receive their
deficiency payment if this practice continues. They do not object to
a system that yields no deficiency payment if the method used to
determine the national average price accurately reflects the volume
of barley sold for the program and the going market price. They do
object to losing this payment because of a price that is not
accurate. Can I get a commitment from ASCS to adjust the method for
determining the national average price for barley so that farmers who
participate in the program will receive an average price that truly
represents market conditions?
Answer: The Department has no plans to adjust the method for
determining barley price since the weighted average market barley
price as determined by the NASS takes into account market conditions
through broad-based sampling of grain elevator prices and marketing
surveys. The effect of the higher malting barley prices is mitigated
by smaller marketing weights.
Question: All ASCS county offices are now computerized and have
access to accurate information about the volume and the going market
price for barley. Why can’t ASCS offices take advantage of available
computers to provide an accurate county average that could be
submitted to state and national ASCS offices instead of relying on
samples and questionnaires that do not reflect the most accurate
market price or the actual volume of barley that will be included in
the program?
626
Answer: NASS provides accurate prices through their extensive
sampling procedures and the agency is staffed with professionals who
design and check the accuracy of these methods. In addition, the
NASS methods are subject to review by outside panels of experts who
concur that their procedures are correct. Therefore it would not be
practical or necessary for ASCS offices to provide a county average.
EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Question: Recent figures from the Soil Conservation Service
indicate that many western States are experiencing severe water
shortages as a result of below normal precipitation for the second
year in a row. This, combined with last year’s drought, has resulted
in very low reservoirs and the strong likelihood of an even more
serious water shortage this summer. Even if precipitation is
extremely heavy in the coming months, it is very unlikely that it
will provide enough water to prevent a drought.
In Idaho, snow accumulation is 60 to 80 percent of normal across
the State and streams are expected to yield only 60 to 70 percent of
normal runoff this spring and summer. Precipitation averaged 74
percent of normal throughout the State, and reservoir carryover is
below normal as would be expected. The combined storage in 23 key
reservoirs is 81 percent of average and 54 percent of capacity.
This condition did not develop overnight. Precipitation has
been extremely low throughout the winter. Yet, the rationale for not
requesting funds for the Emergency Conservation Program was that no
additional needs were known and that funds remaining from FY 87 were
adequate to assist farmers with damage from recent disasters.
Why were no funds appropriated for the impending drought in the
western United States? How does the ASCS propose to assist farmers
through this year’s drought that now seems inevitable?
Answer: By law, the ECP may not be implemented until a natural
disaster has occurred. For this reason, no requests for the program
have been submitted and no funds allocated. ASCS will assist to the
extent possible under existing legislation and with available funds.
SUGAR PROGRAM
Question: The Budget Summary report states that no changes in
price supports are proposed other than for the sugar program. It is
my understanding that the sugar program is self supporting and does
not cost the government anything. If this is true, I fail to see how
this proposal will help the budget deficit which is the usual reason
for these reductions. What is the nature of the Administration’s
proposal and the reasons for such a proposal?
Answer: This Administration believes that the current price
support program for sugar has created significant problems in the
area of trade policy, foreign policy, and agricultural policy. It
has also led to reduced sugar consumption and will, in time, result
in the decline of the domestic industry.
627
The most important aspect of the Food Security Act of 1985 was a
move to a more market-oriented agriculture sector. Domestic sugar
policy is in direct conflict with this and other policy objectives
for the following reasons: the quota system runs counter to a free
trade policy; international trade tensions are fostered by reducing
the quota; and there is a loss of foreign exchange in countries that
are economically weak but vital to U.S. interests.
This Administration supports deficit neutral changes in this
counter-productive program. These changes will be designed to make
the program more market-oriented, reduce Government interference in
trade, relieve American consumers of the burden of excessively high
sugar prices and not unduly harm income in rural America. Our
ultimate goal is an efficient and economically viable sugar industry.
It may be smaller in size than that which presently exists, but it
will be dynamic and competitive in the world market.
ELIMINATION OF ACP
Question: I notice once again that the Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP) is proposed for elimination. This budget
has increased emphasis on the CRP, groundwater quality and rural
development. The ACP attacks conservation problems without idling
land which satisfies rural development needs without new initiatives.
It also improves surface water quality which is important as well as
groundwater. How will program objectives be met without this program
in FY 1989?
Answer: No funding for the ACP is requested due to the need to
reduce Federal spending. The Administration believes that
conservation measures should be financed by State, local, and private
sources. Approximately $4.38 million was appropriated by State and
local governments for conservation programs in FY 1988.
Question: How can we be as sured that the country will not
experience increased erosion problems and reduced water quality
without ACP7
Answer: We believe that producers will be able to address
erosion and water quality problems with the financial assistance of
nonfederal sources.
conservation RESERVE PROGRAM
Question: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has very high
levels of participation in counties in southeastern Idaho. Last
year, I asked the Department of Agriculture to increase the acreage
allowed in the CRP in Power and Oneida Counties. This request was
granted and the limit was increased to 28.5 percent and 35 percent
respectively. Because there is a significant level of participation
in the CRP, farmers are very concerned about the immediate effects of
the program on their community, and the long-term effect of the
program on their farming operations. They want to know what to
expect after the CRP.
Your office and the Economic Research Service (ERS) have
provided some information on the effects of the CRP. This
information has been in the form of ERS reports or summaries and it
628
has been national or regional in scope. Also, most of the
information evaluates what is happening on the farms.
I have received numerous letters from constituents about the
effects of the CRP or potential effects of the program on farm-
related businesses. While we knew these effects would accompany the
CRP, I believe the estimates claimed the effects would be small.
This is not the picture I am now getting from my State. While the
CRP was intended to be long term, it was not intended to be
irreversible. If the land is needed for production, we can change
that part of the program. If the farm support industry is gone, that
is more difficult to replace.
What long-term effects do you anticipate in communities where
there is high participation in the CRP?
Answer: The communities should realize improved air and water
quality as a result of permanent cover establishment and reduced
usage of fertilizer and pesticide that could have been adhering to
eroding soil particles. We do not anticipate significant long-term
economic effects of CRP participation on these communities as a
whole.
Question: What will become of acres set aside under the CRP
after the program ends?
Answer: SCS is working with producers that may want to
farm their CRP acreage again after contract termination. Producers
must have an adequate conservation plan implemented prior to contract
termination if they plan to return the area to a cropping sequence
and be within the conservation compliance guidelines.
Question: How will the 10ss of tax revenue on these lands
affect the overall communities?
Answer: Since USDA still considers these designated areas .
cropland and the participant receives annual rental payments
commensurate with realized met income during the past few years,
taxable income and land valuation should be relatively stable during
the contract period.
Question: Can you provide information on what is currently
happening to agricultural support industries in areas where there is
heavy participation in the CRP?
Answer: Reports indicate a broadening of services rendered in
some instances and the loss of clientele in others. Many businesses
have remained solvent due to the large volume of CRP participation by
local producers because they are no longer having to carry these
producers financially and are receiving payments on accounts due.
However, the sales levels of some farm supplies such as fertilizers
or seeds will naturally decline due to a decrease in the acres
planted.
Question: Do you have or have you seen any information about
what farmers are buying with the rental payments or what sectors of
the economy are benefiting as the farm suppliers are losing?
629
Answer: Farmers are participating in the CRP primarily to make
mortgage payments and retain possession of their land holdings rather
than sell or face foreclosure by lenders.
Question: With the reduction of animal damage control funding
for driving geese and cranes away from small grain crops, alternative
proposals for lure crops to lure birds away from grain fields have
been suggested. Could the Conservation Reserve Program be used to
establish fields of lure crops?
Answer: Permanent wildlife practices are eligible for
installation on designated CRP acres. Also, producers may request
permission from the county ASC committee to provide temporary food
plots on CRP acres.
Question: Does this need to be included with the farm
conservation plan?
Answer: Yes, wildlife practices must be included in the plan.
Question: Would or could this not be considered a wildlife
habitat improvement project?
Answer: It could be a wildlife habitat improvement project so
long as the permanently established cover is not destroyed to such an
extent that an erosion problem is created.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KASTEN
SWAMPBUSTER
Question: A question for both Mr. Hertz and Mr. Scaling. I
continue to be concerned about reports of lax enforcement of
swampbuster in certain areas of the country, particularly the
Dakotas. It has been alleged by some that the denial of all farm
program benefits to farmers in violation of swampbuster is a penalty
so severe that county ASCS committees are simply ignoring some
violations.
Please assess the degree to which swampbuster is being complied
with nationwide, with particular respect to the prairie pothole
region in the Great Plains. If it is not being complied with, what
are you doing about it? -
I want to reiterate what I said at an earlier hearing on this
subject. It is not Congress responsibility to change laws simply
because they are unpopular or inconvenient for a relatively small
group of people. While ASCS and SCS should, where appropriate,
exercise flexibility to ensure that farmers are not wrongfully denied
benefits, it is not the responsibility of these agencies -- including
their local representatives -- to carry that flexibility to the point
where the intent of the law is being ignored. If county committees
or other representatives of ASCS are simply choosing to look the
other way on violations of swampbuster, they -- not swampbuster --
are the problem that should be promptly addressed.
630
Answer: Not all apparent violations of the swampbuster law
actually are violations. For example, drainage begun prior to
December 23, 1985, is exempt. Drainage begun after that date is not
a violation if the drained area is not farmed. Some farmers began
drainage after enactment of the Food Security Act but before becoming
aware of the swampbuster provisions. By not planting a commodity on
the drained land, they remain eligible for program benefits.
Both SCS and ASCS are diligently trying to administer the
swampbuster provisions as intended by Congress. In addition to
investigating alleged violations reported by individuals and groups,
county ASCS personnel have identified possible violations through a
random spot checking system of producers requesting USDA programs
benefits. County ASCS offices have also been issued operating
procedures instructing them to consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on pending "commenced" or third party
determinations.
Question: On another subject: Mr. Hertz, the requirement in
the fiscal year 1988 Continuing Resolution that CRP rental rates not
exceed the prevailing commercial rental rate for comparable land has
resulted in some confusion in Wisconsin. Some farmers may have
submitted bids they thought acceptable under the former rules, only
to find them rejected under the prevailing rate requirement. Others
submitted bids for less per acre than they could have gotten under
the new rules. And many farmers may have decided to sit out this
signup.
What difficulties has the prevailing rate requirement placed on
ASCS2 Has it affected CRP signup? Should it be continued, or should
we return to the pool system that determined acceptable CRP rental
rates in 1986 and 1987?
Answer: The prevailing rate requirement has placed a larger
responsibility on the local county committees and delayed issuing
approvals to farmers approximately 2 weeks. Any procedural changes
made in a program cause an effect on the program. Depending on how
the change is perceived by the participant determines whether the
requirement encouraged or discouraged signup participation in the CRP
for the sixth signup. We administer the laws passed by the Congress
and signed by the President and have no basis for recommending any
change in legislation regarding rental rates at this time.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Question: Mr. Dewhurst, throughout the life of the CRP it has
been estimated that the program saved the government money: that is,
the government spent less money putting land into the CRP than it
would have spent under current farm programs had that land been used
to grow program crops.
Can the program still be described as a money-saver for the
government? At what point, under current eligibility rules, will we
run into diminishing returns in this regard (i.e. will rental rates
need to rise so high to attract bids that the difference between
paying farmers CRP rental payments and paying them farm program
payments will start to decline)?
631
Answer: CCC cost-saving estimates depend on base acreage
removed from production and its associated target price and yield.
An analysis conducted during the summer of 1987, using data from the
first four signups, indicated that 68 percent of the acres enrolled
in the CRP are reductions to commodity base acres. Estimates at that
time indicated that the CRP could cost about $10.6 billion for
FY 1986–92. Based on the 1987 commodity program provisions, the
direct savings and the production adjustment effects were estimated
at about $8.7 billion during the period. The $1.9 billion net cost
of the CRP largely represents the cost of establishing permanent
cover and nonbase acre participation. - -
We will be updating the CRP analysis for the two subsequent
signups as part of the FY 1990 budget process. In addition to the
expanded eligibility rules for filter-strips and the lower erosion
criteria for tree plantings, we need to consider the effects of the
zero-92 program and the appropriation act requirement that accepted
bids be equal to or less than prevailing local rental rates for an
acre of comparable land. Up to this time, the analysis has not
examined the point of diminishing returns. It has largely
concentrated on cost-effective means of meeting the acreage mandates
in the Security Act of 1985.
Question: Mr. Dewhurst, many proposals have been made as to
ways to expand the CRP, or at least the pool of eligible land. Could
you evaluate the budgetary implications of these proposals,
specifically:
o S. 2141, introduced by Senator Harkin.
o S. 2143, introduced by Senator Boschwitz.
o S. 2045, introduced by Senator Dole.
How much would these bills add to the CRP’s cost? Would they
create offsetting savings (e.g. reduced deficiency payments)?
Finally, are there proposals within USDA for expanding the pool
of land eligible for the CRP, and could you discuss their budgetary
implications?
Answer: We have not prepared a legislative analysis on any of
these bills. Senator Harkin’s bill, S. 2141, would expand
eligibility to include agricultural drainage wells and naturally
occurring sinkholes. Senator Boschwitz’s bill, S. 2143, would expand
eligibility to annually tilled cropland with one-third or more -
wetland or converted wetland. And, Senator Dole’s bill, S. 2045,
among other things would authorize a 20 million acre environmental
conservation reserve program to protect water quality and wildlife
habitat. Deputy Secretary Myers has testified that these proposals
could be considered as part of the 1990 Farm Bill.
632
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
EXTENDING PRODUCER GRAIN STORAGE LOANS
Question: I know the recent announcement by the Department not
to extend producer grain storage loans has generated a great deal of
controversy. I understand my colleagues have already questioned you
about various aspects of this program. And although I do not wish to
be labor the point, there is one point which I need addressed. My
staff contacted several different people within the ASCS but could
not get figures as to the projected costs of this change in policy.
Information sent out by the Department states if CCC holds grain for
a shorter period than farmers, "the accrued storage for CCC could be
less than farms tored." My office was informed the cost of this
program was what was included within the FY 1989 budget proposal. Is
this correct? If this is correct, it indicates to me you have been
considering this policy long before it was announced. Is this the
case? If the answer is no, I am interested in seeing the figures
used by the Department to evaluate their opinions of either extending
these loans as announced under current policy.
Answer: Although the FY 1989 President’s Budget assumed no loan
extensions, a policy decision on whether or not to allow these
extensions had not been made at that time. Subsequently, a policy
decision not to allow loan extensions was issued. While some
concerns have been raised that this decision will increase budgetary
exposure by increasing forfeitures to CCC and therefore, as sociated
storage and handling costs, this is not the case. Recent estimates
of storage and handling costs show a decline from earlier estimates.
Furthermore, savings of $230 million dollars in storage and handling
costs, required by the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987, will be
achieved over fiscal years 1988 and 1989. The decision not to extend
loans in no way jeopardizes these required savings.
A dramatic change in the wheat and feed grain markets where U.S.
exports have shown a significant recovery influenced the decision not
to extend these loans. "Free" stocks, those easily accessible to the
market, are decreasing. 1987 crop ending CCC stocks have also
decreased significantly as shown below in the change from July 1987
Mid-Session Review (MSR) Estimates to the February 1988 President’s
Budget (PB) Estimates:
MSR PB. Change
- - Million bushels - -
Corn 2,335 1,750 -585
Wheat 803 450 -353
Soybeans 320 165 - 155
Since a large share of grain stocks are either owned by CCC or
are stored by producers under CCC programs, the export recovery we
are now experiencing would be curtailed in the absence of action to
633
access CCC-control led stocks. Congress recognized this when it
enacted legislation last December that lowered the minimum level for
farm-owned reserve stocks. The decision not to extend loans,
therefore, is intended to sustain the export recovery, and encourage
producers who have such loans to use all marketing alternatives that
exist, including exchanging certificates for grain that had been
pledged for collateral for these loans. This will ensure market
access to grain and help maintain U.S. grains competitiveness in both
domestic and world markets.
1988 PROGRAM SIGNUP
Question: Several farmers within my State have expressed
concern about the county ASCS office’s ability to meet the demand
created by the 1988 farm program signup. Your testimony includes
references to this problem and mention of steps the department has
taken to meet the demand. I am pleased to learn you are optimistic
about overcoming this problem in the 1989 fiscal year. How is
signup progressing to this point and is the Department doing anything
to keep up with the demand placed on county offices?
Answer: Signup is progressing satisfactorily. County offices
were instructed, via a notice issued March 4, to accept all offers to
participate in the 0/92 program submitted by close of business on
March 11. State offices were instructed to take whatever action they
deemed necessary to accomplish this objective. Further steps will be
taken to ensure that county offices are able to provide the necessary
services needed by the producers within their respective counties.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Question: You mentioned in your testimony the Department s
recent announcement regarding the expansion of Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) eligibility. The Department’s decision increases the
protection of both soil and water in rural areas. Recently, along
those same lines, I have worked with Senator Dole in presenting
legislation to Congress which would further expand the Conservation
Reserve Program. The bill, entitled the "Environmental Conservation
Acreage Reserve Program," would expand the CRP to include acreage and
practices which are potentially threatening to the environment.
These problems would include ground water contamination, water
quality, pesticide residue restrictions and soil salinity. The bill
would also allow producers to substitute acreage placed in the
conservation reserve and in the environmental reserve for required
set aside acres. Mr. Hertz, have you or your staff had an
opportunity to review S. 2045? If not, my staff will give you a
copy.
What do you think about this approach of using the CRP as a
means to control environmental problems in addition to our normal
objectives of conservation and production control?
Answer: ASCS has reviewed S. 2045. The CRP, as authorized by
the Food Security Act of 1985, provides for both direct and indirect
benefits to some environmental problems. USDA recognizes this
authority and has implemented program changes as necessary to obtain
additional acreage and encourage additional benefits as appropriate
to permit a successful multipurpose program.
634
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
SWAMPBUSTER
Question: Under the Swampbuster provision, I assume that scs
has been working overtime to make wetland determinations. To what
degree are the farmers agreeing with or contesting your wetland
determinations?
Answer: We do not have precise figures on the number of
farmers who have contested the initial wetland determinations made
by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). At the national level, we
have received 25 appeals on wetland issues as of March 21, 1988.
Question: I understand that SCS has almost completed the
identification of wetlands in Eastern North Dakota. Please provide
a status report on this project, and when you anticipate completion
of the project.
Answer: The Food Security Act wetland inventory has been
completed for all of the Red River Valley counties in North Dakota
and Minnesota. In addition to the six valley counties in North
Dakota an additional eleven Eastern counties in North Dakota will
have been inventoried by the middle of April, 1988.
An evaluation of the project was completed by Soil Conservation
Service and Fish and Wildlife Service employees during the week of
March 14-18, 1988. The evaluation team agreed that the wetland
inventory process as used by North Dakota and Minnesota is an
excellent method of making wetland determinations. The Soil
Conservation Service is considering expanding this effort to
complete the mapping in other areas as needed.
Question: SCS's goal was to map the Red River Valley within 20
working days, beginning in January. If it took only 20 working
days to complete this project, why was it not done earlier?
Answer: The request to map the entire Red River Valley was
made in November, 1987. We decided to fund this accelerated effort
in December, 1987. It took about a month to recruit the team and
provide them with necessary training.
Question: You have informed me that SCS is not keeping records
on how many times SCS has applied section 12.32 of the swampbuster
regulations, which requires a comparison between natural wetlands
area with converted sites. Is there any reason, in particular, why
SCS does not maintain this data?
Answer: SCS does not believe it is necessary to maintain this
data. This part of the rule is to be applied only in those
situations where previous drainage or other alteration of the water
regime is not clearly discernable. In other words, these
provisions cover the unusual or exceptional situation. We do know
that this procedure will work in those cases but we do not know how
often it has been or will be used in the field.
635
Question: Do all agencies involved in the wetlands
identification process agree that this process was done in a manner
consistent with the intent of the 1985 farm bill?
Answer: SCS has the USDA responsibility for wetland
identification. To date the USDA agencies have been in agreement
that the process SCS uses to identify wetlands is consistent with
the intent of the law. The USDA wetland conservation rule also
requires SCS to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
matters of wetland identification. At this point in time, they are
in agreement that the procedures specified in the rule will achieve
the intent of the law.
CONSERVATION PLANS
Question: Producers have until January 1, 1990 to have an
approved conservation plan developed on all highly erodible crop
land in order to retain their eligibility for federal farm program
benefits.
Has all of the highly erodible crop land been identified so
that farmers know where they have to have a plan?
Answer: No, but we anticipate that over 90 percent of the
highly erodible land determinations will be made by the end of this
year. About 80 percent of the highly erodible determinations were
completed as of December 31, 1987.
Question: How many farmers do you expect will need to
implement the plans by 1990?
Answer: The only farmers that will need to implement their
conservation plans by 1990 are those that "sodbust". They are
required to implement the plan before they produce a crop on the
sodbusted land if they wish to maintain their USDA benefits.
Producers covered by the conservation compliance provision have
until January 1, 1995 to fully implement their plans.
We estimate that about 1.0 million farmers with highly erodible
cropland will participate in USDA programs and need to implement
their conservation plans by Jan. 1, 1995.
Question: How many acres will be covered by these plans?
Answer: We estimate that approximately 165 million acres will
be classified as highly erodible cropland fields in the nation.
About 66 million acres of this land is in the Conservation Reserve
Program or already has an acceptable conservation system applied,
or will not be covered by any USDA program. About 90-100 million
acres will need a conservation plan prepared by January 1, 1990.
Question: How many plans have been approved so far?
Answer: We have plans on about 33 million acres thus far.
Question: Does the Soil Conservation Service also work and
approve conservation plans which apply to lands that are not highly
erodible 2
636
Answer: Yes we do. The Soil Conservation Service assists land
users to develop conservation plans on all land uses, but only
formally approves plans written for land treatment contracts and
the conservation provisions of the Food Security Act. Included are
the Great Plains Conservation Program, Rural Abandoned Mine
Program, Watershed Program, and Long Term Agreements of the
Agricultural Conservation Program.
CONSERVATION COMPLIANCE
Question: Many wheat farmers from a cross the country are
telling me that interpretation of the conservation compliance
regulations are very inconsistent from one county to the next. In
some cases, farmers are able to gain approval for their
conservation plans without significant disruption to their current
management practices, and while still meeting the conservation
objectives of the farm law. In other cases, local SCS agents are
interpreting the compliance guidelines very stringently and
allowing few reasonable alternatives to enable the farmer to come
into compliance. In certain instances, farmers are even being
required to construct terraces or other expensive practices, when
no cost-sharing is available.
What are you doing to ensure more consistency and more
reasonable interpretation of the conservation regulations
throughout the SCS2
Answer: We are asking our state conservationists to provide
each field office with the opportunity to identify the need for and
develop alternative conservation systems. Alternative conservation
systems are designed to make a substantial reduction in existing
erosion rates, but are cost effective and practical for landowners
to implement. The objective of the SCS is to assist landowners in
maintaining compliance not to put them out of business. We believe
alternative conservation systems will accomplish this purpose.
Certain HEL fields are going to be expensive to treat, but they are
the exception rather than the rule. Such fields have the option of
bidding for the 10-year CRP rental contracts.
Question: Will you be reviewing appeals brought by farmers to
identify districts where economic and technical feasibility
guidelines are not being properly observed.
Answer: Yes, we will review appeals and follow up on letters
of complaint from farmers who claim guidelines are not being
properly observed. In addition we have asked each state
conservationist to review the conservation treatment requirements
in each county and establish alternative conservation systems as
appropriate that will cause a significant reduction in soil loss
and but are also economically and socially acceptable in the
communities in which the farmers reside.
Question: The farm bill requires offsetting compliance between
farms in determining whether a producer is in compliance with the
conservation requirements of the law. Many farmers seem to be
having trouble with this requirement, since many farmers rent
cropland and cannot control the decisions of their landlords.
637
Do you believe a revision in the law, when it is reauthorized
in 1990, to exclude offsetting compliance would be beneficial?
Answer: No, we do not believe a revision in the law is
needed. Offsetting compliance is essential in the landowner–tenant
situation.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
RAMP WORK IN TENNESSEE
Question: Once again the Administration has requested zero
funding for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program. As you know, I have
fought yearly to have these funds reinstated , and I believe this is
one of the most successful programs that the Soil Conservation
Service has. Cleaning up abandoned mine sites should be a National
priority of the Soil Conservation Service. Why have you not
encouraged that this program be continued ?
Answer: The proposal to eliminate funding for the Rural
Abandoned Mine Program reasserts the Administration's policy to
rely on the state reclamation grants program as the primary
delivery mechanism for reclamation services.
Question: Abandoned mines create severe erosion and water
quality programs. A report issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency recently noted that the largest cause of stream pollution in
Tennessee was abandoned mine sites. As you may know, Tennessee is
not a program state under the Office of Surface Mining and depends
heavily on RAMP funds. What do you propose that Tennessee and
other non program states do in the case that is discontinued 2
Answer: Non-program states are encouraged to work through the
Office of Surface Mining to establish eligibility to receive
reclamation grant funding. The Department of Interior has
requested $159.1 million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation fund.
We understand that they have set aside $2.7 million for states
which develop approved programs.
SCS STAFFING AWAILABLE FOR FSA WORK
Question: I am pleased to see an increase in funding for
technical assistance under Conservation Operations of the Soil
Conservation Service. In the past, you know that local offices
have had difficulty in maintaining some of their ongoing activities
while implementing the operations called for in the 85 Farm Bill.
Do you believe that this additional funding will provide for
sufficient staff to meet all these needs?
Answer: The additional funding requested in 1989 for our
Conservation Operations activities is for increased pay,
retirement, and operating costs to permit us to maintain about the
same level of staffing in 1989 as we expect to have available in
1988. We believe that we do have sufficient staff to carry out our
responsibilities under the 1985 Food Security Act and to maintain
some level of assistance for other ongoing conservation
83–470 O - 88 – 21
638
activities. However, the Food Security Act work is our highest
priority, and it is likely that in areas of the country where this
workload is extensive, there will be less assistance available for
other conservation program work during this time. With the help of
the entire conservation partnership and some improvements in our
own productivity, we believe we can manage this workload with the
resources that are available.
sources of FUNDING FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND construction
Question: I have been informed by the Soil Conservation
Service in Tennessee that their efforts will be severely hampered
by the budget reductions called for in Water Resource Management
and Protection. In reviewing obligations for fiscal year 1989, I
notice that Tennessee will receive only half of the funding which
it received in fiscal year 1988, while there are still water
projects unfinished across the State. I also noticed that the
reduction is similar for other states. Where can these states turn
for funding for vital operations such as watershed planning and
construction?
Answer: The lower funding level proposed in the budget would
not eliminate assistance for the water resources program. The Soil
Conservation Service would continue to plan and construct high
priority projects. The reduced funding would, however, increase
the length of time that it would take to complete unfinished work.
If the States wanted to accelerate high priority projects, local
sponsors could take the appropriate actions needed to obtain
additional funds from bond issues, loans, and/or grants available
from local, State and other Federal programs.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
RURAL ABANDONED MINE PROGRAM IN ARKANSAS
Question: The RAMP reclamation program has proven tremendously
beneficial to west central Arkansas. I have been a strong supporter
of this program, both here and in the Interior subcommittee.
However, I am concerned that SCS has dropped its full support for
RAMP. What are SCS plans for this program in FY 89? For Arkansas 2
Answer: The 1989 budget request proposes to eliminate all
funding for the RAMP program in 1989 and to rely instead on the
state reclamation grants program requested at $159 million and
administered by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining as the primary
delivery mechanism for reclamation services. Priorities for
reclamation work, including RAMP projects, would be determined by
the state.
ARKANSAS EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION NEEDS
Question: In December of last year, Arkansas was devastated by
flooding that crippled the state's bait fish industry, causing $22
million in immediate damages, including damage to 300 miles of
fishpond and other levees. Sixty-five producers, accounting for 80
percent of the nation's bait fish production, received timely
639
assistance from the Arkansas SCS through the Emergency Watershed
Protection (EWP) program. But, I am concerned that the National
Office is not going to fully back this commitment to my producers.
Can you assure me of the National Office's full cooperation and
financial support?
- - Answer: You can be assured our National Office is doing
everything it can to accomodate the needs of your producers
consistent with law governing operation of the Emergency Watershed
Protection program and the availability of funds. Between December 30
and February 24 the National Office of SCS (NHQ) approved proposed
actions and allocated funds for about $511,000 in exigency work to
relieve immediate threats to life and property. Since then an
additional $500,000 has been allocated to Arkansas to complete
exigency work. On February 2nd, two members of our Project
Development and Maintenance Division, both of whom are watershed
engineers with broad experience, toured Lonoke and Prairie Counties
to assist the Arkansas state staff in determining eligibility for
non-exigency assistance.
Under the EWP program SCS can assist state and local governments
to repair damage to streams and waterways resulting from a sudden
watershed impairment. The service is limited to restoring the same
level of protection of life and property from stream flooding as
existed before the emergency. The only threat to bait fish farms
located in the area is additional contamination of rearing ponds from
outside stream flows. Restoration of the exterior levees and dikes
(those that protect the land from high stream flows) will provide the
same level of protection from contamination of ponds as existed
before the storm and is the only work remaining to be done that
qualifies for EWP assistance.
Restoration of the interior levees (those that divide the land
into water holding ponds) would constitute improvements to, or
maintenance of, private property and is not essential to reducing
threats to life or property caused by a sudden watershed
impairment. Damage to the interior levees resulted from wave
action. This damage is similar to cropland scour damage from severe
storms and does not qualify for EWP assistance. SCS does not have
authority under the EWP program to rehabilitate farmland or related
farm production facilities. It is our understanding that producers
have approached the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service for financial assistance in rehabilitating their production
systems under provisions of Section 401, of Public Law 95-334.
Emergencies in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Mississippi, Arkansas, and
the trust territories of the Pacific have depleted available fiscal
year 1988 Emergency Watershed Protection funds. The non-exigency
work in Arkansas will be evaluated against other emergency needs and
it will be undertaken if sufficient funds are available.
BUDGET SUMMIT AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED FUNDING FOR WATER RESOURCES
Question: The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program
has consistently been slashed in the Soil Conservation Service
budget request, and Congress has consistently reinstated the money
for this important program. How is your FY 1989 budget request in
keeping with the spirit of the White House-Congress summit agreement
640
that henceforth budget requests will no longer contain items known
to be confrontational? .
Answer: The FY 1989 budget request was proposed to honor the
White House-Congress summit agreement and avoid confrontation with
the Congress. It differs from past budgets by proposing to continue
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Program rather than terminating
it. The funding level proposed for this and some other programs has
been reduced from current levels in order to fund as many high
priority Federal programs as possible and meet the agreed to deficit
ceiling for FY 1989.
FUNDING FOR ARKANSAS WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Question: If the Soil Conservation Service prevails in its
request, how will Arkansas be affected ?
Answer: It is estimated that federal funding for watershed and
flood prevention operations work would be reduced by about forty-six
percent in FY 1989. Installation of ongoing high priority projects
would continue, and lower priority work would be installed in later
years as funds permit. No new planning or construction starts would
be initiated in FY 1989, but they could be initiated in future years
for high priority work or in response to urgent National resource
COIlC eIſIlS e
LIAISON WITH AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Question: Jack Davis, who served Arkansas well as our former
State Conservationist, spent the last year in Australia as a SCS
liaison with the Australian SCS. I know that Jack discovered many
areas, including plant materials work, that could be beneficial to
SCS work in the U.S. I am interested in knowing how the SCS is
going to utilize the knowledge Jack acquired?
Answer: Jack Davis has returned to our South National Technical
Center in Fort Worth, Texas. One of his duties will be to transfer
the technology he observed in Australia to United States
conditions. We feel Jack had an outstanding assignment working with
the Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales. He documented
many of his observations in monthly reports of his activities.
Currently, he is preparing an end-of-tour report that will be
circulated within our Agency. We hope that some of his observations
will be incorporated into Agency policy, technical manuals and
national bulletins.
In addition to developing stronger relationships with the Soil
Conservation Service of New South Wales, Jack Davis also paved the
way for three technical teams to visit Australia in the area of
range conservation, geographic information systems (GIS) and plant
materials. The Australians are doing advanced work with plant
materials on semi-arid grazing land and coastal dune management.
Additionally, in relationship to GIS, they are utilizing remote
sensing and satellite imagery to monitor rangeland conditions.
Also, they are utilizing water ponding for the establishment of
vegetation on denuded areas.
641
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
MEETING WATER RESOURCE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Question: Your 1989 budget proposes nearly a fifty percent
reduction in the water resource management and protection program.
Two reasons are given for this reduction. First, to limit federal
spending, which I, and I am sure all members of this committee,
favor. The second reason indicates the merger of river basin survey
and investigation activities and the watershed planning and
construction activities into a single water resources appropriation
will be more effective and efficient in meeting program objectives.
Could you please explain how program objectives can be met more
effectively with this budget reduction?
Answer: The immediate objective of the proposed merger is to
continue high priority studies, plans and construction projects in
FY 1989 and beyond at a reduced level of funding without having
costly reduction-in-force actions. The overall objective is to more
effectively respond to program needs at any funding level. The
merger would simplify program and financial management and provide
greater flexibility to meet these objectives. If the proposal is
accepted, the next couple of years would be used to balance staffing
needs and cost-sharing at the overall $116 million level. High
priority program operations would continue for ongoing studies,
plans and projects. In future years, new planning and construction
starts could be initiated for high priority work or in response to
urgent National resource concerns. Local sponsors could accelerate
this work by contributing additional resources.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO FARMERS
Question: I am pleased that the proposed FY 1989 budget
includes additional funding for technical assistance, soil and snow
surveys, and plant materials centers programs. However, it is my
understanding that even with the increased funding, it will only
maintain the current 1988 level of operation.
The farmers of this country have a lot riding on completion of
the farm conservation plans by 1990, but they cannot meet this
obligation without adequate technical assistance and available
information. It is unrealistic to assume that the states will be
able to provide additional resources for this purpose.
Based on the increased demands that will be placed on the Soil
Conservation Service for technical assistance to meet the
requirements of the Conservation Title of the Farm Bill, what steps
are being taken to see that there is an adequate level of technical
assistance in view of the proposed level of funding?
Answer: Several steps have been taken to assure that adequate
technical assistance is available to implement the conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act (FSA).
642
1. We have provided training to insure that our people are well
versed in the requirements of the FSA and can be as productive as
possible.
2. We have worked closely with states to insure efficient and
effective management of the field offices.
3. We have developed computer software which will assist our
personnel in developing FSA plans and tracking progress made in
implementing the plans.
4. We have employed temporary part time personnel, used limited
instate temporary details, overtime, contracts and agreements to
meet deadlines.
5. We are staying in close contact with our program managers in
each state to monitor their progress in implementing the FSA and to
identify any obstacles that need our attention.
6. We contracted with the University of Illinois for the
development of a "group planning process package." This package has
been used successfully in many places already and has increased our
efficiencies significantly.
CONSERVATION PLANS
Question: In your testimony, you state that the FY 1989 request
will keep the SCS on target to completing all farm plans by 1990.
How well did your 1987 accomplishments match your 1987 plans for
completing farm plans?
Answer: In 1987 we projected that we would complete about 30
percent of conservation plan development and/or approval. We
actually completed about 25 percent. . We believe this slight delay
in schedule is primarily attributed to the delay in publishing of
the final rules. Many producers wanted to be sure of the
requirements before entering into a plan.
Question: Do you anticipate a last minute rush to complete
plans by 1990?
Answer: Yes, but not because there isn't technical assistance
available to develop the plans at an earlier date. Some farmers
will put off requesting their plan expecting that the deadlines are
going to be extended or eliminated altogether. We are doing
everything possible through our information and education efforts to
urge farmers to move ahead.
STATUS OF IDAHO WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Question: Once again a significant reduction in water resource
management and protection funding is proposed. I too support the
need to reduce or limit federal spending. However, I have
difficulty supporting reduction in water programs when, at least in
Idaho, many problems remain.
Idaho currently has an unfunded commitment of approximately
$6,900,000 in 13 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
643
projects (PL-83-566). Construction has been completed on one of the
projects. What is the status of the remaining Idaho Projects?
Answer: Construction of the Montpelier Watershed in Bear Lake
County is complete. At the request of 10cal sponsors, SCS is
considering the need for cost-shared land treatment in the project
areas. Sponsors are seeking funds. Construction of the water
storage reservoir in the Brundage Irrigation Project will be
completed this spring. Installation of the on farm irrigation
systems is scheduled for fiscal years 1989 through 1993 at an
estimated federal cost of $990, 000. The Brundage project is 58
percent complete. Idaho has 11 additional authorized watershed
protection projects in various stages of development. In general,
the first three to five years are spent planning and negotiating
long term contracts with individual land users. Contracts are
written for a three to ten year term. Another three to five years
is required to install the conservation measures and monitor
progress of the land owners. The status and current schedule for
these 11 projects, assuming level funding, is as follows:
Scheduled Remaining
Project Percent Installation Federal
Name County Complete By Fiscal Year Cost $
Sublett Power 98% 88–93 75,000
Hazelton Butte Jerome 88% 88–93 116,000
Summit Power 46% 88–94 102,000
Oneida
Roy East Power 73% - 88–95 185,000
Upper Sand Bonneville 42% 88–95 670,000
Thorn Creek Latah 55% 88–96 625,000
Big Canyon - Power 4.2% 88–96 445,000
East Fork -
Houtz Outlet Power 18% 88–96 945,000
Lower Sand Bonneville 18% 88–96 1,290,000
Bingham
Tensed Lolo Benewan 1.7% 88–98 931,000
Tammany Creek Nez Perce 0% 89-98 526,000
$5,910,000
FUNDING FOR IDAHO WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS
Question: How do you intend to fulfill these obligations if the
funds available for these projects are reduced by $65.5 million as
proposed by the Administration?
Answer: The highest priority ongoing projects would continue to
be installed within the funds available. Deferred projects would be
installed in later years. Local sponsors could seek other funds and
provide additional resources to accelerate the rate of installation
at the 10wer federal funding level.
644
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KASTEN
CONSERVATION PLANS
Question: A continuing concern of mine and of my constituents
in Wisconsin is whether SCS has now and will have in the future
adequate personnel and other resources to enforce the provisions of
the 1985 farm bill's Conservation Title. I am concerned, not only
by the delays in making wetland determinations for swampbuster, but
also by reports of backlogs of farmer requests for assistance in
developing a conservation plan for their farms. A conservation plan
is necessary for those farmers cropping highly erodible land to be
in compliance with the conservation compliance requirement of the
farm bill. Can you assure the Subcommittee that SCS has adequate
resources to meet the demands placed on it by the Conservation Title?
Answer: Yes, we believe we do have adequate resources to meet
the requirements of the Food Security Act provided that farmers do
not delay in requesting our assistance. Our field staff is
concentrating first on completing the highly erodible land
determinations. As these determinations are completed, the farmers
are notified if they have highly erodible land and a need for a
conservation plan. The fact that there are some backlogs developing
is, we believe, a good sign that land users are aware of their
responsibilities and are moving ahead to get the job done.
Question: Continuing on this subject, Mr. Scaling, can you tell
the Subcommittee approximately how many conservation plans SCS has
worked out to this point with farmers around the country?
Answer: The Soil Conservation Service has assisted producers in
the development of conservation plans on about 220,000 farms
covering about 33.1 million acres.
Question: How many do you have yet to work out?
Answer: We estimate that about 800,000 farmers need to develop
a conservation plan by January 1, 1990.
Question: About how much acreage is involved ?
Answer: We estimate that about 90–95 million acres of HEL
cropland need approved conservation plans.
Question: Are there some parts of the country where SCS is
farther along than in others? Which ones?
Answer: Several states have completed or nearly completed
identifying all of the highly erodible cropland within their state
and are well on their way in the development of the conservation
plans. Two such states are Kansas and Nebraska.
645
Question: Can you give the Subcommittee an indication of the
average cost to the farmer of working out and implementing a
conservation plan? I recognize this question does not admit of a
simple answer; many variables are involved. Please discuss these.
Answer: We estimate the average cost of applying a conservation
system to highly erodible cropland to range from $3 to $14 per acre
on an annualized basis depending upon the acceptable conservation
system selected by the farmer.
SWAMPBUSTER
Question: A question for both Mr. Hertz and Mr. Scaling. I
continue to be concerned about reports of lax enforcement of
swampbuster in certain areas of the country, particularly the
Dakotas. It has been alleged by some that the denial of all farm
program benefits to farmers in violation of swampbuster is a penalty
so severe that county ASCS committees are simply ignoring some
violations.
Please assess the degree to which swampbuster is being complied
with nationwide, with particular respect to the prairie pothole
region in the Great Plains. If it is not being complied with, what
are you doing about it?
I want to reiterate what I said at an earlier hearing on this
subject. It is not Congress' responsibility to change laws simply
because they are unpopular or inconvenient for a relatively small
group of people. While ASCS and SCS should, where appropriate,
exercise flexibility to ensure that farmers are not wrongfully
denied benefits, it is not the responsibility of these agencies--
including their local representatives--to carry that flexibility to
the point where the intent of the law is being ignored. If county
committees or other representatives of ASCS are simply choosing to
look the other way on violations of swampbuster, they--not
swampbuster--are the problem that should be promptly addressed.
Answer: There is no question that the penalty for violation of
the "swampbuster" provisions is severe, but we are dealing with a
sensitive resource that needs protection. The wetland provisions do
not stop a farmer from farming wetlands just as he or she did prior
to December 23, 1985. What the regulations do prevent is further
alteration of wetlands for the production of an agricultural
commodity in situations where the land user wishes to maintain
eligibility for USDA program benefits. With the exception of long
term Fimb|A loans, the penalty is an annual one; that is, a farmer may
lose eligibility this year but regain eligibility the next crop year.
We have different reports from different groups about the degree
to which farmers are complying with the swampbuster provisions in
the prairie pothole region of the Great Plains. Farm groups say the
provisions are too tough and not reasonable; environmental groups
say compliance is lax.
646
SCS makes a technical determination of wetlands or converted
wetlands and ASCS based on this information determines program
eligibility or ineligibility. As of Feburary 5, 1988 scs made
45,887 wetland determinations. We understand that 5 persons have
been determined ineligible for USDA program benefits. This does
include those landowners who simply do not plant an agricultural
commodity on the converted wetland.
Question: About what is the rate of wetlands drainage for
purposes of conversion to the production of agricultural
commodities, including those (e.g. oranges) not defined as such by
the 1985 Food Security Act? How does it compare to the rate of
drainage before passage of the Act? In other words, what has the
impact of swampbuster been?
Answer: SCS does not have reliable data on the rate of wetland
conversion prior to FSA. We have determined that 63,802 acres of
wetlands were converted on 3,849 farms since the passage of the
farm bill. Prior to FSA we did not track wetland drainage thus a
comparison cannot be made between pre and post FSA. However,
estimates from other sources showed agricultural conversions to
account for 260,000 to 390,000 acres annually from the mid 1950's
to mid 1970's.
Question: To conclude on this subject: I have asked for a
great deal of technical information in the above questions, much of
which your agencies may not have access to. Indeed, the answers to
some of these questions may not now be known by anyone. I think it
is important, however, that we find those answers, so that we may
better enforce the provisions of the Conservation Title and also
know what the impact of the those provisions is or is likely to be.
Does SCS have the resources to determine the impact of
Swampbuster, the average cost of implementing a conservation plan,
and the other questions I have raised? If not, would it be helpful
to involve other agencies (e.g. ERS, GAO, Fish and Wildlife Service
or OTA)?
Answer: SCS has the know how to identify and monitor the
number and amount of wetlands that aren't converted as the result
of direct technical assistance. It is difficult to determine what
portion of a conservation system is being applied by the land owner
because of his desires and what portion is being applied due to
FSA. .
Given the present workload imposed on the agency by the
conservation provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act, it would be
very difficult to establish a tracking system that would define
the total impact of swampbuster on the Nation's wetlands. We do
have good data for those farms where wetland determinations have
been completed. These data include number of farms with wetland,
acres of wetland, number of farms with wetlands converted after
December 23, 1985 and acres of converted wetlands. Tracking the
average cost of implementing a conservation plan would be much
more difficult because many practices are installed using the
farmer's time and equipment. Establishing values for the use of
farmer's resources is no easy task.
647
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
CONSERVATION PLANS
Question: You testified about the Soil Conservation Service's
success in identifying highly erodible land and verifying existing
conservation plans. Do you foresee any problems with meeting the
December 1989 deadline imposed by the 1985 Food Security Act for
having conservation plans filed with the SCS 7
Answer: At this time we believe that we will be able to meet
the December 1989 deadline for completing conservation plans on
highly erodible lands. Our goal is to complete 65 percent of the
plans by the end of calendar year 1988 and the remaining 35 percent
in 1989. We are monitoring our progress on a quarterly basis so
that appropriate action can be taken should any problems develop.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CRP
Question: Would it be useful to take the 45 million acres
required by the CRP out of highly erodible land, or could we place a
greater emphasis on environmental concerns, and take out land that
would help resolve these problems?
Answer: The environmental impacts of removing highly erodible
land from production are often overlooked. These acres had been
eroding at rates well in excess of the average, delivering high
tonnage of soil and nutrients to our nation's lakes and streams.
For the 23 million acres already in the CRP, about 20 tons per acre
of annual erosion has been stopped. The areas are now established
in permanent cover and no longer treated with the high levels of
fertilizers needed to maintain productivity on the highly erodible
cropland.
The recent inclusion into the CRP program of land placed in
filter strips indicates an increased emphasis on environmental
concerns. Also, under consideration is the inclusion of overwash
areas in flood plains in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
We do, however, need to continue to address environmentally
acceptable treatment of land while keeping it in crop production.
648
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD
NATIONAL TECHNICAL CENTER
Question: Please detail the historic staff levels at each of
the four technical centers, the staff levels at the beginning of the
fiscal year, the current staff levels and your plans to fully staff
each of the centers.
Answer:
FY 1988
Technical planned
Center FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 10/1 3/18 9/30
Northeast 69 69 71 60 56 57 57 70
South 307 278 291 271 262 254 254 273
Midwest 136 130 143 126 107 127 127 141
West 116 108 105 98 88 85 85 104
628 585 610 555 513 523 523 588
IRRIGATION EROSION
Question: Because soil erosion is such a serious national
problem, I have explored various legislative solutions to limit
its effects. I was surprised to learn that SCS currently has the
capability to measure erosion caused by wind and rain but not by
irrigation. What research now is being done in the area of
setting standards for measuring erosion caused by irrigation?
Answer: SCS and the Agricultural Research Service are
cooperating in the development of a model called Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP) which will replace the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) now being used. An irrigation erosion
prediction capability is being added to this model. This will
place the water and irrigation induced erosion in the same model.
Verification as well as refinement to the model will be
accomplished by SCS through field testing to improve its accuracy
for other soils, crops, methods of irrigation and climatic
conditions.
In addition, SCS has developed a computer model to predict
erosion on furrow irrigated fields and another for sprinkler
irrigation. These models were developed with limited data so are
only applicable for the locations where data was collected. They
have not been tested in other locations.
Question: Could increased funding in FY 1989 has ten the time
needed to develop such a standard? If so, how much would be
needed? -
Answer: Sufficient funding is available to proceed with this
work as planned.
649
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator BURDICK. This ends today's hearing. Our next hearing will be
held next Tuesday, March 22, at 10 a.m. in this same room. At that
time we will hear from the representatives of the Foreign Agricultural
Service, the Office of International Cooperation and Development, and
the General Sales Manager's Office.
This Committee now stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., Tuesday, March 15, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 22.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1989 -
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, Specter, Cochran, and Grassley.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOLDBERG, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND COMMODITY PROGRAMS
ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS KAPLAN, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM
ANALYSIS W
OPENING REMARKS
Senator BURDICK. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This morning, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
and Related Agencies, continues its hearings on the President's fiscal
year 1989 budget proposal for the Department of Agriculture.
Our invited representatives today are Richard Goldberg, Acting
Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs;
Thomas Kay, Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service; Joan
Wallace, Administrator of the Office of International Cooperation and
Development; Melvin Sims, General Sales Manager at the Department;
and Dennis Kaplan from the Budget Office. -
Welcome to you all, and thank you for joining us.
Whether negotiating international agreements abroad, debating
policies for trade legislation in Congress, or Securing contracts with
foreign nations for U.S. commodities, the Foreign Agricultural Service
plays a pivotal and indispensable role in promoting American agricul-
tural trade. Since the 1985 farm bill, FAS was granted authority over
several new and expanded trade incentive programs, and based on
recent reports, has been doing a remarkable job.
Recent forecasts for 1988 estimate U.S. agricultural exports valued at
$32.5 billion and an agricultural Surplus of $12 billion. This progress
has caused many to ask how we might Sustain our favorable position in
(651)
652
the world marketplace and seek improvement where new markets might
be opened to U.S. agricultural commodities.
While FAS should be congratulated on its successful promotion of
U.S. agricultural exports, some have suggested that more evaluations
and oversight should be conducted before final decisions are made on
whether to double or triple the amount of funds flowing into export as-
sistance programs.
Regardless of the outcome of many of the policy debates, FAS and
the General Sales Manager should be commended for 2 years of ex-
emplary performance in the administration of recent food aid and trade
legislation.
The Office of International Cooperation and Development also plays
a vital role in representing U.S. agriculture abroad. Through technical
training, development, and exchange programs coordinated by OICD,
the United States continues to maintain and expand good relations with
agricultural scientists and officials in foreign nations. Cooperation is of
ten the key to success in tackling difficult agricultural problems.
Your statements will be made a part of the record, and I ask you to
summarize them. We look forward to your testimony.
Our first witness is Mr. Goldberg, who hails from the great state of
North Dakota. -
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOLDBERG
Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a little laughter in the audience, Mr. Chairman. So you and I
will have to override that.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very pleased to
be here this morning to present the 1989 budget for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, and the General Sales Manager's Office under
FAS, and the Office of International Cooperation and Development.
I might also say, Mr. Chairman, on a personal basis that this will be
my last time appearing before your Subcommittee on a budget matter,
presenting our 1989 budget today. And I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to thank you and the other members of the committee for the
fine cooperation and assistance you have given us in the 4 years that I
have been privileged to serve the administration and certainly for the
last 8 months that I have been the Acting Under Secretary.
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
Mr. Chairman, I have with me today Tom Kay, the Administrator of
the Foreign Agricultural Service; Mel Sims, the General Sales Manager
of FAS; and Dr. Joan Wallace, the Administrator for the Office of
International Cooperation and Development. These people will present
more detailed Statements to you, Mr. Chairman, and cover in detail
their budgets and proposals for 1989.
653
EXPORT PROSPECTS IMPROVE
Both the value and the volume of U.S. agricultural exports, as you
have rather ably pointed out, are expected to be up sharply in fiscal
year 1988, continuing the progress we have made in regaining foreign
markets in the 2 years since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill.
Provisions of the act include those related to the Department's export
programs, and they are proving successful in restoring our ability to
compete in the international marketplace. -
To ensure that these gains are sustained over the long term, we are ac-
tively working to achieve agreement on international agricultural reform
as part of the multilateral trade negotiations presently underway in
Geneva.
A successful conclusion to these negotiations will provide for a more
open, flexible, and equitable system of international trade, offering ex-
panded opportunities for agricultural growth and trade.
Bilateral negotiations with a number of important trading partners are
also continuing in order to secure reduced import barriers and ex-
panded export opportunities for our agricultural products in these
markets.
BUDGET PROPOSAL
Our fiscal year 1989 budget proposals are designed to continue these
activities and build on the recent progress that we have made. As with
all the Department's programs, however, our proposals are tempered by
the need to reduce the federal budget deficit and meet the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings Act deficit reduction target for fiscal year 1989.
For CCC export credits, we are proposing program levels for short-
and intermediate-term credit guarantees which we believe will be ade-
quate to meet the program's market development and export promotion
objectives during fiscal year 1989.
In the case of short-term guarantees, this involved reductions to the
level mandated in the Food Security Act of 1985. However, the level
that we are proposing for fiscal year 1989 still exceeds the program's an-
nual level of sales activity during each of the past 3 years.
In addition to CCC export credit programs, our export promotion ef-
forts will be assisted by a number of other programs and activities
during 1989, including the Export Enhancement Program. We are
proposing a program level for Public Law 480, Food Assistance, which
will provide for the shipment of approximately 6.7 million metric tons
of commodities. While this represents a modest reduction from the ton-
nage to be programmed this year, it is expected the world's food aid
needs will be reduced next year as agricultural production, particularly
in Asia, recovers from this year's drought-reduced levels.
Market development activity supported by the Department will be in-
creased substantially next year due to an expanded Targeted Export
Assistance Program.
The TEA Program provides valuable export promotion assistance for
a broad range of agricultural products. It will increase from $110 mil-
lion this year to a proposed level of $295 million in fiscal year 1989.
654
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, we are proposing a program
level which is Somewhat reduced from this year's enacted level. How-
ever, our proposal is an increase over the level we requested last year
for fiscal year 1988 and will be adequate to maintain the agency's cur-
rent staffing level which has recently been increased.
We are proposing funding for the Office of the General Sales
Manager, which is slightly above the fiscal year 1988 level. This will en-
sure that the Department's export programs, which are carried out by
the General Sales Manager's Office, will continue to be implemented
effectively. -
For the Office of International Cooperation and Development we are
proposing to continue most of the agency's activities at current level in
fiscal year 1989, including OICD's administration of international scien-
tific and technical exchanges and its work with the International Food
and Agricultural Organization.
Technical Assistance and Training Activities, which are funded on a
reimbursable basis, primarily by the Agency for International
Development, are also expected to continue at current levels in fiscal
year 1989. •
Mr. Chairman that concludes my opening remarks. And I would like
to refer now to Mr. Kay as the Administrator of FAS.
I will be here, incidentally, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. KAY, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ANN WENEMAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR. -
JOHN W. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, MAN-
AGEMENT
BUDGET REQUEST
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Kay.
Mr. KAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcom-
mittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the work of
the Foreign Agricultural Service and to present our budget request for
fiscal year 1989.
This is going to be a banner year for agricultural exports. Farm
programs have been adjusted so that U.S. commodities are now in a bet-
ter marketing position, the dollar is priced attractively against currencies
of a number of key importing and competitor countries, and supplies of
most commodities are ample to meet buyers' needs.
As a result, U.S. foreign exports should increase 16 percent to $32.5
billion in fiscal year 1988 and rise one-tenth in volume to 142.5 million
metric tons. On a percentage basis, that is on a par with the annual
gains experienced many years during the 1970's.
The optimistic forecast for exports also points to a very positive trade
balance for agricultural items. With agricultural imports expected to con-
tinue at the 1987 level, the 1988 U.S. agricultural trade surplus should
reach $12 billion, bettering last year's figure by nearly $5 billion.
The Export Enhancement Program and the Targeted Export Assist-
ance program have helped U.S. exporters meet subsidized competition
in world markets. Credit guarantee programs and market development
efforts have helped expand existing markets and develop new ones. The
Food for Peace Program has helped to provide food assistance and
long-term credit to needy countries.
MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
For Trade Policy, the past year has been one of significant progress
in the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations on agriculture.
The United States presented a proposal to the GATT for world
agricultural reform. It calls for phasing out all trade distorting subsidies
and market access barriers in order to seek fundamental reform of
domestic policies which provide extensive support to agriculture.
(655)
656
It also seeks international harmonization of health and sanitary regula-
tions while urging all of the world's trading nations to adopt the U.S.
proposal for bringing about freer and fairer trade. We are also working
bilaterally to improve trading conditions for U.S. exporters.
We have, for example, negotiated a free trade agreement with
Canada that, if approved by the Congress and the Canadian Parliament,
will eliminate all tariffs and many other trade barriers between our two
countries. .
We have been working with the European Community on important
access and subsidy issues, such as the proposed EC consumption tax on
fats and oils that would hurt U.S. Soybean exports and EC subsidies for
pasta exports to the United States.
We are also pushing forward with the American Soybean Associ-
ation's 301 petition against the European Community's oilseed regime.
Negotiations with Mexico have been completed on an agreement that
establishes principles for bilateral trade and investment.
We have worked with Japan on trade problems affecting many U.S.
farm products and the outcome should help U.S. wine, cherries, choco-
late, walnuts, and other products. We, of course, continue our efforts to
liberalize their imports of beef and citrus.
FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT
FAS continues its 30-year commitment to market development
through our work with more than 130 agricultural firms, producer
groups and state departments of agriculture to develop and expand com-
mercial export markets. -
Promotion activities jointly financed with these groups include trade
servicing, training and education programs, international exhibits, adver-
tising, merchandising, and trade missions.
FAS also provides exporters with computerized trade leads, and other
marketing and information services.
Market development was given a significant boost by the Targeted
Export Assistance Program. Efforts now encompass versatile and imag-
inative marketing activities for virtually every U.S. farm product sold
OVCTSC3S.
BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 1989 budget proposal for FAS is $89.1 million. The
budget proposes a $3.2 million decrease in foreign market development
activities from the level appropriated in fiscal year 1988. However, we
must keep in mind that, in total, the budget is approximately $6 million
above the levels available in fiscal year 1987.
Overseas and domestic inflation, as well as the annualized costs of the
fiscal year 1988 pay raise, will be absorbed to some extent from the ef-
fects of the reduced costs of the Federal Employees Retirement System.
657
OVERSEAS STAFF REDUCTION AVOIDED
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my statement, I would like to ex-
press my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the Foreign
Agricultural Service for this committee's actions last year.
When we appeared before you last year about this time, it was evi-
dent that unless some relief was given we perhaps would have to close
13 offices overseas and reduce Staff at 5 others. This committee
responded in a resounding way, and I report to you today that those of
fices are alive and well.
PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
This committee also provided us with personal Services contracting
authority overseas which made it possible for us to offset partially the
adverse effect of reductions of staff we have had to take because of
overseas staffing reviews. This authority will allow us to contract out
some of the activities that we need to perform. This will put us on a
par with other agencies of the U.S. Government, like AID and the
State Department, which already have that authority.
MINISTER-COUNSELOR DIPLOMATIC RANK
You also made it possible for us to maintain our ability to compete
overseas, as related to our sister Service, the Foreign Commercial
Service, by giving us an equal amount of diplomatic minister counselor
ranks. Had it not been for the interest of this subcommittee, and its
tenaciousness, we certainly would not have made out quite So well.
And to you, Mr. Chairman and the other members of this committee,
we express our appreciation, as does all American agriculture for com-
ing to our aid when it was needed.
As I said to you last year, exports are the hottest topic around.
Everybody believes in them, but very few people are willing to pay for
them. But you, sir, proved to be different and we will always be grate-
ful to you. §
I appreciate the opportunities that I have had to appear before this
committee, and appreciate your personal support and the collective Sup-
port of the committee for an organization that I believe in. I would pay
tribute to them, the civil servants at the Foreign Agricultural Service,
the foreign officers, attachés and counselors whom I believe to be the
most dedicated people in the U.S. Government. I can say that because I
am really not one of them. But they have opened their hearts and
minds to me as a political appointee. They have shored me up, and I
have tried to do my best for them during the period of time it has been
my pleasure to be the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural
Service.
I thank you for your friendship, for your loyalty and count the
memories that I have had here on the Hill as being the choicest in my
life. And it is always a pleasure to appear before your committee, sir.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
658
STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. KAY
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
to meet with you to discuss the work of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
and to present our budget request for fiscal 1989.
The importance of exports to agriculture is evident throughout the
economy. That is why the work of FAS continues to be vital to U.S.
agriculture. Today I would like to highlight the outlook for farm exports and
the role of the Foreign Agricultural Service in improving U.S. export
opportunities.
OUTLOOK
This is going to be a banner year for y farm exports. After years of
dealing in a buyer's market, the United states seems to be in for solid
recovery in fiscal 1988. We are in a good position to make sales in a market
that has improved notably over the past 2 years. Farm programs have been
adjusted so that U.S. commodities are now in a better marketing position, the
dollar is priced attractively against currencies of a number of key importing
and competitor countries, and supplies of most commodities are ample to meet
buyers' needs.
Piscal 1988 is going to be a big year for bulk commodity sales—-that is
already apparent from the pace so far. The U.S. share of world trade volume
in bulk commodities may reach 46 percent, increasing 6 percentage points from
last year to the highest level since 1983.
Our share of the world's coarse grain trade climbed to nearly 57
percent in the 1987 marketing year, up 9 percentage points from the year
before. And we expect another increase this year.
The United States is also expected to capture 37 percent of the world
wheat market—-up 10 percentage points from 1986/87.
U.S. cotton prospects for fiscal 1988 are bright with a 13-percent gain
expected in export volume.
U.S. high-value products, which bucked the downtrend that affected bulk
products in recent years, also remain a bright spot.
659
High value sales accounted for nearly half the value of all U.S. farm
exports in fiscal 1987. They are likely to get a further boost in 1988 from
the decline in the dollar.
Overall, good prospects are expected in Pacific Rim nations with fast
growing economies and many U.S. customers. U.S. exports there are projected
to rise about 14 percent. Increased sales also are expected to the European
Community, Canada, the Soviet Union, and China.
As a result, U.S. farm exports should increase 16 percent to $32.5
billion in fiscal 1988 and rise a tenth in volume to 142.5 million tons. On a
percentage basis, that is on a par with the annual gains experienced many
years during the Seventies. This is coming on the heels of a strong recovery
in exports during 1987, when both sales volume and dollar values were up
significantly.
The optimistic forecast for exports also points to a very positive trade
balance for agricultural items. With agricultural imports expected to
continue at the 1987 level, the 1988 U.S. agricultural trade surplus should
reach $12 billion, bettering last year’s figure by nearly $5 billion. Since
two monthly trade deficits in the summer of 1986, the United States has run
consistent monthly agricultural trade surpluses, and further growth in the
positive balances is expected. In fact, the December monthly trade balance of
$1.25 billion was the largest in nearly 3 years.
Favorable economic factors have converged with farm policy and program
decisions to improve the situation and outlook for agricultural exports. Over
the past 2 years, we have used the export programs authorized by the Food
Security Act to support an aggressive export effort. We are seeing the
results now.
The Export Enhancement Program and the Targeted Export Assistance
program have helped U.S. exporters meet subsidized competition in world
markets. Credit guarantee programs and market development efforts have helped
in expanding existing markets and developing new ones. The Food for Peace
Program has helped provide food assistance and long-term credit to needy
countries.
660
The General Sales Manager will go into detail on a number of these areas
which come under his immediate purview. The combined impact of these programs.
on U.S. exports has been dramatic. To cite a single example: In 1987, the
United States shipped almost one-half of its wheat and flour exports under
Export Enhancement Program (EEP) initiatives. Sales of a wide range of
products sold under the EEP total over sa.1 billion since the , program was
launched in 1985.
TRADE POLICY
It is impossible to talk about the longer term outlook for U.S.
agricultural trade without taking a close look at what is happening in the
trade policy arena. The past year has been one of significant progress in the
Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations on agriculture.
These talks offer the world's agricultural exporters the best chance we
may have in a long time to agree on farm programs and policies. . . . . to create a
trade environment in which all nations can compete openly and fairly.
Proposals for agricultural reform have been submitted by most of the
major players in agricultural trade——the United States, the European
Community, the Cairns Group of 13 exporting nations, Canada, four Nordic
nations, and Japan.
We are already at the point in the Uruguay Round where we are ready to
begin serious negotiations on agriculture. It took four years to get to this
point during the last round. We are seeing many nations actively
participating in the process this time, rather than just a few. All of this
bodes well for reaching an agreement on agricultural reform by the end of the
year.
The United States has proposed phasing out all subsidies and market
access barriers in order to seek fundamental reform of domestic policies which
provide excessive support to agriculture. Government intervention has been
the root cause of price-depressing surpluses which have led to increased
protection and export subsidies. Agriculture played a small role in past
negotiations. But, in the Uruguay Round we have proposed an ambitious and
broad-based reform of world agricultural policy.
661
- The U.s. proposal calls for the phased elimination of all direct and
indirect subsidies that affect trade and the phased elimination of all, import
barriers by the end of this century.
The proposal also seeks an international approach to the harmonization
of health and sanitary regulations. Regulations to protect human, plant and
animal health and life should be based on scientific rational and should not
be used as arbitrary or unjustifiable restrictions on trade. A greater
COIn Cºnſº U.S. On standards for health and sanitary regulations would help
facilitate trade, lower costs, and assist developing countries improve their
food control systems.
The pace that GATT members have set in identifying the problems that
beset agricultural trade and in tabling negotiating proposals is encourasins.
Most countries agree that basic policy changes are necessary to restore
competitive stability and fairness to world markets.
Even so, achieving consensus on how to accomplish that will not be easy.
We will continue to urge our trading partners to agree to adopt long-term
negotiating objectives aimed • achieving a liberalized agricultural trade
system. Such a system can provide world agricultural growth and trade
opportunities.
While stressing the importance of the MTN in bringing about freer and
fairer trade, we also are working with many nations bilaterally to improve
trading conditions for U.S. exporters.
A notable result of our bilateral talks over the past year has been the
negotiation of a free trade agreement with Canada. If approved, the agreement
will eliminate all tariffs between our two countries. It also will expand
access to the Canadian market for U.S. horticultural products, provide
conditions for elimination of Canadian import licenses for U.S. wheat, barley
and oats, and increase Canadian import quotas for poultry, eggs and egg
products. Each country will exempt the other from its meat import laws. In
addition, the agreement will remove Canadian subsidies under the Western Grain
Transportation Act. This would affect products moving to U.S. markets through
Western Canadian ports. Both countries will work together to harmonize the
many plant and animal health regulations that now hinder trade.
662
We have been working with the European Community on important access and
subsidy issues. U.S. opposition was instrumental in preventing an EC
consumption tax on fats and oils. The tax would have adversely affected U.S.
exports of soybeans and products valued at over $2 billion. The United States
protested strongly and the tax proposal was temporarily shelved last July. We
will continue to oppose the tax if necessary.
We are also pushing forward with the American Soybean Association 301
petition against the EC’s oilseed regime. We have had both informal and
formal consultations with the Community to make the case that their processing
subsidy impairs our zero binding, is discriminatory and has caused damage. We
will continue to press the case through the full GATT process if necessary.
We are using every opportunity to press the EC to reconsider the hormone
ban. We have set in motion a GATT process and have had bilateral
consultations. These have resulted in a year's delay in the application of
the ban to imports, during which time we hope to see changes in the ban.
Under the Enlargement Agreement the EC agreed to assure that Spain
purchase 2.3 million tons of corn and sorghum each year through 1990. These
amounts have now been purchased for 1987. We expect the 1988 purchases to be
made with no delays.
We have also persuaded the Community to eliminate export subsidies for
wheat gluten, improving the competitive situation for our own industry.
In July, Turkey cut its import surcharges on vegetable oils almost in
half in response to U.S. protests that the surcharges were not in conformance
with Turkey's GATT obligations.
Japan reduced its import duty on wine by 30 percent and that on wine
coolers by 50 percent. As a result of that policy breakthrough coupled with
intensive marketing, U.S. wine exports to Japan increased significantly in
1987.
California cherries were successfullyshipped to Japan for the first
time last year, following a year of negotiations over fumigation requirements.
Negotiations with Japan also resulted in further duty reductions on
chocolate and walnuts, which will improve the competitive position of these
U.S. products.
663
The United States has received a favorable ruling from the GATT that
should result in Japan soon liberalizing 8 quota categories for food products.
This could mean an increase of $100 million a year in U.S. exports to Japan.
We also continue to push the Japanese to completely liberalize their beef and
citrus market following the April 1 expiration of our agreement on these
commodities. -
In July, Korea lifted the citrus quarantine on U.S. exports of
grapefruit and lemons and put grapefruit and lemon juices on automatic
licensing. -
In addition, Korea has cut tariffs on 19 agricultural items of interest
to U.S. exporters and opened cranberry juice to automatic licensing. We
continue to push Korea to reduce other import restrictions and tariffs and are
taking them to the GATT on their beef import restrictions.
We have convinced Taiwan authorities to delay implementation of their
proposed fruit import ban. We are optimistic the ban will not be imposed. We
have also persuaded Taiwan to reopen licenses for turkey imports prior to the
expiration of the current license. We are continuing to work with the
Taiwanese to expedite inspection and clearance of turkey meat imports.
In addition to such trade policy efforts, FAS also is responsible for
long-term market development. This has been carried out principally through
nonprofit agricultural trade associations called cooperators.
We work with more than 130 U.S. agricultural firms, producer groups, and
State agriculture departments to develop and expand commercial export markets.
Promotion activities, jointly financed with cooperator groups, include
trade servicing, training and education programs, international trade
exhibits, advertising, merchandising, and trade missions. FAS also provides
exporters with computerized trade leads and other marketing and information
services.
To make sure these services are extended to producers of highly
processed products, as well as bulk commodities, PAS established a High Value
Products Division in mid-1986. This division works closely with exporters of
consumer-ready food products and with state departments of agriculture and
664
their regional organizations to make sure that smaller food processing
companies have ample opportunity to participate in trade shows and other
export promotion programs.
Market development efforts have been given a significant boost by the
Targeted Export Assistance (TEA) program which was authorized through 1990 by
the Food Security Act of 1985.
under the TEA program, USDA uses surplus stocks from the Commodity
Credit Corporation to partially reimburse organizations for export promotion
programs. For fiscal years 1986 through 1988, $330 million in TEA support has
been made available to help producers who have been hurt by unfair trade
policies of competing nations. The fiscal 1989 budget proposes an additional
$295 million. -
It has been a tremendous job to administer such a large program with
existing FAS staff resources. During the past year, we have taken major steps
to streamline and improve the management of all market development programs,
so that we can stretch our resources to do the best job possible.
Market development efforts are paying off, as a few examples illustrate.
The U.S. Feed Grains Council and the American Soybean Association are
helping Algeria develop its dairy, livestock and poultry sectors by building
model facilities for dairy, beef, sheep, broiler and egg production. The goal
is to make Algeria a major U.S. feed market by 1995, and also to sell U.S.
breeding stock and semen.
The U.S. wood products industry is building a demonstration housing
project in Argentina and showcase homes in the United Kingdom featuring the
latest in timber frame technology.
As a result of a Wine Institute sales promotion campaign——made feasible
by the lowering of import duties——Japanese imports of U.S. wines are soaring.
A California Raisin Advisory Board promotion helped triple U.S. raisin
exports to Korea.
The USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council targeted its sights on flagging U.S.
sales to the Spanish market and turned the export picture around there.
The U.S. Meat Export Federation is letting Japan's consumers and meat
industry know about the quality of U.S. grain-fed meat.
665
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia are buying U.S. cattle as a result
of technical training programs conducted by the U.S. Holstein-Presian
Association of America.
Work of the U.S. Feed Grains Council helped to recapture markets which
had been lost in China and declining in Korea.
The USA Poultry and Egg Export Council moved quickly and effectively to
work with Japanese traders and officials to get a ban on U.S. poultry lifted.
News reports about salmonella had panicked Japanese buyers--the largest market
for U.S. poultry.
The list of marketing endeavors goes on to encompass versatile and
imaginative efforts for virtually every U.S. agricultural product sold
OVer SG2&S •
AMG RICULTU RAI, A TAC I &
In all of the efforts which I’ve discussed, the support of our overseas
agricultural attaches is invaluable. Our network of agricultural
representatives in 76 U.S. embassies and consulates around the world have
contributed substantially to the success of U.S. export programs. They help
expand markets for U.S. farm products, provide the Department's foreign supply
and demand information, and work on policy and market access issues.
BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 1989 budget proposal for FAS is $89.1 million.
The budget proposes a $3.2-million decrease in Foreign Market
Development activities from the level appropriated in fiscal 1988. However,
in total, the budget is approximately $6 million above the level available in
fiscal 1987.
Overseas and domestic inflation, as well as the annualized costs of the
fiscal year 1988 pay raise, will be absorbed to the extent possible from the
effects of the reduced costs of the Federal Employees Retirement System.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to respond to
questions.
666
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ann M. Weneman
Ann M. Weneman was appointed Associate Administrator of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in November 1987. She
oversees the trade policy, statistical analysis, and attache functions of the
agency.
Ms. Weneman previously served as Assistant to the Administrator of FAS where
she was involved in the free trade negotiations with Canada, the Uruguay Round
of - the multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, and legal and legislative matters for the agency. As Associate
Administrator, she continues her involvement in these areas.
Prior to joining FAS in 1986, Ms. Veneman was a partner in the law firm of
Damrell, Damrell, and Nelson in Modes to, Calif. She is a member of the
California Bar. ... Her practice, which involved extensive work with governmental
agencies at the federal, state and local levels, included many clients with
various agricultural interests.
Raised on a peach farm in California, Ms. Weneman received a bachelor's degree
in political science from the University of California, Davis in 1970, a
master's degree in public affairs from the University of California, Berkeley
in 1971, and a juris doctorate from the University of California, Hastings
College of the Law in 1976.
Ms. Weneman currently resides in Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL SALES MANAGER
STATEMENT OF MELVIN E. SIMS, GENERAL SALES MANAGER
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINIS-
TRATOR, MANAGEMENT, FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
Senator BURDICK. Melvin Sims, the General Sales Manager.
Mr. SIMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the programs of the Office of
the General Sales Manager and to present our budget request for fiscal
year 1989.
The Food Security Act of 1985 established a significant set of legisla-
tive authorities that have resulted in a reassertion of the competitive
position of U.S. agriculture.
Last year, U.S. agricultural exports altered their decline. U.S. exports
increased from $26.3 billion in fiscal year 1986 to $27.9 billion in fiscal
year 1987. Overseas sales are expected to be up 16 percent in fiscal year
1988.
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
The Export Enhancement Program last year allowed the United
States to retain and maintain export markets in the face of unfair com-
petitor practices. For example, we recaptured the Canary Island market
for chicken legs lost during 1984 and 1985. We maintained our table
egg market in Hong Kong against competition from the European
Community.
In addition, U.S. durum wheat was sold to the Yugoslav pasta in-
dustry for the first time and wheat sold to the Soviet Union was the
largest volume since 1983–84.
Wheat Sold to China was the only U.S. sales to China since 1984.
Last year, U.S. exports of barley quadrupled and exports of barley malt
doubled.
Since the EEP was launched, my office has approved 94 export initia-
tives involving 59 countries and 12 commodities. More than 40 million
tons of commodities have been sold with an estimated value of $4.1
billion.
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
For the CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program—called GSM-102–
last year, we announced $3.8 billion in guarantees for 27 countries, and
registered $2.6 billion in sales. A total of $3.6 billion in short-term
guarantees have been announced thus far in fiscal year 1988.
For the GSM-103 intermediate export credit guarantee program, last
year was the first full year of operation. A total of $411 million in
(667)
668
guarantees were available for sales to 18 countries. Sales registration
amounted to $250 million.
A total of $480 million is available in fiscal year 1988, bringing the to-
tal CCC export credit guarantees to date to $4.1 billion.
Last year, USDA's foreign risk analyses were expanded by evaluating
the creditworthiness of more than 30 countries.
Under titles I and III of Public Law 480, concessional sales agree-
ments were signed with 29 countries in fiscal year 1987 providing for
registered sales of 5.7 million tons of commodities with an estimated ex-
port market value of $786 million.
Local currency agreements were signed with six countries: Costa
Rica, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Morocco, Sri Lanka, and
Tunisia. w
Under the title II donations program in fiscal year 1987, the United
States programmed 2.1 million tons of commodities to malnourished
people in 84 countries and contributed to the world food program and
the International Emergency Food Reserve as well.
Under section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, the United States
approved 1.5 million tons of commodities for donations overseas. The
Secretary has determined that 1.6 million tons of grain and oilseeds will
be available during fiscal year 1988.
BARTER AND OTHER EXPORT PROGRAMS
With respect to barter, USDA and the Department of Energy have
signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue the trade of surplus
U.S. agricultural commodities for crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.
The requirements of the Dairy Termination Program and the Dairy
Export Incentive Program were met in fiscal year 1987. The Mandated
Dairy Sales Program is nearly complete.
The Agricultural Appropriations Act of December 22, 1987, es-
tablished the Sunflower Oil Assistance Program. USDA is working to
develop the program to implement this mandate.
BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 1989, we are proposing a program level of $3 billion
for short-term credit guarantees, GSM-102, and $500 million for inter-
mediate export credit guarantees, GSM-103.
For Public Law 480, we are requesting $1.4 billion, $812 million for
titles I and III, and $595 million for title II.
We also request $7.3 million for the General Sales Manager's Office.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the oppor-
tunity to answer your questions.
Senator BURDICK. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
669
STATEMENT OF MELVIN E. SIMS
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the programs of the Office of the General Sales Manager
and to present our budget request for fiscal year 1989.
This past year has been a positive one in boosting U.S. agricultural
exports. The Food Security Act of 1985 established a significant set of
legislative authorities that have resulted in a reassertion of the competitive
position of U.S. agriculture. Fundamentally, U.S. commodities have become
more competitively priced in international markets through farm program
provisions and export assistance programs.
In 1987, U.S. agricultural exports totaled $27.9 billion, a
turnaround from the steady decline during 1981–86. The export outlook for
1988 is even better, with the value of overseas sales expected to be up 16
percent.
The General Sales Manager is a key representative of U.S. farmers in
international agricultural markets. Meeting clients face-to-face is extremely
important in achieving sales in which buyer and seller are sometimes separated
by half the globe.
Last year we facilitated the movement of nearly one-fifth of all U.S.
agricultural exports, a circumstance made possible by excellent cooperation
among the export credit, commodity and market program areas in the General
Sales Manager's office.
In my role as General Sales Manager, I made a dozen trips overseas
last year, visiting countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and
South America. Just last month I accompanied the Secretary to The Philippines
and Singapore. During these trips I met with foreign government officials,
official buying agencies, private sector importers, and U.S. cooperator
representatives.
During this period, numerous delegations visited the United States to
discuss our programs. In many cases, they purchased U.S. agricultural
commodities.
I will describe briefly how major export promotion programs have
helped U.S. agricultural exports during the past year.
83-470 O – 88 – 22
670
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) uses Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) commodities to make U.S. products more competitive in the
world marketplace and offset the adverse effects of unfair trade practices or
subsidies.
Under the EEP, agricultural commodities owned by the CCC are made
available as a bonus to U.S. exporters to expand sales of U.S. agricultural
products into targeted markets.
Since the program was launched in May 1985, nearly $1.9 billion in
export bonuses have been used. As of mid-March 1988, my office has approved
94 export initiatives involving 59 countries and 12 commodities.
More than 40 million tons of commodities have been sold, including
nearly 35 million tons of wheat and wheat flour (grain equivalent), 5 million
tons of barley, 175,000 tons of barley malt, 73,000 tons of semolina, 124,000
tons of rice, 229,000 tons of sorghum, 148,000 tons of frozen poultry, 111,000
tons of poultry feed, 64,394 head of dairy cattle, 28 million dozen table
eggs, and 255,000 tons of vegetable oil.
The estimated sales value of these commodities is over $4.1 billion.
The EEP has allowed the United States to regain and maintain export
markets in the face of unfair competitor practices. For example, in fiscal
year 1987, we sold 3,000 tons of chicken legs under the program to the Canary
Islands, allowing us to recapture a market lost during 1984–86. Exporters are
now selling poultry meat in the Canary Islands market without the EEP bonus.
We also sold nearly 8 million dozen table eggs to Hong Kong, allowing us to
maintain our market against competition from the European Community (EC).
U.S. durum wheat was sold to the Yugoslav pasta industry for the
first time, and U.S. wheat was purchased by Senegal. U.S. exports of barley
quadrupled, and exports of barley malt more than doubled. The 4 million tons
of wheat sold to the USSR were the largest volume since 1983–84. The 2
million tons of wheat sold to China were the only U.S. sale to China since
1984. The 1 million tons sold to Poland were the largest U.S. wheat sale to
that country to date.
671
CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAMS
The CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) helps stimulate
U.S. exports by assuring the availability of bank financing of foreign
purchases on credit terms of up to three years. It provides a U.S. Government
guarantee on virtually all of the private financing. The program operates
where credit is necessary to increase or maintain U.S. exports to a foreign
market and where private financial institutions would be unwilling to provide
financing without CCC guarantees.
In fiscal year 1987, $3.8 billion in guarantees were announced for 27
countries, and $2.6 billion in sales were registered. All agricultural
commodities are eligible for guarantee under the GSM-102 program.
In fiscal year 1988 thus far, USDA has announced nearly $3.6 billion
in short-term guarantees for 17 countries.
This program has been instrumental in Algeria's becoming one of the
most important growth markets for U.S. agricultural products. USDA increased
its GSM-102 program for Algeria from $97 million in fiscal year 1986 to $469
million in fiscal year 1987. The higher level of guarantees yielded more than
$240 million in commodity sales, including wheat, feed grains, cotton, and
tobacco.
Also under the program, Egypt purchased nearly $200 million of wheat,
flour, cotton, and tobacco.
Iraq--one of the first participants in the credit guarantee
program——has become the twentieth largest market for U.S. agricultural
products and continues to be the largest market for U.S. rice. In 1987
exporters registered sales exceeding 95 percent of the $593 million available
for credit guarantees in sales to Iraq. The Iraq program was the first to
offer coverage for ocean freight, and, for the first time, credit guarantee
lines were opened for frozen poultry meat and wood products.
In Korea, new lines of guarantees were opened for leather and
furskins. U.S. exporters registered sales totaling $498 million against
announced credit guarantees of $530 million covering cotton, feed grains,
furskins, leather, oilseeds, tallow, and wheat.
672
In Mexico, $724 million in CCC credit guarantees were used to cover
purchases of dry edible beans, feed grains, livestock, oilseeds, protein
meals, soy flour, tallow, vegetable oils, wheat, and wood pulp. Wood pulp
exports increased from $2.3 million in fiscal year 1986 to $17 million last
year.
The GSM-103 Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program provides
guarantees on commercial credit with repayment terms of 4 to 10 years. The
program is designed to help developing nations make the transition from
concessional to cash sales. Fiscal year 1987 was the first full year of
program operation, and $411 million of guarantees were made available for
sales to 18 countries. Sales registrations amounted to about $250 million.
About one-third of the intermediate-term guarantees were used for breeding
livestock, but the program also supported exports of wheat, wheat flour,
protein concentrates, and tobacco.
Thus far in fiscal year 1988, USDA has announced the availability of
$480 million in intermediate guarantees to 15 countries, bringing the total
announced CCC short-term and intermediate export credit guarantees to $4.1
billion.
The program has done well in boosting markets for U.S. agriculture.
The sale of 4,000 head of U.S. breeding cattle to Tunisia in 1987, valued at
$3.6 million, opened that market to U.S. exporters for the first time in
recent years.
Bangladesh bought $30 million of U.S. wheat to meet increased import
needs caused by flood damage. Coverage of freight charges helped make those
sales.
Both commodities covered and registrations completed under Iraq's
GSM-103 program increased significantly in fiscal year 1987. Almost all of
the $87 million in guarantees made available were used, and the program
expanded exports of U.S. breeder livestock, table eggs, protein concentrates,
and tobacco.
In fiscal year 1987, Yemen •wº imports of U.S. semolina, wheat,
and wheat flour. Exporters registered sales of one-half of the $25 million
approved for the GSM-103 program in Yemen.
673
- In fiscal year 1987, USDA’s foreign risk analyses were expanded. We
evaluated the creditworthiness of more than 30 countries based on current
macroeconomic and financial conditions as well as expectations for the next 18
to 24 months. The analyses focused on the potential for debt rescheduling or
default that could result in financial liabilities for the CCC.
PUBLIC LAW 480––FOOD FOR PEACE PROGRAM
The P.L. 480 Food for Peace program has an excellent record of
success in supporting the market development, economic, humanitarian, and
foreign policy objectives of the United States. Title I concessional sales
have been effective in both economic development and the creation of
commercial markets for U.S. farm products.
During fiscal year 1987 Title I/III concessional sales agreements
were signed with 29 countries. These agreements provided for registered sales
of 5.7 million tons of commodities with an estimated export market value of
$786 million. -
Following recent declines in the U.S. market share for vegetable oil,
a $10-million allocation for Egypt enabled U.s. suppliers to ship
approximately 25,000 tons to this highly competitive market.
The Government of Morocco signed an agreement to import about 55,000
tons of vegetable oil, valued at $21 million.
The Government of Pakistan signed an agreement to import about
128,000 tons of U.S. vegetable oil, valued at $50 million.
Title I sales of U.S. wheat to Tunisia increased 60 percentage points
above the previous year's level. About 166,000 tons of wheat were critical in
meeting Tunisia's shortfall resulting from the 1986 drought.
The Government of Yemen signed an agreement worth $15 million for
approximately 34,000 tons of U.S. rice and 72,000 tons of U.S. wheat.
The Local Currency Initiative under P.L. 480 supports economic growth
via the private sector in recipient countries. In fiscal year 1987, local
currency agreements (Title I/Section 108) were signed with six countries:
Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Morocco, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia.
Sales of J. S. farm products are made for local currencies, which are then
674
loaned to private financial intermediaries in Title I countries, who re-lend
them to the local private sector.
During fiscal year 1987, Title III Food for Development agreements
worth $97 million were signed with Bangladesh, Bolivia, and Haiti. Funds
generated are used within the participating country for projects such as food
grain storage facilities, research and extension services, or small-farm
irrigation systems. The program also encourages countries to undertake major
policy adjustments, such as expanding private bank credit in rural areas or
phasing out consumer food subsidies.
Under the Title II donations program, during fiscal year 1987, the
United States programmed 2.1 million tons of commodities valued at $552
million (including ocean and internal transportation costs) to malnourished
people in 84 countries. Title II donations to the World Food Program
contributed to the biennial U.S. pledge of $250 million as well as the U.S.
contribution to the International Emergency Food Reserve.
Title II donations consisted primarily of wheat and feed grains and
their products. Other donated commodities included vegetable oil, nonfat dry
milk, processed foods, and soy-fortified products.
The three largest recipients of emergency food aid in fiscal year
1987 were Haiti (54,264 tons); Lebanon (31,364 tons); and Mozambique (125,500
tons).
SECTION 416
Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended by the
Food Security Act of 1985, authorizes overseas donations from the CCC's
uncommitted stocks of grains, oilseeds, and dairy products.
In fiscal year 1987, nearly 1.5 million tons of commodities were
approved for donation, including: 963,000 tons of wheat, 278,000 tons of
corn, 78,000 tons of nonfat dry milk, 51,000 tons of rice, 18,000 tons of
butter oil, 15,000 tons of cheese, 15,000 tons of wheat flour, 12,000 tons of
soybeans, 3,000 tons of butter, and 900 tons of bulgur.
Included in these quantities are 26,428 tons of nonfat dry milk which
the United States pledged to the World Food Program.
675
... for fiscal year 1988, the Secretary has determined that 1.6 million
tons of train. and oilseeds are available for Section 416 donations. No dairy
products or rice are available because of low uncommitted CCC stocks, but
wheat, corn, sorghum and soybeans are available. For fiscal year 1989, corn
and sorghum will be available.
BARTER
The Food Security Act of 1985 encourages agricultural barter
agreements.
USDA and the Department of Energy have signed a Memorandum of
Understanding for pursuing opportunities to trade surplus U.S. agricultural
commodities for crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. USDA has
identified countries that meet the criteria, and discussions on specific
proposals for barter arrangements are continuing.
MEAT AND DAIRY EXPORT PROGRAMS
Under the Dairy Termination Program, the Food Security Act of 1985
required USDA to purchase at least 200 million pounds of red meat for export
during the 18-month duration of the program. This requirement was met.
USDA also provided the Department of Defense with 12 million pounds
of red meat between July 1, 1986, and October 1, 1987, to supply military
commissaries in Europe. -
In addition, USDA sold 825 tons of high-quality U.S. beef to European
importers under the annual quota available to the United States in the EC.
USDA has also implemented the Dairy Export Incentive Program, under
which payments of CCC-owned dairy products are made on a bid basis to entities
that sell U.S. dairy products for export. Export sales under the program must
be additional and not displace commercial export sales. The program has been
operational since February 6, 1987.
Eligible products are but ter, butter oil, anhydrous milk fat, nonfat
dry milk, whole milk powder, cheddar cheese, and bulk American cheese for
manufacturing. Thirty-nine countries are currently eligible for the program.
676
Thirty-seven sales have been made to 16 countries for a total of 10,947 tons
of milk powder. The total export bonus value is $8.4 million.
The Mandated Dairy Sales Program requires that in each of fiscal
years 1986-88 the CCC export no less than 150,000 tons of CCC-owned dairy
products. These CCC sales cannot disrupt domestic U.S. markets or world
prices or patterns of commercial trade. We are fulfilling this requirement.
PUBLIC LAW 100–202
The Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1988, enacted
December 22, 1987, established the Sunflower Oil Assistance Program, and $10
million of Section 32 funds are authorized to increase export sales of
sunflower oil. USDA is working to develop a program to implement this mandate.
BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989
The budget proposal for fiscal year 1989 continues to emphasize the
importance of USDA's export programs as a means of facilitating agricultural
exports while recognizing the need to reduce the Federal deficit.
CCC EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
For fiscal year 1989, we are proposing a program level of $3 billion
for short-term credit guarantees (GSM 102). While this request is $2 billion
lower than the fiscal year 1988 program level, it is consistent with the
annual levels of sales registrations of recent years and should be sufficient
for our market development objectives.
For intermediate export credit guarantees (GSM 103), we are proposing
a program level of $500 million, the same level for fiscal year 1988.
677
PUBLIC LAW 480 (FOOD FOR PEACE) PROGRAM
For fiscal year 1989, we are requesting a total program level of $1.4
billion for the P.L. 480 program, which will provide 6.7 million tons of
agricultural commodity exports. While this represents a slight reduction from
the current tonnage estimate for fiscal year 1988, it is considered adequate
to provide for projected U.S.–Government food aid programs in fiscal year 1989.
For the Title I/III program, we are requesting a program level of
$812 million which will provide long-term concessional financing for a-most 5
million tons of agricultural commodities.
For the Title II program, we are requesting $595 million, which will
provide for 1.9 million tons of food donations.
THE GENERAL SALES MANAGER'S OFFICE
For fiscal year 1989, we are requesting $7.3 million for the General
Sales Manager’s office. This is an increase of $111,000 over the fiscal year
1988 level and will partially offset the increased costs associated with
administering the expanding programs authorized by the Food Security Act of
1985.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity
to answer your questions.
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF DR. JOAN S. WALLACE, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY: -
HOWARD S. MARKS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES L. WALKER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AVRAM E. GUROFF, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND PLANNING
RUTH B. JESPERSEN, BUDGET OFFICER
Senator BURDICK. Our next witness will be Joan Wallace.
Dr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we ap-
preciate the opportunity to discuss the programs and the proposed
budget of the Office of International Cooperation and Development,
sharing with you our vision of agriculture's role in the world com-
munity and our contribution to the part played by U.S. farmers,
producers, and exporters.
Mr. Chairman, if it is all right with you, I will Summarize my report
and the full testimony will be submitted for the record.
Although small in size relative to other USDA agencies, OICD plays
a major role in international agricultural cooperation and development,
with programs in technical assistance, training, international research,
and Scientific and technical cooperation.
In addition, we represent the United States with the international
food and agricultural organizations and work to strengthen private Sec-
tor involvement in international agriculture.
Together with American colleges and universities, the U.S. private sec-
tor, and other USDA and federal agencies, OICD is the hub of a for-
midable team using international programs to benefit American agricul-
ture and the economies of the developing world.
An overview of our major programs has been submitted through the
explanatory notes and I will not attempt to name all facets of the
programs here, but I will describe how our programs benefit U.S.
farmers, while at the same time, help the people of the developing
countries. -
First, we help to gather resources worldwide which sustain and im-
prove U.S. agriculture, including plant and animal germplasm; research
findings in many areas of agriculture; and new technologies and
methods.
Examples of new resources obtained by our agency include varieties
of rice, wheat, and alfalfa from India, Pakistan, and Egypt which are
more resistant to U.S. diseases and pests; natural insect predators from
Yugoslavia, India, and China, including parasitic wasps being reared
(678)
679
and released commercially in Pennsylvania to combat gypsy moth in-
festation; and an increased understanding of the biology and chemical
control of parasitic Asian mites which threaten the U.S. honeybee
population, crucial for the honey industry and crop pollination.
Second, we help to improve products and contribute to new markets,
hopefully expanding U.S. exports, including research into improving the
physical stability and shelf life of powdered milk, helping the industry
to boost sales; facilitation of negotiations for the sale of 14,000 tons of
cargo rice, with the potential for 170,000 more, resulting from the
middle-income country rice milling training program with Cote d'Ivoire.
Third, we help reduce barriers to U.S. agricultural exports by work-
ing with international organizations. One example is our work that
helped develop international agricultural phyto-sanitary standards and
product definitions, which are of value in trade talks, such as the
current GATT Round. -
Fourth, we help low income countries improve their agricultural and
forestry infrastructures and standards of living by training foreign
professionals in forest fire suppression here in the United States and in
Argentina, Ghana, and Mexico. We have coordinated vertebrate pest
control projects in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and we have been mobiliz-
ing rapid response teams to deal with the threat of invading desert
locusts and grasshoppers in Morocco and nine other African countries.
Fifth, we help to improve the health and well-being of people world-
wide, including providing vitamin A fortification of monosodium
glutamate so that potentially 100,000 preschoolers' lives may be saved
and 10,000 cases of childhood blindness may be prevented in Indonesia,
the Philippines, Sri. Lanka, Guyana, and Zaire.
And we have been fostering original research in Thailand into the
relationship between diet and resistance to disease and infection.
Our research with Poland shows that lactose supplementation in
children unable to absorb Vitamin D can cure this debilitating condi-
tion and help prevent rickets.
To support our program, we are requesting $3,972,000 for fiscal year
1989. This represents a reduction of nearly $3 million from our fiscal
year 1988 estimate. This reduction reflects a proposed phaseout—and
no further funding requested—for foreign currency research and the
Middle-Income Country Training Program.
Our total request, though moderate, provides the funds necessary to
support our international cooperation and development programs, vital
to the economies and people of the developing world and to U.S.
agriculture.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I will
be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The statement follows: -
680
STATEMENT OF JOAN S. WALLACE
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity
to discuss the programs and proposed budget of OICD -- the Office of
International Cooperation and Development, sharing with you our vision of agri-
culture's role in the world community and 0ICD's contribution to the part played
by U.S. farmers, producers, and exporters.
Today, agriculture is a major factor in international politics and econo-
mics. The days of domestic agricultural production, using only domestic inputs
for a domestic market, are long past. We realize, Mr. Chairman, that our pro-
duction of food, fiber, and industrial products --
* relies heavily on imported germplasm, raw materials -- even technology;
* is threatened by imported plant and animal diseases, pests, and environ-
mental hazards;
* is raised for export as well as domestic consumption, with nearly one in
four cropland acres devoted to exports which totaled $27.9 billion in
1987;
* is sometimes subject to unfair foreign trade practices and trade barriers;
and
* has implications for developed and developing economies alike throughout
the World.
Although small in size relative to other USDA agencies, 0ICD plays a major
role in international agricultural cooperation and development, with programs
for technical assistance, training, international research, and Scientific and
technical cooperation. In addition, we represent U.S. policy to international
food and agricultural organizations and work to strengthen private Sector
involvement in international agriculture.
Together with American colleges and universities, the U.S. private sector,
and other USDA and Federal agencies, OICD is part of a formidable team using
international programs to benefit American agriculture and the economies of the
developing world.
An overview of our major programs, submitted to the Subcommittee, is
available in the explanatory notes and I will not attempt to highlight all of
them here. Instead, I will describe some ways our programs benefit U.S. farmers
while at the same time helping the people of developing countries.
681
First, we help to gather resources worldwide which sustain and improve U.S.
agriculture, including --
*
jºr
*
plant and animal germplasm and varieties;
research findings in many areas of agricultural production and
marketing;
new technologies and methods.
Examples of new resources obtained by 0ICD include --
*:
jºr
varieties of rice, wheat, and alfalfa from India, Pakistan, and Egypt
that are more resistant to U.S. diseases and pests;
natural predators from Yugoslavia, India, and China, including parasitic
wasps being reared and released commercially in Pennsylvania to combat
gypsy moth infestation;
increased understanding of the biology and chemical control of parasitic
Asian mites which threaten the U.S. honeybee population, which is crucial
for the honey industry and crop pollination;
sunflower oil extraction methods from Yugoslavia which dramatically
increased processing efficiency in the U.S.;
research in cooperation with Australia on mutant soybeans which could
double their nitrogen-fixing capacity.
Second, we help to improve products and find new markets, expanding U.S.
exports, including:
with
-k
research into improving the physical stability and shelf life of powdered
milk, helping the U.S. industry to boost sales;
negotiations for the sale of 12,000 tons of rice, with the potential for
150,000 more, resulting from the MIC rice milling program with Cote
d'Ivoire;
a joint venture into catfish farming between Cote d'Ivoire and a U.S.
industry group working in Mississippi.
Third, we help reduce barriers to U.S. agricultural exports through working
international organizations by --
*
providing leadership in deliberations leading to the adoption of tractor
standards by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(0ECD), saving U.S. industry $30,000 to $50,000 per tested vehicle;
supporting U.S. agricultural interests in efforts to establish inter-
national kiwi fruit standards and thus preserve U.S. market share, worth
over $10,000,000 in sales to Europe in the 1986–87 crop year;
working to develop international agricultural standards, product defini-
tions, and subsidy policies which are of value in trade talks, such as
the current GATT round.
Fourth, we help low- and middle-income countries improve their agricultural
infrastructures and standards of living by –-
*
training foreign professionals in forest fire suppression here in the
U.S. and in Argentina, Ghana, and Mexico;
682
* providing long-term technical assistance to Indonesia in soil and water
conservation;
* coordinating vertebrate pest control projects in Pakistan and Bangladesh;
* mobilizing rapid response teams to deal with the threat of invading
desert locusts and grasshoppers in Morocco and nine other African
countries.
Fifth, we help to improve the health and well-being of people world-wide
through noteworthy efforts, including --
* vitamin A fortification of monosodium glutimate so that potentially,
100,000 pre-schoolers may be saved and 10,000 cases of childhood blind-
ness may be prevented in Indonesia (early success led to further efforts
in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Guyana, and Zaire);
* fostering original research in Thailand into the relationship between
diet and resistance to disease and infection; and
* research with Poland showing that, lactose Supplementation in children
unable to absorb ſit ºmin D can cure this debilitating condition and pre-
To support our programs, we are requesting $3,972,000 for fiscal year 1989,
a reduction of nearly $3,000,000 from our FY 1988 current estimate. This reduc-
tion reflects a proposed phase-out, and no further funding requested, for
foreign currency research or the Middle-Income Country Training Program.
As in previous years, over 85% of our funds will come from leveraged
resources from international organizations, foreign governments, and reimbur-
Sable funds from our work with the Agency for International Development. Even
the private Sector, recognizing the value of our programs, commits resources
which complement our efforts.
Our total request, though moderate, provides the funds necessary to support
USDA's international cooperation and development programs -- vital to U.S. agri-
culture and the economies and people of the developing world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
683
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
RUTH B. JESPERSEN
Mrs. Ruth B. Jespersen was appointed Budget Officer for the Office of
International Cooperation and Development (OICD) on September 14, 1987. She
works for the Assistant Administrator for Administration, overseeing budget and
fiscal accounting procedures.
Mrs. Jespersen came to OICD from St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D.C.,
where she had been the Budget Officer for nine years. Before that, Mrs.
Jespersen had worked at St. Elizabeth's in the Accounting Department, where she
had designed an innovative program for investing patients' funds.
Originally from Denmark, Mrs. Jespersen, 59, studied at the University of
Copenhagen and the University of Maryland, where she received a bachelors
degree in Business Administration.
Mrs. Jespersen, a Certified Public Accountant, lives in Temple Hills, Maryland,
With her husband, Phillip, and is the mother of two children.
FAS STAFF LEVELS
Senator BURDICK. We will now start the question period, and I will
call on Mr. Kay. Are you ready, willing, and able now? .
Mr. KAY. I am ready and willing, Mr. Chairman. Whether I am able
remains to be seen. - -
Senator BURDICK. The recommended Staff levels for FAS in fiscal
year 1989 would remain the same as those estimated for fiscal year
1988, apparently. How does FAS plan to retain the same level of staff
with reduced funding?
Mr. KAY. The reduction in funding, Mr. Chairman, would all be con-
centrated in the area of foreign market development and the cooperator
program. It would not affect our staffing pattern at the present time if
we maintain the 820 staff-years under which we are presently operating.
However, that does not take into consideration the fact that we have
been directed to absorb pay costs and inflation out of existing funds.
We certainly have no plans at this time, what with the additional
programs that the Congress has required of us, to reduce our staff-
years.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Senator BURDICK. Will the accent on market development abroad
reduce other functions appreciably?
Mr. KAY. No question, Mr. Chairman, that with the reduction of $3
million, I would have to say in all honesty that the cooperator program
and the other phases of the market development program have faced
the same problem that we have faced with our functions and personnel
at FAS, and that has been the devaluation of the dollar overseas. The
devaluation of the dollar has been something of a double-edged sword.
It has indeed helped us insofar as our agricultural exports are con-
cerned. But when you consider the fact that the dollar has depreciated
against 17 industrial countries since 1985 by some 37 percent, that is, it
has decreased in the value against the Japanese yen by some 51 percent
684
since 1985; against the West German mark by some 50 percent since
1985. This causes a hardship for the cooperators just as it does on us. I
would venture to say that because of the reduction of $3 million in the
cooperator program, we will perhaps have to curtail some of our
activities.
It is hopeful that we can accommodate them by greater use of TEA
funds in some of their activities, but the normal market development
programs carried out by the cooperators would, of course, be adversely
affected by the reduction in the $3 million.
FISCAL YEAR 1988 BUDGET INCREASE
Senator BURDICK. What has been the use of the $9,059,000 in in-
creased funding received by FAS between 1987 and 1988?
Mr. KAY. Mr. Chairman, the increase in the fiscal year 1988 ap-
propriation will be used in general terms as follows: $3 million for ex-
pansion of the foreign market development activities, including the
cooperator program; $2.5 million to offset overseas exchange rate losses
and inflation, making it possible to keep the 13 offices open that I had
spoken to you about last year, and to keep our staff levels at the same
level in five other posts; $2 million to finance the increased costs of the
Federal Employees Retirement System and pay cost adjustments; and
$1.5 million for multilateral trade negotiations support which will allow
us to hire Some 20 more people to work not only on our proposal but
also on the analysis of proposals made by other countries during this
new MTN Round which we believe to be so important.
FISCAL YEAR 1988 BUDGET REDUCTION
Senator BURDICK. Will a reduction in funding in fiscal year 1989 af-
fect the operation of the export promotion programs, really?
Mr. KAY. Insofar as the reduction of the $3 million, that, of course, is
basically the cooperator program. Insofar as the export promotion
programs carried out by FAS, including Public Law 480, the Export
Enhancement Program, the TEA Program, and our regular market
development activities, we do not foresee that there will be any curtail-
ment of these programs under the proposed reduction.
I would point out that in our budget request we had asked for ap-
proximately $1.1 million to take care of overseas cost and inflation once
again. We did not receive that. We will probably have some difficulties,
as we did last year, in keeping Some of our offices operating, par-
ticularly when you consider not only the devaluation of the dollar but
countries like Mexico, where the inflation rate is rising even faster than
the appreciation of the dollar. It remains to be seen yet exactly how our
overseas operations would be affected by inflation. But I would point
out that this is a continuing problem with us.
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might interrupt just a
In Onſlent.
Senator BURDICK. Certainly.
685
Senator SPECTER. I regret that I cannot stay because of other com-
mittee assignments, but I would like to submit questions for the record.
Senator BURDICK. Certainly.
Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Would you care to ask them now? I will give you
Some time now if you like.
Senator SPECTER. No; I prefer to submit them.
FAS AND INCREASED AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
Senator BURDICK. All right. I am going to toss you a kitten ball now.
You know what that is, don't you?
Mr. KAY. Oh, all right. It is nice to have one every now and then.
[Laughter.]
Senator BURDICK. I want you to develop an answer to it, I know what
it is going to be, but I want to give you a chance to Say for the record.
Is there any correlation between the activities of FAS and the increase
in U.S. agricultural exports? [Laughter.]
Mr. KAY. I am a modest man, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think there is any question about the fact that you can prove
correlation between the two. I certainly would not want to take credit
for all the increase in exports because you know as well as I do that the
devaluation of the dollar has had something to do with it; that im-
proved economies in Third World countries have had something to do
with it; that reduced interest rates have had something to do with it;
that crop conditions in other countries have had something to do with
it. But I would also point out that with the additional programs that the
Congress gave us, like the Export Enhancement Program, and the
Targeted Export Assistance Program, and the other 12 programs that we
inherited through the 1985 farm bill, and with the increased appropria-
tions you have given to us to implement these programs, we feel that
the implementation of these programs by FAS have been instrumental
in increasing the export value and Volume of U.S. agricultural com-
modities.
AGRICULTURAL AID AND TRADE MISSIONS
Senator BURDICK. Thank you.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Kay, we exchanged correspondence about the
implementation of the Agricultural Aid and Trade Missions Program.
You mentioned that the FAS hopes to publish a list of target countries
in the near future and complete at least eight missions by June. I under-
stand that it is necessary to achieve a waiver of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act before the missions may be authorized to go abroad.
Will FAS be required to amend its initial schedule for the trade
missions?
Mr. KAY. My feeling is, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps a total of eight
nations by June is a little ambitious at this point. We have, as you
know, announced the first two countries that Secretary Lyng has
chosen, they being Indonesia and the Philippines.
686
The decision by the General Counsel's Office that the legislation as
passed by the Congress, since it requires a report to be given with ad-
vice as well to the President and to the Congress, that the participants
on these missions would come under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act. That would delay implementation because, as you know under that
act, those who participate in those missions have to have Security
clearances. We have found in our experience on our other advisory com-
mittees that it takes 3 or 4 months to get Security clearances for those
who participate.
It makes it doubly difficult because we did not anticipate that the
same ones would be going on the same missions. So, consequently, you
have a different set of people going on the various missions.
Now we have proceeded at any rate to charter the trade and aid mis-
sions, as we were required to do under the Federal Advisory Commit-
tee Act if there is no exemption. I am told that legislation is presently
underway to exempt us from that.
We also feel that in designing the trade and development missions, it
is awfully important for us to do missions that are meaningful, not just
to complete 8 or 16 missions to say we have done it in order to fulfill
the law. The Congress gave us $200,000 for these aid and trade missions
for 1988. There is no money appropriated beyond fiscal year 1988.
My feeling is that if we do these trade and aid missions meaningfully
that we are going to have to insist on quality rather than quantity. But
under the circumstances, I will assure you, Sir, that we are going to do
the very best that we can.
Senator BURDICK. I think at one time you envisioned having 16 mis-
sions this year. Will you come close to that?
Mr. KAY. If I remember the law as passed by the Congress, they
have asked us to do 16 missions by the end of the calendar year 1988.
And I must tell you, Senator, that I really do not envision that there is
any way possible to do 16 meaningful missions between now and then,
not only because of the quality question, but I am very doubtful that
$200,000 would be enough money to finance 16 different trade
missions.
Senator BURDICK. Will additional funding be required in fiscal year
1989 for the trade missions or for publication of their recommen-
dations?
Mr. KAY. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, there is no money in
the President's budget for 1989 for these missions. But if they are to be
continued, then there is no question about the fact that additional fund-
ing would be required.
There is another caveat here which was brought to my attention just
the other day. Under the regular appropriations law, there is a prohibi-
tion against using money for any other purpose in FAS other than that
for which it has been appropriated. That being the case, we see that
there would be no authority to transfer funds for this purpose unless
those funds were earmarked in an appropriation kind of action.
687
TRADE BILL AND INCREASED STAFFING FOR FAS
Senator BURDICK. The provisions of H.R. 3 relating to agriculture call
for an increase of FAS personnel to 900 full-time staff and would
provide their designation as minister counselors to senior FAS person-
nel.
What is the corresponding increase in funding that would be neces-
sary for FAS to retain 900 full-time staff
Mr. KAY. Well, Congressman—excuse me, Senator. I apologize.
Senator BURDICK. Forget it.
Mr. KAY. When I think about 900 people—
Senator BURDICK. I was a Congressman once, So it is all right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. KAY. As an example, of the $1.5 million you appropriated to us
last year for MTN support, we used approximately $1 million to hire an
additional 20 people. That being the case, you could say that basically
for every 20 people you are talking about approximately $1 million.
Now, of course, that depends, because it is much more expensive to
send people overseas than to keep them here. We figure that the costs
of maintaining our personnel overseas, including travel and housing, is
at least $125,000 per person.
So the extent of funding necessary would be determined by whether
or not those people are used here or whether any of them would be
deployed overseas. *
There is something that should be pointed out here in that the reduc-
tion that FAS has had in personnel over the period of years has basi-
cally been taken out of the staff here in Washington. We have reduced
our overseas personnel very little. We have rearranged our appoint-
ments overseas to send our counselors and attachés to those areas where
we believe they can do most good, and where the export potential is
greatest. But the numbers have remained somewhat static. The reduc-
tions have been basically taken here at home. I cannot emphasize the
fact that with the additional programs that the Congress has given us,
and the additional burden on the personnel that we have, that it is im-
portant for us to maintain a strong home base in order to provide the
service and support that our people overseas need.
My feeling is that if the Congress ever appropriated funds for those
additional personnel—and in the Senate bill it does say 900; I believe
in the House bill it is 850—that it would be important for us to utilize
those people to our best ability here at home in order to provide Sup-
port overseas. This is not to say that in some instances we would not
try to increase some of our personnel overseas. We have gone through
an overseas staff review with the State Department. It is awfully dif-
ficult to get the State Department to approve additional people overseas
right now because of the cost and security measures associated with
people overseas.
We had the Ambassador from Tunisia in just yesterday to see the
Secretary, and he was urging us to put a person in the trade office in
Tunisia. We are looking at that, and we would look very carefully at
688
whatever decision the Congress might make as to how additional person-
nel might best be utilized here at home in the commodity divisions,
especially with the TEA Program increasing from $110 to $295 million
versus the formula of personnel overseas.
Senator BURDICK. What additional attaché offices might be opened?
In what countries? -
Mr. KAY. We look at that from time to time, Senator, as to whether
or not we are using our resources wisely and well in their deployment
overseas. I mentioned the request by the Ambassador of Tunisia just
yesterday. When we went through the staffing review some 2 years ago,
we did take our person out of Bangladesh. With the increased emphasis
on the Pacific Rim, there is a possibility that we could use additional
personnel in China. My feeling was that if we look at additional person-
nel overseas that the Pacific Rim countries would be the area, along
with some of the African countries, where we should perhaps concen-
trate.
Senator BURDICK. Well, thank you very much. I may come back to
you again.
Mr. KAY. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDICK. I turn now to Dr. Wallace.
The President's fiscal year 1989 budget request for the Office of
International Cooperation and Development can be contrasted to the fis-
cal year 1988 budget request in that the administration of international
research and development and planning and analysis activities are not
proposed for reduction. What has prompted the shift in emphasis from
reducing to maintaining these programs?
Dr. WALLACE. The first program that is going to be reduced is the
Foreign Currency Research Program, which is the utilization of cur-
rencies other than U.S. dollars to do research overseas that benefits
U.S. agriculture. And the other program is the Middle-Income
Countries Training Program. This program is going to be phased out.
We are fortunate that the Congress saw to it that we had the oppor-
tunity to experiment, to do a pilot project which would be helpful to
the middle-income countries to provide training for them in a variety of
areas that would result, we hope, in the promotion of trade or in reduc-
ing Some barriers to trade.
We have phased out these two programs because we are participating
in the budget deficit reduction, and because the Second program was an
initiative of the Congress. -
Senator BURDICK. The International Organization Affairs Division is
proposed for an increase of $145,000 in fiscal year 1989. What is the
purpose of this increase, and does FAS have personnel in Rome that
might assist with USDA representation and the interests of OICD?
Dr. WALLACE. In the Rome mission, which is the mission to the food
and agricultural organizations there in Rome—the FAO, the World
Food Council, the International Fund for Agricultural Development,
and the World Food Program—there is an ambassador, two State
Department staff, two U.S. AID staff, and we have had in the past an
689
agricultural attaché, who helped with the agricultural programs, attend-
ing committee meetings all year long.
We are also very cognizant, Mr. Chairman, that these are agriculture
agencies. FAS does have an agriculture attaché, or counselor, in Rome,
but the workload is very, very heavy for the mission. Attending the
meetings throughout the year, as well as preparing for the conferences
and being a liaison for U.S. staff who are in the food and agricultural
organizations, is a full-time job. There are just not enough people in the
FAS office to provide that kind of service.
So the increase we are requesting is to continue having an agricul-
tural attaché in the food and agriculture mission.
Senator BURDICK. Arriving at our committee is the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator BURDICK. Mr. Cochran, would you care to ask Some ques-
tions?
Senator COCHRAN. I appreciate your recognizing me. I understand
that a good many of the questions that I was going to raise have been
discussed already. I may have Some other questions in order to clarify
and to get Some more details on Some of our foreign agricultural initia-
tives, and I would like to have the opportunity to submit those ques-
tions for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Certainly.
GSM-102
Senator COCHRAN. In addition to that, let me just ask the General
Sales Manager or Mr. Tom Kay a couple questions about the GSM-102
program. The President's budget proposes a reduction in GSM-102
short-term export credit guarantees from $5 billion in fiscal year 1988
to $3 billion in fiscal year 1989. I understand registrations under
GSM-102 were below authorized levels in fiscal year 1987 and in 1988.
With a weakening of the dollar and other market factors, do you expect
a substantial increase in requests for utilization of GSM-102?
Mr. KAY. Senator, in your absence, I was drilled pretty good by the
chairman and I am afraid that Mr. Sims will have his feelings hurt if he
doesn't get to speak up, so I will let him answer that question.
Mr. SIMS. Thank you, Mr. Kay.
During 1986, the total registrations under the program, and in 1987
as well, were approximately $2.5 billion. This year, we are asking in to-
tal for $3 billion under GSM-102, plus $500 million under the
GSM-103. We anticipate that the $3.5 billion in total will be adequate.
However, we are watching the situation very closely. Should we see the
possibilities that the resources will not be adequate, we will take the
necessary steps so that the need can be satisfied.
Senator COCHRAN. From time to time I understand there have been
concerns about how the GSM-102 agreements are administered in cer-
tain countries. For example, in Some cases, the foreign government or
central bank require the ultimate buyer to repay the funds provided un-
der a guarantee on an accelerated Schedule, and this denies the full
690
benefits of the extended term. Is this a significant problem? If so, can
the Department take action to modify the practice and ensure that U.S.
customers receive full benefit from the program?
Mr. SIMS. It is a concern of ours. We want very much for the in-
dividual, the company, or the agency that makes the decision to buy
from the United States or from Some other country to receive the
benefits of our credit guarantee program. And Occasionally we do See
the government or the central bank taking the 3-year credit and only
passing on maybe 1 year to the importer.
Whenever we detect this, we talk to them. We do whatever we can to
try to persuade them to pass this on. As a matter of fact, just recently
we were considering one, and we said, this is available only if it is
passed on to the importer. Otherwise, it is not going to happen.
That is about as Strong a message as we have sent. But we are watch-
ing it. And in Some cases, we have concluded that it is better to do it
even though the importer does not receive all of it.
Now in many cases where the country does have a credit guarantee
assurance—and in Some cases they are assuming the foreign exchange
risk that maybe an importer in the private Sector is unwilling to
do—then I think we have Some reason to Say that the central bank has
the right to a part of the benefit.
TARGETED EXPORT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator COCHRAN. I have heard some complaints about the possibility
of funds appropriated for traditional foreign market development
programs being utilized for Some targeted export assistance activities.
This bothers some of the cooperator organizations. Has there been a
merging of these two programs? If not, how do we keep them separate?
Do you understand that these are two Separate programs? Funding for
targeted export assistance is to be used in one way, for one purpose,
and in certain situations, and the Foreign Market Development Pro-
gram is to be used in another way?
Mr. KAY. Senator, we have looked on the Targeted Export Assistance
Program as quite separate and distinct from the cooperator program, be-
cause the Targeted Export Assistance Program was designed for one pur-
pose, to counter or offset unfair trade practices, with preference being
given to those commodities that had successful 301 cases.
We have looked on the TEA Program as a reactive kind of a
program which, as a matter of fact, has some negative aspects in that it
is used to address unfair trading practices, and where retaliation has
taken place against Some of our people because they have had success-
ful 301 cases.
The cooperator program is designed basically as a long-term program
in which, through gentle persuasion, we encourage our markets over-
seas. The TEA Program is directed toward shorter term advertising and
promotion, that has enabled us to Saturate advertising markets like we
have never been able to do with the cooperator program.
691
We have kept the TEA Program separate and distinct, but we also
feel that one complements the other, but with different purposes in
mind.
One of the encouraging things about the TEA Program versus the
cooperator program has been that we have brought in some new people
who we have never had before under our cooperator program, some 21
different organizations that have not participated with us before.
My feeling is that as the TEA Program expires at the end of the farm
bill, if it is not renewed, that these are potential candidates for the
longer term cooperator program. And so, consequently, we have not
only used TEA funds for Some of our cooperator participants, but we
have also used it for new participants. And our feeling is as long as we
can keep the two separate, looking on the TEA Program as a 5-year
program or however long the Congress may keep it in effect, and the
cooperator program as being a long-term program with funds ap-
propriated annually, that we are better off with that concept.
Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.
I think you have made a very good explanation of the differences in
the programs, and I congratulate you for the way in which you have
gone about utilizing these appropriated funds. I think they have made a
big difference in our ability to sell in overseas markets.
The Middle-Income Country Training Program, of course, is a
program that I have followed very closely, and I want to just ask for an
update from Dr. Wallace. Does the United States continue to benefit
from this program? Could you tell us how? What are some of the
changes that are occurring in the program that are significant.
Dr. WALLACE. Well, fiscal year 1988 is our fifth year, Senator, and it
has been a very, very active and popular program. It-has been popular
with the attachés of FAS; it has been popular with the participants. It
has changed over those 5 years. It started out being a program which
would have about one-half of the participants being here for long-term
degrees—master's degrees. Now only 2 percent are here for long-term
degrees. The others come for short-term training with very specific
kinds of things in mind. -
For example, we had some people from Cote d'Ivoire who were inter-
ested in milling rice, and they came here for training. We worked with
the cooperators. We understand that there are negotiations underfoot
for the sale of 14,000 tons of cargo rice to that country. They are
expecting to have 150,000 more tons once there is some additional
training
We have had Koreans come and want to learn about our wood
products. And we are hoping that after they have had Some training in
the issue of the kinds of woods that are available that they will be con-
structing homes out of American wood.
We have had Koreans also come and look at our citrus in California
and in Florida and study the regulations and the storage. There have
been some barriers, I understand, in terms of exporting citrus out of the
United States into Korea. But we are hoping that after this particular
kind of training, we will be helping to open some markets.
692
We have had people from Turkey studying tobacco and how we are
processing tobacco here. They are studying Storage, and pricing and
cigarette preparation, again, with the eye to importing tobacco from the
United States.
So we have a number of those activities.
The other thing that has happened is that we have leveraged our
funds. We have had $1.5 million a year each year. And, originally, we
were giving full scholarships with travel and per diem. Now we no
longer pay travel expenses. Travel is paid by all of the countries that
are participating and we have 14 countries participating this year. That,
again, gives us more funds to use.
We have also had some in-kind donations, I suppose one might say,
of travel throughout the United States by Some of the cooperators.
We have had courses offered with a mixture of university and private
Sector participation.
We have had more countries and more participants—230 now. We
started with 102 participants. So we really doubled—more than
doubled—the number of people that we have been able to train with
the Small amount of money that we have received. We hope to have an
evaluation very soon. We had one 2 years ago and we want to do
another one because the program really has a different look and we
think is getting the most bang for the buck.
Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Dr. Wallace.
I think the administration of the program has been carried out in a
very innovative and imaginative way—taking advantage of others who
are interested, not just government agency interest, but cooperators, and
industry here in the United States. To me, I think that has proven that
it is a worthwhile program and that we in the United States do benefit
from it. It is not just a giveaway program, we are not just giving Some-
thing to others. We are really providing opportunities for exchange of
information, exchange of ideas, and I think this is leading to increased
trade opportunities and other benefits for the United States as well.
Dr. Wallace, I think you and others in OICD have done an excellent
job in carrying out this program, and I commend you all for that.
Dr. WALLACE. Thank you, Senator.
Senator COCHRAN. I want to thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EXPORT PROGRAMS OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985
Senator BURDICK. Senator Grassley.
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have most of my
questions submitted for answers in writing, but I do want to ask Mr.
Kay one question first.
You remember in the 1985 farm bill—what we call the Food Security
Act—we expanded export programs and increased the burden placed
on our overseas offices. You talked about this to some extent in your
testimony. Does the current budget allow these offices to adequately
meet all the program demands being placed on the attachés under the
new program?
693
Mr. KAY. Two things, Senator. In large part, thanks to this com-
mittee, we were allowed to keep open the 13 offices that looked as
though we might have to close this time last year. This is not to say
that an additional burden has not been placed on our attachés and coun-
selors in the field, as well as our people here at home. What, with in-
creased reporting required by the programs that the Congress has given
us to carry out, we have to have much more networking from them
than we have ever had before. But thanks again to your committee, you
gave us authority to contract out overseas. As the burden became too
much for our overseas personnel, they now, like the State Department
and AID and others, have authority to contract out to obtain whatever
assistance they might need. And so because of that, we feel that the
situation is in hand and that we can adequately carry out our function.
Senator GRASSLEY. All right.
So the only question is whether or not it can be done with personnel
as opposed to contracting out.
Mr. KAY. That is right.
Senator GRASSLEY. But from your standpoint, as I think you made
very clear, it is being done in meeting the criteria set forth in the 1985
farm bill.
Mr. KAY. Yes, Sir,
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will Submit the rest of my questions.
TRADE BILL AND INCREASED TEA FUNDING
Senator BURDICK. Fine. H.R. 3 includes a revision that would increase
the targeted export assistance funding to $215 million in fiscal year
1988. What is your position on this provision? Would FAS be able to
program effectively this level of commodities and funds during 1988?
And how would the audits be conducted?
In case I cannot find another one, I will address this to Mr.
Goldberg. [Laughter.]
Mr. GOLDBERG. I am going to defer, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Kay. He
has got the numbers. -
Mr. KAY. The TEA Program as authorized by the Congress, Mr.
Chairman, gave us $110 million for 1986, 1987, and 1988. We have
programmed all of that. As you know, last year we sent a legislative
proposal to the Hill reducing the level for 1988 from $110 million to
$80 million in order to maintain our cooperator program. But Congress,
as you know, never passed that, so we have programmed the full $110
million.
This is not to say that we could not have programmed more. We had
Some people, as always, who felt that they should have received more.
We felt that in our evaluation process that we treated all participants
fairly.
It is my feeling that most of the ones who have received funds under
the TEA Program have their hands full at this time using the funds
they have already received. I anticipate that in 1989 we will have re-
694
quests from our present participants in amounts exceeding that which
they have requested up to now, and that we will have many new ap-
plicants in the TEA Program since the funds do increase in 1989.
My honest opinion is that the funds we had available in 1988 are ade-
quate at the $110 million level.
TITLE II OF PUBLIC LAW 480
Senator BURDICK. Concern about our particular areas of the world,
such as Africa and India, as well as higher than anticipated commodity
prices, accounted for this committee's decision to fund title II at a level
that is $95 million greater than the budget estimate for fiscal year 1988.
Do you plan to meet the title II subminimum tonnage level of $1.425
million tons in fiscal year 1988? If not, why not? What tonnage are you
planning on? Does anybody want that question?
Mr. SIMS. The answer is yes, we do intend to Satisfy the law. There is
a minimum tonnage of 1.9 million metric tons under title II as a whole,
and we feel comfortable that that will be exceeded.
Now the number you mentioned I believe is for the voluntary
agencies. And this is primarily administered by the Agency for Inter-
national Development. As you know, agriculture takes the lead in title I
and title III, and AID takes the lead in title II. But it is my understand-
ing that the plans are that we will meet or exceed the minimum
tonnage.
DROUGHT IN ETHIOPIA
Senator BURDICK. While we are on this subject of aid and food aid, I
have a number of questions on food aid to Africa that I will Submit for
the record, but I did want to raise one issue about the crisis in
Ethiopia, and particularly the plight of the Ethiopian Jews.
Congress has certainly been very supportive of relief aid to Ethiopia.
Many of us remain deeply concerned about the Ethiopian Govern-
ment's human rights record.
When the Development Coordination Committee meets to discuss
food aid issues, what kind of consideration is given to the human rights
problems in Ethiopia and especially with the situation with the Ethi-
opian Jews? Now that is for anybody who wishes it.
Mr. GOLDBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think we would have to respond to
the committee. I really do not have information from our agency as to
what has been done in the humanitarian way with that problem. So we
would be happy to submit the answer to that question for the record.
[The information follows:]
Senator, you are correct. Human rights are a consideration in providing food aid. In
the case of emergency food aid provided under the authority of title II of Public Law
480, all of the food is destined for needy people and, therefore, such aid is exempted
from a formal human rights determination. In the case of our food aid to Ethiopia, we
are using the private voluntary agencies to deliver this food to help ensure that it
benefits all needy people with no regard to their religion.
695
SUNFLOWER OHL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator BURDICK. In fiscal year 1988, appropriations for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture established the Sunflower Oil Assistance Program. I
have asked you this question before, but I want to know what the
status of the regulations and the status of the program is at the
In Ornent.
Mr. KAY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report great progress. We
have worked on this provision that was put into the continuing resolu-
tion. As you know, it involves basically three agencies: AMS, which is
responsible for purchasing the sunflower oil; ASCS, that will have to
store it; and, of course, FAS, that will administer the program of ex-
pOrtS.
We have met and reached agreement as to exactly how we are going
to carry out the program. We have prepared documents to get the
delegation of authority from the Secretary through the Under Secre-
tary's office to the General Sales Manager. We have prepared a notice
to go to the Federal Register and it is now being circulated for final
approval. This notice will outline how the program will be imple-
mented, and should go to the Federal Register very soon.
We have tried to do this in a timely fashion, but we have also tried
to do it in such a way as not to interfere with commercial Sales nor
with our Export Enhancement Programs that we have for vegetable oil.
You will be happy to know that we have announced EEP's for
vegetable oil to the tune of 585,000 tons, and, to date, Sales to Turkey,
India, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria total approximately 280,000 tons,
of which around 109,000 tons of that has been sunflower oil.
The EEP's have given us valuable experience. We will use this ex-
perience as we implement the SOAP Program.
Another important phase will be to find a destination for the SOAP
Program. We are working on that, and we think we have agreement. In
sum, we feel good about the progress that we have made. The Federal
Register announcement should be coming out soon and I hope you will
be satisfied with how we intend to implement the program.
Senator BURDICK. It sounds like a good report.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
The following Senators will be submitting questions to you for the
record: Senators Specter, Cochran, Grassley, McClure, Bumpers, Sasser,
and me.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were sub-
mitted for response for the record:]
696
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
MARKET DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
The fiscal year 1989 budget would reduce the foreign market
development activities of FAS by over $3 million, yet leave the
amounts appropriated for foreign agricultural affairs and foreign
market information at the same levels as appropriated in fiscal year
1988.
Question: Please explain for the Committee, why the Foreign
Market Development Program is slated for a $3 million reduction and
what activities would be affected .
Answer: The fiscal year 1989 budget does propose a $3 million
reduction in the Foreign Market Development Program below the level
appropriated in fiscal year 1988. This reduction is necessary to
help reduce Federal spending and thus the level of the budget
deficit. This reduction will be applied against the Cooperator
Market Development Program, bringing the budget for that program in
line with historical funding levels.
Question: Why are the Foreign Agricultural Affairs and Market
Information Programs not proposed to be reduced under the
President's Budget?
Answer: The fiscal year 1989 budget for all FAS activities
basically reflects a continuation of fiscal year 1988 requirements
submitted to OMB prior to Congressional action on the 1988
appropriations. This included supplemental funding proposed for
1988 to offset overseas exchange rate losses and inflation, and
funding to support the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The
reduction in Foreign Market Development brings that program in line
with the initial level proposed in the President's budget for fiscal
year 1988. Reductions in Foreign Agricultural Affairs and Market
Information Programs would have an adverse impact on our ability to
execute the export programs mandated in the Food Security Act and to
provide adequate staff support for the Uruguay Round negotiations.
DOLLAR DEVALUATION AND OVERSEAS OPERATIONS
Last year, FAS recommended an increase in appropriations to
offset the sharp decline in the value of the dollar overseas and its
impact on operation of FAS attache offices.
Question: What is the status of the dollar currently?
Answer: The dollar has continued to weaken in the
strong-currency countries of Western Europe and Asia. As examples,
the U.S. dollar has depreciated by 51 percent against the Japanese
Yen since 1985, 17.5 percent from one year ago. Over the same
period, the U.S. dollar has depreciated 50 percent against the
German Mark, 11 percent since last year. In the growing export
markets of Taiwan and South Korea, the dollar has depreciated by 19
percent and 8 percent, respectively, since last year. This
situation, while having a very positive impact on the competitive
position of U.S. exports, continues to place great pressure on the
FAS overseas operating budget.
697
In the developing countries of Latin America, the U.S. dollar
is generally appreciating against local currencies. However,
inflation is increasing at a rapid pace, thus causing in-country
operating costs to continue to increase.
Question: What do you estimate will be the impact on FAS
overseas operations in fiscal year 1989?
Answer: In the aggregate, we estimate that our overseas
operating costs will increase by approximately $1.1 million as the
result of inflation and further depreciation of the dollar.
Absorbing an increase of this magnitude probably cannot be
accomplished without some impact on our overseas presence.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Question: What will be the cost of the Federal Employee
Retirement System in fiscal year 1989?
Answer: The actual cost of the Federal Employee Retirement
System will be greatly influenced by agency accessions and
separations. At this time, we estimate the cost to be approximately
$2 million.
Question: How does this compare to fiscal year 1988?
Answer: The estimate for fiscal year 1989 is approximately
$300,000 higher than the $1.7 million estimated for the Federal
Employees Retirement System in fiscal year 1988.
SUNFLOWER OIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Question: Do you expect that the full $10 million in purchases
for export will be accomplished by the end of the fiscal year?
Answer: To effectively use the $10 million to help support
sunflower oil exports, the program will extend into fiscal year
1989, as authorized by the law. By not limiting the funds to fiscal
year 1988, we maintain flexibility in the program and make it easier
to avoid displacing non-subsidizing exporters.
Question: Has FAS or the General Sales Manager announced the
availability of sunflower oil to any of our trading partners?
Answer: FAS is currently clearing a program proposal with the
agencies of the Trade Policy Review Group, chaired by the Office of
the U. S. Trade Representative. After that clearance, we will
initiate discussion with officials in potential importing countries.
Question: Do you expect to offer export enhancement
opportunities for the Mediterranean basin countries to obtain
sunflower oil?
Answer: We have looked at Mediterranean basin countries which
may be likely candidates for the sunflower oil assistance program.
Any country from that area which would be appropriate for the
program certainly would be a prime candidate for targeting.
698
MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
H.R. 3 encourages agricultural attaches to focus attention on
market development for U.S. products abroad.
Question: Do you expect that Agricultural Attaches will
encourage market development at the exclusion of other activities?
Answer: We do not expect Agricultural Counselors/Attaches to
exclude other activities in their efforts to foster market
development. In fact many of their activities are complementary to
marketing efforts--including sound economic analysis and their work
on trade barriers.
Question: Will Agricultural Attaches be involved in efforts
that will allow developing nations to improve their positions as
trading: partners with the U.S. 7
Answer: Within the Embassy country team framework, the FAS
Counselors/Attaches are involved in economic development efforts
which may improve the host country's position as a trading partner.
These efforts include the economic development provisions of the
P. L. 480 program which has permitted a number of
countries--including Japan--to graduate from assistance programs to
commercial markets.
Question: Will Attaches encourage U.S. exports of technology
and resources that would allow third world countries to produce and
eventually enter the world marketplace?
Answer: It is in the United States' long-term interest to
assist third world countries in their efforts to develop their
economies and to enter the world market--strong viable economies
make for good strong trading partners. -
MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY TRADE
Question: How will FAS encourage both market development for
U.S. exports and opportunities for developing nations to engage
actively in trade with the U.S. 2
Answer: FAS is spending an increasing percentage of its
Cooperator Program market development resources in developing
countries. In fiscal year 1977 about 32 percent of the cooperator
budget went to developing countries. Last year nearly 65 percent of
the cooperator budget was spent in those countries. Many of the
cooperators' market development programs include technology transfer
elements, including assistance to the development of agricultural
product consuming livestock industries, and to various agricultural
product processing industries. Efficiency gains from this
technology transfer free up resources in those countries, which can
then be devoted to enterprise development which increases those
countries foreign trade potential. Income growth in developing
countries goes hand-in-hand with increased demand for agricultural
imports, benefiting U.S. farmers, while it also helps those
countries move beyond inward-looking import-substitution development
strategies.
699
TEA PROGRAM AUDITS
H.R. 3 includes a provision that would increase the Targeted
Export Assistance funding to $215,000,000 in fiscal year 1988.
Question: How would audits be conducted?
Answer: Audits of the TEA program are conducted by the
Compliance Review Staff, a branch of the FAS management section
which operates independently of our marketing program sections, as
well as by the Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) .
Our activities are also reviewed from time to time by the Government
Accounting Office (GAO). FAS internal audits include scheduled
reviews of program documentation, expenditures and compliance with
published program guidelines.
RELIABILITY OF AUDITS
Question: Would such audits be reliable?
Answer: We have found these audits to be very reliable. We
inform all potential program participants that their records must be
made available for outside audits, and include provisions to this
effect in all program agreements. We also advise participants in
detail on what records they must maintain to justify claims for
reimbursement. Because inadequate documentation will preclude the
use of government funds, the quality of record keeping is generally
excellent.
USE OF TEA FOR COUNTERVAILING DUTY DEFENSES
Question: What is the FAS position on reimbursing organizations
for expenditures relative to defending countervailing duty actions
under Section 603 (c) of the House bill?
Answer: We are opposed to providing reimbursement to
organizations for expenditures incurred in defending countervailing
duty actions. We have several reasons for this position. We firmly
believe that such a practice would exceed the program's intent and
interfere with the effective use of the TEA program as a market
development tool in countering unfair foreign trade practices.
There is, in fact, some possibility that the use of U.S. government
resources in this manner could result in a further increase of the
countervailing duty. Of fundamental concern is the suggestion that
CCC resources, heretofore used only to develop, maintain, or expand
international markets for U. S. agricultural exports, should now be
used to reimburse for legal fees. Once we start providing relief to
particular agricultural organizations with particular problems from
CCC resources, it will be hard to draw the line on future requests.
Question: What is your position on the Senate provision
(Section 2133(B))?
Answer: Our position is the same as our position on the House
provision; we oppose the use of the TEA program and CCC resources
for this type of activity.
700
TARGETED EXPORT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM – GENERIC CERTIFICATE PREMIUMS
Question: Has FAS contemplated placing restrictions on the use
of CCC generic certificate premiums in the TEA program in 1989 and
1990?
Answer: We believe that neither the need nor legal
justification exist for placing formal limitations on the use of
certificate premiums in the TEA program. For us to do so under TEA
would depart from the way in which CCC certificates are used in
other situations like payments to farmers under domestic farm
programs. In all cases, CCC limits its financial liability in the
issuance of generic commodity certificates to the face value of the
certificate. If the certificates are liquidated at a loss or less
than their face value, CCC will not make up the difference.
Likewise, if the certificates generate a premium, the proceeds are
the sole property of the participant. The TEA program should not be
made an exception to this general rule for certificate programs.
REQUIRING USE OF PREMIUMS FOR MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Question: Would requiring the use of premiums for market
development purposes be a viable consideration?
Answer: Premiums earned on the liquidation of the generic
certificates are already being used for market development purposes.
For example, when they request program advances, TEA participants
have been voluntarily committing and certifying that any premium and
interest earned on the liquidation of the certificates will be used
in support of market development activities. Because we have
excluded administrative expenses from being eligible for
reimbursement, premiums earned are being used to offset the higher
costs incurred in managing increased and additional foreign market
development activities.
P. L. 480
The President's budget request calls for an increase of transfer
authority between Title I and III and Title II of P. L. 480 of up to
15 percent.
Question: Why is the current 10 percent transfer authority not
sufficient?
Answer: A 15 percent transfer authority among titles is the
level authorized by the underlying P. L. 480 statute. We have
requested an increase to this level in fiscal year 1989
Appropriation Act. Because of the unforeseen needs for emergency
food assistance which frequently arise, we believe this increased
flexibility would enable us to respond better to those emergencies.
Question: Some might argue that greater transfer authority
might permit a depletion of commodities available for donation under
Title II not intended by Congress. Could you pleas comment on this
assertion?
Answer: Our purpose in requesting an increase in transfer
authority is to enable us to respond more effectively to food aid
needs with the P. L. 480 program and to maximize the benefits of the
* A".
701
program. Over the years, the transfer authority has been used both
ways. In the current year, we anticipate this authority will be
used to transfer funds from Title I to Title II.
Question: What is the amount of fiscal year 1988 funds that has
been transferred to which Title to date?
Answer: At the present time a transfer of funds from Title I to
Title II is anticipated, but it has not yet been done.
P. L. 480 – TITLE II
Concern about particular areas of the world, such as Africa and
India, as well as higher than anticipated commodity prices,
accounted for this committee's decision to fund Title II at a 1evel
that is $95 million greater than the budget estimate for fiscal year
1988.
\
Question: Are there any outstanding applications from private
voluntary organizations that have not been acted on ?
Answer: Most regular private voluntary agency proposals are
reviewed at the onset of the operating year. However, new or out of
cycle programs are considered by the interagency review committee
throughout the year. Currently, the committee has some proposed
program initiatives for Africa and Asia under review.
Question: Could the World Food Program absorb the remaining
amount?
Answer: While it may be possible for the World Food Program to
absorb additional tonnage in their regular programs, we would not
expect this vehicle to use the additional $95 million. Rather as ,
reflected in the previous question, we would expect to use these
funds to meet emergency needs.
Question: Provide the committee with a report on how you intend
to reach the Title II subminimum by April 1, 1988, as required by
statute?
Answer: Even though we are actively encouraging new innovative
Title II programs such as feeding programs to support structural
adjustment, we estimate that we may still fall slightly short of the
subminimum this year. However, we will continue to encourage
voluntary agency initiatives and new programs.
Question: How do current commodity prices compare to those upon
which the budget estimate was based in 1988?
Answer: The commodity prices for the 1989 budget were based on
estimates prepared in November 1987 and reflect generally higher
commodity prices than those used to prepare the 1988 budget. While
we are currently updating these commodity price forecasts used for
budgeting activities, we do not anticipate much change in the fiscal
year 1989 estimates.
Question: Will the same level of commodities be provided in
fiscal year 1989 as in fiscal year 1988, according to your estimates?
83–470 O - 88 – 23
702
Answer: We expect to achieve the mandated Title II tonnage of
l.9 million metric tons in fiscal year 1989. This tonnage will be a
little lower than our current projection for tonnage in fiscal year
1988.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION RECOVERY PROSPECTS
Question: What is the outlook for production in those parts of
the world that experienced severe shortages in fiscal year 1988?
Answer: In Africa, production shortages in numerous countries
last year resulted from bad weather and civil strife. This year,
planting for the main crop season in Sub-Saharan Africa will occur
in the June–August period. While drought conditions at planting
time would sharply reduce output, it is too early to forecast crop
outlook. Nonetheless, it would require above average rains to bring
significant relief this year. In Northwest Africa, grain crops
approaching harvest are currently being threatened by locusts.
Control efforts are underway; however, the potential exists for
production shortages if the control efforts fail.
In Asia, crop production showed sharp declines in several
countries last year primarily due to a major failure of the monsoon
rains. Currently, wheat is approaching harvest in Pakistan and
India. The production outlook in Pakistan has been diminished
because of drought, while a normal crop is expected in India. As in
all years, the major factor affecting overall crop production in
this region will be the monsoon rains. Although the monsoon does
not begin until June, the overall outlook is for a recovery in
agricultural production.
P. L. 480 TITLE II SHIPMENTS
P.L. 480 Title II law says that 75 percent of the shipments for
non-emergency programs should be in the form of processed and bagged
products.
Question: What is your percentage for these shipments?
Answer: Currently, we are in compliance with this mandate.
Question: What are you doing to meet the target?
Answer: During fiscal year 1988 we have approved nearly
1.3 million metric tons of processed/bagged/fortified commodities
for shipment for Title II regular programs. &
GREAT LAKES SET ASIDE
The 1985 Food Security Act sets aside part of P.L. 480 Title II to
be exported from Great Lakes ports. Recently, USDA purchased
approximately 15,000 tons of Title II commodities and allocated them
to Chicago, for transport by barge, through the inland river system
for eventual export on an ocean-going U.S. flag vessel from the Gulf
Coast area. USDA claims this is a Great Lakes export, and is
deducting it from the Title II tonnage available to Great Lakes
ports under the set-aside.
703
Question: How does USDA count this Inland Waterway shipment
with regard to the Great Lakes set-aside?
Answer: The USDA and the Department of Transportation, which is
given responsibility for assuring compliance with the Great Lakes
tonnage reservation, consider the shipment to count against the
Great Lakes set-aside.
Question: What evidence does it have that Congressional intent
in passing this set-aside law in 1985 was to have the set-aside
shipments be exported through the Inland Waterway?
Answer: Section 901b (c) (2)(B) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936,
as amended, provides for a tonnage reservation "of waterborne
cargoes exported from Great Lakes Ports" under P.L. 480, Title II.
Only tonnage determined to meet this provision will be counted
towards fulfilling the reservation.
Question: Does it also score this same shipment as part of the
law's U.S. flag cargo preference requirement, because of the ocean
vessel sailing out of the Gulf?
Answer: The shipment will be considered a U.S. flag shipment
which will apply against the 75 percent minimum U.S. flag
requirement which takes effect on April 1 for the 1988–1989 cargo
preference year. The fact, that it is considered a U.S. flag
shipment is not based on its being shipped out of the Gulf, but
rather because it is a qualified U.S. flag registered vessel.
Question: How can a cargo exported out of the Gulf at the same
time be attributed as a Great Lakes set-aside export?
Answer: The service in question is similar to other LASH barge
movements which have occurred for many years under the program. A
LASH barge is considered to be an ocean going conveyance and the
export bill of lading that is issued will show the loading port as
the port of export. In this case, the Great Lakes port of Chicago
will be shown as the loading port. The voyage commences once the
barges have been 10aded and leave the loading port. It should be
noted that this service will generate all the revenues for the Great
Lakes, except for Seaway tolls, that any other shipment would -
generate. This will include port charges, warehousing fees, and
stevedoring and longshoreman revenues.
P. L. 480 AND SECTION 416 – CARGO PREFERENCE
The Food Security Act requires that the Department of
Transportation pay the ocean freight differential for increases in
U.S. flag vessels contracted for shipment of commodities under
P. L. 480 and Section 416. Last year, a delay in agreement on an
interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding on payment of the
differential resulted in untimely reimbursement for these costs.
Question: What is the current status of these reimbursements?
Answer: The cargo preference agreement with the the Department
704
of Transportation is being implemented on schedule and
reimbursements from the Department of Transportation to the
Commodity Credit Corporation are being made according to that
agreement.
Question: In what time frame is DOT reimbursing CCC for the
costs of cargo preference?
Answer: Reimbursements are made to CCC on a quarterly basis
throughout each year.
Question: What is the amount currently outstanding?
Answer: The CCC has submitted bills totaling $33.4 million to
the Department of Transportation for the first three quarters of the
cargo preference year which began April 1, 1987. The remaining
balance due for P. L. 480 and Section 416(b) programs is
$18.6 million.
Question: What was the total cost of cargo preference for each
of the fiscal years 1986, 1987, and 1988?
Answer: The Food Security Act of 1985 established April 1, 1986
to March 31, 1987 as the first cargo preference year in which the -
Department of Transportation would reimburse CCC for the increased
tonnage moving on U.S. flag vessels. During this 1987 cargo
preference year the total ocean freight differential paid was $148
million. The total ocean freight differential paid during the first
three quarters of the 1988 cargo preference year was $124 million.
Question: In each year, what is the amount that has been paid
by DOT2
Answer: In the 1987 cargo preference year (April - March 31)
the Department of Transportation paid $23 million of the total ocean
freight differential. The Department of Transportation's share of
the 1988 cargo preference costs through the first three quarters is
just over $33 million.
Question: What are the estimates for fiscal year 1989?
Answer: Recognizing there will be some differences from the
cargo preference year we are estimating the cost of preference for
P.L. 480 to be approximately $145 million in fiscal year 1989. We
do not have an estimate of cargo preference cost for Section 416(b)
since this program is dependent upon the availability of CCC stocks
and country agreements to be developed in fiscal year 1989.
ELIMINATION OF FARM SUBSIDIES
Question: Mr. Kay, are you involved with the trade mission team
representing the Reagan Administration proposal to eliminate all
farm subsidies by the year 2000?
Answer: Yes. My staff has been directly involved in the
development and elaboration of U.S. positions on issues stemming
from the U.S. proposal. We have cooperated closely with the U.S.
Trade Representative's Office to prepare supplementary position
705
papers in support of our proposal. Many of these have been
presented at the Agriculture Negotiating Group meetings in Geneva.
Others have addressed particular concerns expressed by our trading
partners and have explained why multilateral reduction in
agricultural support systems is urgently needed and the benefits of
liberalizing world agricultural trade in the Uruguay Round.
Question: How is this proposal being received by the European
Community?
Answer: The EC feels that the U.S. proposal is unrealistic
under present circumstances and has called for trade negotiations to
proceed on a 1ess ambitious scale. While the EC claims to be open
to the principles and objectives of the U.S. proposal, they have
shown reluctance to significantly reform their agricultural
policies. They have stated reservations regarding the methods by
which agricultural trade would be liberalized, and the
comprehensiveness asserted in the U.S. proposal. The EC recently
made some adjustments in the Common Agricultural Policy in dairy,
cereals, beef, and oilseeds and they have called on the U.S. to
"match its declaration of intent with concrete measures with a
comparable short-term effect". However, we do not feel that the
European Community reforms are by any means sufficient to solve the
problems currently facing production and trade in these commodities.
Question: How is it being received by Japan?
Answer: Japan has noted that while it agrees with the United
States long term objective to allow market forces to function more
effectively, our proposal is too ambitious. The Japanese have
expressed reservations concerning the scope of the U.S. proposal,
citing that the special characteristics of agriculture, such as
constraints related to land resources, stability of food supply, and
environmental protection, make it is difficult to consider
agriculture in the same manner as industrial sectors.
Question: Do you believe that the elimination of subsidies by
2000 is a realistic plan?
Answer: Absolutely. The fact is governments are spending
enormous amounts of money to support agriculture, surpluses abound,
and trade relations are tense. In individual ways, countries are
already taking steps to deal with these problems. However, it is
generally accepted that government incentives to production must be
reduced. A coordinated, multilateral approach is the only viable
method of global reduction in trade distortions and would reduce the
burden of adjustment for all countries. The time is ripe for the
U.S. proposal.
Question: Are there countries supporting this plan?
Answer: Yes, the Cairns Group--consisting of Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Hungary, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, and Uruguay--has
enthusiastically supported the U.S. proposal. They agree with the
United States that the current situation in agriculture requires
that countries recognize the global impact of national policies and
their interdependence; and that a new willingness to face these
706
difficult issues is imperative despite very real domestic political
COINC e IIlS •
The Cairns proposal, tabled in October 1987, coincides with the
U.S. proposal in the long-term objective to eliminate government
intervention in agriculture. Other countries, particularly many
developing countries, also support the general thrust of the U.S.
proposal.
TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN
With the April 1st termination for the 1984 U.S.-Japan agreement
drawing near, explain a component of this trade issue.
In December to May, the rate of Ad Valorem Tariff assessed on
fresh orange imports was 40 percent, as contrasted with the U.S.
rate of approximately 5 percent during the same period.
Question: How does FAS and the U.S. negotiating team, in
general, plan to approach this issue with the Japanese?
Answer: Our definition of access barriers to Japan's citrus
market is not limited to the quotas, but includes the import duties
on oranges. This situation is a high priority both as an example of
high Japanese tariffs on a number of agricultural products and
within the context of citrus market access.
Question: What is the current status of negotiations with
Japan for removal of beef quotas on imported beef?
Answer: The current status is that the U.S. is waiting for a
response from Japan to our clearly stated position that the beef
quotas must come off.
Question: Do you anticipate any progress in the near future on
this issue?
Answer: We are hopeful that Japan will recognize its
obligations, both as a GATT signatory and a major trading partner,
to undertake the sometimes painful steps of opening its market by
the time our understanding expires on April 1.
ACCESS TO JAPAN'S RICE MARKET
An undercurrent of change is affecting the production of rice in
Japan.
Question: How do you believe opening Japanese markets to
imported rice would affect consumption in that country?
Answer: Rice consumption in Japan has been in a long term
downtrend, which now appears to be stabilizing. While there is
little reason to believe that opening the market to imports would
actually result in a significant increase in total rice consumption,
imports of the right varieties could be expected to capture a
sizable portion of the market, especially if the price savings of
imported rice could be passed through to the consumer.
707
Question: Is the U.S. negotiating with Japan to allow more
rice to enter their markets?
Answer: The U.S. is negotiating for rice market access in the
context of the MTN currently underway. We have an agreement from
Japan that puts this issue on the negotiating table in the context
of other nations, including the U.S., doing the same with their
protective agricultural policies.
TARGETED EXPORT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
Question: What criteria are used by FAS in making TEA
allocations?
Answer: FAS looks at a number of factors before making
allocations of TEA resources. Before approving participation in the
program, we must verify the existence of an unfair foreign trade
practice. We are also very careful in the selection of the
organization that will best represent the export interest of the
commodity in question. We have a preference for working with a
non-profit trade association that is representative of producers on
a national or regional basis, to ensure that the benefits derived
from such market development efforts will be translated back to the
broadest possible range of beneficiaries. Where the nature of the
U. S. agricultural sector organization is such that no single
representative nonprofit organization can be identified, and where
the export interest of the commodity are best served through private
firms, we select private firms to carry out these market development
activities on a shared-cost basis. Other important criteria in
making TEA allocations include--the extent to which the commodity
composition by weight, value or volume is U.S. origin, historical
export levels of the commodity, the estimated level of actual or
potential export loss attributable to the unfair trade practice, the
likelihood of success and the projected increase in exports
attributable to the level of funding requested, the applicant
organization's prior export promotion experience, the ability and
willingness of the organization to contribute its own resources to
the joint promotion effort, the adequacy of the organization's
personnel and financial resources in terms of developing,
implementing and supervising a program of the size requested, the -
ability and willingness of the private U.S. agricultural industry to
support the promotion with aggressive selling of the commodity in
amounts and qualities demanded by foreign markets, and the outcome
of past TEA program activities, if that information is available.
REVIEW OF ACTIVITY PLANS
Question: Are the activity plans of industry groups reviewed
prior to approval of funding for a TEA project or following the
final approval of funds?
Answer: Our approval of TEA program support is a multi-step
process. First, allocation of resources are made based on submitted
proposals for project support. Because demand for TEA resources
has been greater than the resources available, proposals compete for
a share of the total available. Once an organization has secured a
commitment in principle for CCC for market development support, FAS
requires a detailed activity plan, including information on the
708
market situation confronted and barriers to be overcome, specific
goals for each activity, budgets, evaluation plans, and a detailed
description of each activity to be undertaken. The allocation of
TEA resources for the promotion of a commodity does not permit the
issuance of CCC commodity certificates; FAS activity plan approval
is required before any claims for reimbursement will be honored.
DEVELOPMENT OF ACTIVITY PLANS
Question: Is the development of an activity plan a detailed
process and is it costly for producer or industry groups?
Answer: Yes, the preparation of an activity plan is a very
detailed process. The activity plan maps out specific activities
aimed at countering or offsetting a constraint to increasing the
export of their commodity in specific markets. As well, accounting
and budget data are set forth with cost codes designed to facilitate
program oversight. The plan serves to answer all questions about
uses of TEA resources and serves as the instrument against which
audits are conducted . Depending on the size and the extent to which
the organizations have an experienced staff and the scope of the
activity plan, the cost of developing activity plans vary. While
the costs of preparing such a plan may be considerable, we see an
organization's willingness and capability of undertaking this
cooperative planning process with FAS as evidence that the
organization has the administrative wherewithal to design effective
market development activities, and to provide accountability in the
expenditure of public funds. Over the years, we have found the
professionalism with which cooperators and participants undertake
the drafting of market development plans highly correlated with the
success of their actual marketing efforts.
FAS SUPPORT FOR ACTIVITY PLANNING
Question: Does FAS assist in the development of activity plans?
Answer: FAS provides such assistance, although the great
increase in the size of our programs over the last three years has
meant that we have not been able to devote as much attention to
assisting each private sector organization as we could in the past.
Marketing specialists in seven commodity divisions work closely with
TEA participants in developing market promotion strategies,
modifying such strategies when called for, and serving as a resource
for providing guidance into the complexities of program guidelines
and government regulations. Although our staff resources are
stretched across more programs and more program participants than
ever before, we are working to sustain the joint government-industry
character of our programs. We believe that the degree of
cooperation between government and industry in the cooperator and
TEA programs is unusual if not unique, and a major reason for those
programs' high rate of success.
MONITORING TEA EXPENDITURES
Question: Has FAS found any difficulty in monitoring the use of
TEA funds generally?
Answer: The drastic expansion in market development resources
709
which resulted from the Food Security Act of 1985 was not initially
accompanied by any increase in FAS staff resources, and this has
presented administrative difficulties which we are working hard to
overcome. Over a five year period, the TEA program will provide a
total of as much as $980 million in additional resources that need
to be managed, and the TEA program has already brought 21 new
non-profit organizations and more than one hundred private companies
into our joint market development programs. Explaining program
requirements and assuring that new entrants understand that they
will be held accountable for carrying out programs in conformity
with established guidelines places great demands on our professional
staff time. Nevertheless, we believe that the ways of operating
developed over more than two decades of supervision of the
Cooperator Program are proving effective in managing the TEA
program, and that each year brings smoother administration and
better financial management within the TEA program.
TEA PROGRAM AUDITS
Question: How does FAS audit the use of TEA funds currently?
Answer: FAS audits the TEA program on a regular basis. We have
a Compliance Review Staff that audits TEA participant records to
ensure that expenditure claims were permissible, that the
organization has in place a system of controls that ensure adequate
control on the expenditure of resources, that adequate records are
being maintained to substantiate claims, and that the participant is
complying with published program guidelines. Participants found not
to have complied with the use of program resources are required to
reimburse the CCC.
Question: Are interested parties involved in auditing TEA
funds?
Answer: TEA programs are subject to audit by the FAS Compliance
Review Staff, and the Department's Office of the Inspector General.
Most TEA participants have their own independent auditors, who
review TEA operations along with those organizations' other
financial records.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Question: How does FAS guard against conflict-of-interest?
Answer: FAS has always reviewed proposed market development
program plans with a view to assuring the broadest possible spread
of benefits within agricultural industries. To clarify policy on
issues which have been raised from time to time, a proposed rule on
conflict of interest in market development programs is currently in
the clearance process for publication in the Federal Register. The
proposed rule covers the handling of trade leads, the selection of
industry representatives on trade teams, and the involvement of
organizations in export trade.
INCREASED FUNDING FOR TEA PROJECTS
Question: If increased funding for TEA projects were approved
for fiscal year 1988, 1989, and 1990, how would those funds be
distributed?
710
Answer: FAS has recently programmed an additional $30 million
for the fiscal year 1988 TEA program, bringing the total for the
current fiscal year to $110 million. To make the additional
allocations, FAS reviewed requests received when the fiscal year
1988 program was first announced which could not be supported when
the program level was set at $80 million. A further increase in
1988 funding would have little impact on increasing the level of TEA
activities carried out during this fiscal year, since the TEA
program allocation and activity planning process takes several
months to complete.
In programming future year increases, FAS would follow the same
procedures used in allocating resources under prior years' programs.
A Federal Register notice informs interested parties of the
availability of the program, its objectives, eligibility criteria,
and how to submit an application. FAS then makes its allocation
decisions based on information submitted by applicants, giving due
attention to the priorities for commodities subject to favorable
Section 301 determinations or trade retaliation mandated in the TEA
authorizing legislation.
Question: Would current participants expand their projects or
would new groups be permitted to participate in TEA?
Answer: We expect both developments. Existing program
participants may expand the scope of their efforts and the
distribution of their activities, while a number of new program
participants will probably apply and receive program allocations.
In the area of new participation, we have seen the TEA program draw
21 new participants into market development activities with FAS, and
this does not include more than a hundred private firms with are
working indirectly with FAS through non-profit cooperating industry
and regional organizations.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND INCREASED FUNDING
Question: Do you anticipate any accountability problems if
funding were increased during this period?
Answer: Substantial increases in program levels present a
challenge to our program managers and auditors in performing their
oversight and supervisory responsibilities. The agreements which we
sign with program participants make it clear that they are held
accountable for carrying out projects in conformity with program
guidelines, that they must maintain detailed records of
expenditures, that these records are subject to audit, and that they
will have to reimburse the government for any expenditures found not
in conformance with program guidelines. This procedure has worked
well in the past, and we expect that it will continue to be an
effective tool for program administration.
Question: How would you resolve these?
Answer: When conflicts between actions of TEA participants and
program guidelines are identified, either through routine program
oversight or in the course of an audit, the FAS Compliance Review
711
Staff investigates the situation, and findings, usually calling for
reimbursement of payments in question, are communicated to the
participant. The participant is given the opportunity to respond to
the CRS finding. A final decision by FAS will then result in
reimbursement or other appropriate corrective action.
PARTICIPANTS’ ABILITY TO ABSORB MORE TEA RESOURCES
Question: Could TEA Program participants effectively absorb the
doubling or tripling of resources proposed during the next few
years?
Answer: Very rapid program expansion poses similar challenges
both to program participants and to those charged with the
responsibility for program oversight. These include the need for
increased staffing, the time required to locate and train staff in
the procedures needed to assure accountability for the use of public
funds, and the need to budget increased administrative overhead.
Some participants and agricultural industry sectors are probably in
a position to deal effectively with substantial increases. Others
will not be able to effectively manage additional funding.
Question: If significant increases in TEA were approved, would
FAS require participants to contribute the same share of funds as in
prior years.
Answer: FAS continues to believe that the requirement that
participants contribute substantial resources to promotion programs
in one of the best guarantees available to assure that program
resources are used wisely. We would be reluctant to lower private
sector contribution levels, simply to accommodate increased program
resources availability.
TEA EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES
Question: Would the type of expenditures from which TEA funds
are used be broadened? If so, what new expenses would be allowed?
e Answer: Beginning with the fiscal year 1989 TEA program, we
will be allowing some additional categories of foreign -
administrative expenses, and supervisory travel from home offices to
overseas locations to be eligible for reimbursement. These
prospective policy changes are already under discussion within the
joint industry—government Policy Review and Operations Committee
that periodically meets to discuss and resolve issues relating to
program operations and oversight. Supporting this type of expense
overseas will create the need for additional efforts in budget
supervision and auditing on the part of FAS. However, we are
prepared to take this step in order to assure adequate
administration of this rapidly expanding program.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TEA PROGRAM
Question: Has FAS independently assessed the effectiveness of
the TEA program to date through in-house analyses and reviews of
data?
Answer: FAS has been collecting information on the results of
712
particular TEA programs and activities from a range of sources,
including independent analyses contracted by TEA program
participants, in-house reviews of particular activities and country
programs, and export data received from participants. We have not
carried out an extensive review of the program as a whole. A major
focus of policy attention in recent months has been the refinement
of program guidelines on evaluation, in order to assure that
essential information will be available on a routine basis both to
evaluate specific programs and to assess overall program
effectiveness when it is time to carry out such a comprehensive
review.
Question: Does FAS have plans to tighten its oversight of the
TEA program?
Answer: FAS does not plan any fundamental changes in TEA
program management, but a large number of administrative, accounting
and other changes will be incorporated in the next periodic revision
of TEA Guidelines, which will be finalized prior to the fiscal year
1989 allocation cycle. Additional staff, both in commodity program
divisions, and in a new cross-commodity program management division,
will concentrate a good deal of their time on TEA program oversight.
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION
Question: Would FAS support the establishment of an Office of
Planning and Evaluation for its exporu initiatives, or do you
believe that sufficient guidelines and evaluations are currently in
place?
Answer: FAS has just established a Marketing Programs Division
to coordinate market development program planning, administration,
and evaluation. When fully operational, this division will provide
cross-commodity coordination and support for the marketing
specialists working with particular TEA participants and Market
Development Cooperators. We believe that establishing this unit as
an integral part of the FAS organization is preferable to the
establishment of another outside oversight or planning body, which
may lack the intimate knowledge of program operations required to
provide workable direction and procedural advice to operational
staff within the agency.
PLANS FOR TRADE OFFICES
Question: What are the plans of FAS in fiscal year 1988 and
1989 for the operation of overseas trade offices?
Answer: The focus of efforts by our Agricultural Trade Offices
will be along the same lines as in previous years, with particular
emphasis on the effective management of the TEA program and other
marketing initiatives from the Food Security Act of 1985. The TEA
program level will nearly triple in the coming fiscal year, placing
a particular burden on all FAS marketing staff to support private
sector efforts to plan and carry out sound promotional activities.
Field offices will be expected to advise program participants and
FAS Washington on appropriate country strategies, and on targets of
opportunity. The nearly tenfold increase in total market
development funding which has taken place in five years has made the
713
ATO's coordinating role among various U.S. private sector
agricultural export interests even more important that it has been
in the past.
Question: Will FAS Staff at existing offices be increased?
Answer: In 11ght of the increase in number and scale of U. S.
agricultural export promotion programs, FAS will carefully consider
the possibility of selective staff increases. In deciding whether
to add overseas personnel, it will be necessary to balance potential
improvement in program management against the very considerable cost
of maintaining staff outside the United States, particularly in
those strong-currency countries where our marketing programs tend to
be most active.
FAS OVERSEAS OFFICES
Question: Will new agricultural posts overseas be established?
Answer: There are no plans to establish new posts in the 1989
budget proposal. However, if changing conditions so warrant, we
could establish a new post through offsetting reductions at another
post .
Question: What criteria are used to determine the location of
overseas agricultural posts?
Answer: The principal criteria for establishing a new post are
the size of the market and its growth potential for U.S.
agricultural products. Another important criteria is the level of
program activity already initiated in that country, i.e. EEP, TEA,
P. L. 480, Section 416, etc.
Question: Are the activities of FAS Agricultural Attaches and
other federal agency representatives overseas well coordinated ? How
could coordination be improved?
Answer: The activities of FAS overseas representatives are
coordinated with other agency representatives through the country
team process. Our Counselors or Attaches normally meet with the
country team chaired by the Ambassador at least once a week.
Coordination can be improved through close personal contact with the
other agency representatives.
ATTACHE LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
Question: Are agricultural attaches proficient in the language
of their host country?
Answer: Language proficiency at our language designated posts
has improved significantly and with the current programs we have in
place, it will be much better in the future.
FAS is placing considerably more emphasis on language training,
especially training of the younger officers. Proficiency in a
language is a prime factor in considering assignments for our
officers. Full time language training is provided when necessary to
develop language proficiency. In recent years we have added Korean
714
and Arabic to the list of hard languages where we provide up to 44
weeks of training. Although the language training program has been
costly, FAS feels the cost is justified in preparing our officers to
better carry out their duties at post.
Under the requirements of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, no
career candidate in FAS may be commissioned into the Foreign Service
until he or she has demonstrated a proficiency in at least one
foreign language.
Also, a new language incentive program was implemented
October 1, 1986. The main feature of the program is that it pays
incentives (bonuses) for certain languages to officers assigned to
overseas posts where the languages are required.
Question: What percentage have met proficiency standards?
Answer: Currently, 67 percent of our officers are fully
language qualified, with many officers rating just below the
targeted level. The number of qualified officers is up more than
10 percent from 5 years earlier. In order to quality as proficient,
an officer must achieve a score of S-3/R-3 in a world language such
as French, Spanish, Italian and German, or a S-2/R-2 in the
difficult languages such as Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Arabic.
The following table shows the number of qualified officers by
language grouping at our language designated posts:
Language Proficiency in FAS at Language Designated Posts
(3/24/88)
Language Officers Qualified
Spanish 18 14
Portuguese 5 4
French 12 7
German 7 1
Italian 2 1
Japanese 5 5
Russian 3 3
Chinese 3. 2.
Total 5 37
:
Note: Although not required, two officers are qualified in Dutch,
one in Arabic, one in Malay, one in Serbo-Croatian, and one in
Swedish.
ATTACHE REPORTING
Question: Are attaches required to submit reports on their
activities?
Answer: Counselors and Attaches are required to report on
certain specified activities such as trip reports and trade fairs.
Trade Officers are required to file a monthly activities report.
Question: Have reporting requirements been reduced recently?
715
Answer: There has been no significant reduction in reporting
requirements since 1985 when a number of required quarterly and
semiannual reports were eliminated. However, greater emphasis was
placed on alert reports and monthly status reports for certain major
commodities. Also, a number of special reports were added by the
Congress in the Food Security Act--including the Section 1132
Report.
Question: Has this affected the quality of FAS published
reports?
Answer: We believe the emphasis on alert reports has improved
the timeliness of the information being fed into Washington and this
should enhance the quality of our published reports.
Question: How is the effectiveness of attache performance
determined?
Answer: A number of factors are included in assessing the
effectiveness of our overseas staff. The various program areas of
FAS, other USDA agencies, and the Ambassador, all provide their
assessment of the performance of our Counselors, Attaches and Trade
Officers.
Question: Is it measured based on contributions of individual
attaches toward enhancement of U.S. agricultural exports?
Answer: Their contributions to enhancing U.S. agricultural
exports is one of the important measurements in assessing overall
performance. In this regard I would note that our annual awards
ceremony provides special recognition to those officers in FAS who
provide exceptional performance in export expansion activities.
WHEAT ASSISTANCE TO LEBANON
In December, 1987, FAS announced an export enhancement program
initiative for Lebanon.
Question: What has transpired on this EEP since December?
Answer: Since the announcement, we have been cooperating
closely with the Lebanese Embassy on a number of technical issues to
ensure the implementation of the program expeditiously.
Question: Do you expect that a tender for bid will be made and
accepted by Lebanon in the near future?
Answer: An Invitation for Bids - the first step in placing the
program in on operational footing -- was issued in February and we
expect Lebanon to be tendering later this year. Currently, our
information indicates that their wheat import needs are probably
covered through May.
WHEAT ASSISTANCE TO LEBANON
The Senate adopted an amendment to provide wheat under Section
416 authority to the Government of Lebanon during its floor debate
on the Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1988. This amendment
716
was later dropped during meetings of the conference committee, yet
support for U.S. efforts to provide food assistance to Lebanon was
incorporated in the Statement of Managers.
Question: Please tell the committee what your views are on the
amendment adopted by the Senate in December. Specifically, note any
concerns you may have about accountability, delivery, and
distribution, contracting agent (government versus private voluntary
organization), earmarking waivers of statutory provisions and their
effects, as well as any other considerations that FAS and the DCC
may have relative to this amendment.
Answer: As you know the Administration opposes country
earmarkings within the food aid programs. This general position
reflects the fact that food needs can vary quickly as can U.S.
commodity availabilities. There is also concern that we avoid
disincentives to local production and do not displace commercial
sales. To best assure effective food aid, we believe flexibility is
important. Our wish to assist needy people in Lebanon coincides
with that of the Congress. We are providing Title II grant food aid
to help needy people in Lebanon. Currently this assistance is being
provided through a private voluntary agency which is, we believe,
doing an excellent job of delivering food in this difficult
situation. We do not currently have a request for food aid from the
Government of Lebanon under consideration.
Question: What other means might the Government of Lebanon
realistically expect to use to obtain wheat for its people?
Answer: One means that the United States has made available to
ship wheat to Lebanon is an Export Enhancement Program initiative .
We announced such an initiative for 150,000 tons in December. We
are, of course, always happy to discuss with representatives of the
Government of Lebanon other possible programs with which we could
assist them.
Question: Has FAS, in conjunction with the DCC, reviewed a
proposal for wheat donations to Lebanon under either Section 416 or
P. L. 480?
Answer: As noted above, we are supplying several commodities to
Lebanon under the P.L. 480 Title II grant program. One of these
commodities is bulgur, a wheat product. At present we do not have
for review any other active request for wheat under either Section
416 or P.L. 480.
Question: If such a proposal has been reviewed, please detail
when it was received, when a decision on the proposal was made and
specific reasons for accepting or rejecting such a proposal.
Answer: During December we did receive a letter from the
Government of Lebanon expressing their possible interest in
obtaining wheat from the United States. Several meetings were held
with interested parties to discuss this matter, and we explained the
type of information and necessary commitments which accompany a U. S.
food aid proposal. As our discussions evolved, interest in a wheat
food aid program was overtaken by possible interest in a commercial
arrangement. While we did not receive any follow-up information on
717
a possible wheat food aid transaction, we did announce an Export
Enhancement Program for Lebanon to facilitate possible commercial
transactions.
Question: If each of the various cooperating agencies in the
DCC have differing views on whether these authorities might be
responsibly used to provide wheat assistance to Lebanon, please
consult with each of the agencies to present a response that clearly
distinguishes and explains the concerns of all parties.
Answer: I am aware that generally the members of the Food Aid
Subcommittee are supportive of providing effective help to the needy
people in Lebanon. Approval of the Title II program demonstrates
this support.
Question: How many families and individuals are served by the
"Save the Children" program in Lebanon?
Answer: An estimated 135,000 families are being reached by Save
the Children. Families are estimated at 5 persons per family, so an
estimated 675,000 individuals are being helped.
Question: What portion of the population is served?
Answer: A rough estimate of the current population of Lebanon
is 3 million; therefore Save the Children is reaching about
23 percent of the people. There are also other food assistance
efforts sponsored by other governments or organizations helping in
Lebanon.
TARGETED EXPORT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM – WALNUT MARKETING BOARD
Question: Since the TEA program was initiated, what amount of
funds has the Walnut Marketing Board received?
Answer: The Walnut Marketing Board has been approved for
$22.5 million of support since the initiation of the TEA program in
1986.
Question: At what specific dates and for what purposes were
these funds approved?
Answer: The specific dates and amounts of these approvals for
the three years are: August 8, 1986, $9 million; July 30, 1987,
$7 million and January 4, 1988, $6.5 million. The Walnut Marketing
Board used the assistance for media advertising, in-store
promotions, and industrial user promotion in 1986 and 1987, and for
media advertising and in-store promotion in 1988.
OIG INVESTIGATION OF THE WALNUT TEA PROGRAM
Question: What is your reaction to the Inspector General's
investigation of the use of these TEA funds?
Answer: The Office of the Inspector General instructed FAS
officials to ensure that a legal opinion was obtained from the
Office of the General Counsel regarding The Walnut Marketing Board's
eligibility to participate in the TEA program in fiscal year 1986.
718
FAS has received an opinion from the Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA, attesting to the fact that The Walnut Marketing Board's
participation in the TEA program in no way violated any provisions
of their federal marketing order. We have requested from the Office
of the General Counsel legal confirmation of that opinion.
Under California State legislation, a Marketing Commission was
subsequently created for the sole purpose of implementing and
administering the TEA program for walnuts. Established in August
1987, the Commission has the authority to generate and expend both
industry and TEA resources.
The Inspector General’s investigation also raised questions
about The Walnut Marketing Board's staff and accounting systems.
According to the most recent review completed by the Compliance
Review Staff, the Commission is now staffed by a Chief Executive
Officer, marketing director, marketing manager and a full time,
experienced accountant/treasurer. In FAS’ opinion, this staff and
its collective expertise should be adequate to plan, implement and
administer the commodity’s TEA Program.
COOPERATOR PROGRAM
Question: What portion of fiscal year 1988 funds has been used
to fund the Cooperator Program?
Answer: A total of $37,100,000 is being used to fund the
Cooperator Program in fiscal year 1988.
Question: What portion has been used for administrative costs
of the Cooperator Program?
Answer: 0f the amount $37.1 million for the Cooperator Program
$13.1 million is budgeted for cooperator administrative costs.
EFFECT OF DOLLAR DEPRECIATION
Question: What is the amount of administrative funds that has
been required due to the decline of the dollar overseas?
Answer: We recently reviewed cooperator marketing plans to
analyze this specific issue. Based on this analysis, between
$670,000 and $700,000 in additional dollars would be required to
cover unanticipated additional administrative cost increases due to
the decline in the value of the dollar in fiscal year 1988. It
should be noted that substantial Cooperator Program cutbacks took
place in earlier fiscal years, either because cooperators failed to
forecast the dollar depreciation now routinely calculated in program
planning, or because appropriations were not sufficient to cover the
losses encountered.
ADDITIONAL COOPERATOR PROGRAMS
Question: What additional Cooperator Programs are under
initiation in fiscal year 1988? For what commodities?
Answer: No additional organizations have been formally added to
our Cooperator Program. However, we have been approached by an
organization that would like to obtain cooperator status in the
719
promotion of embryos and embryo transplants, and we are working with
them to determine whether a satisfactory agreement can be worked
out. Blueberry producers and Midwest apple producers have been
included as participants in the Cooperator Program through two of
our regional state cooperator organizations. We have increased base
funding by $50,000 to each of the regional state cooperators this
year to accommodate new programs of this sort.
INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARKET DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
FAS requires matched funds from producer/industry
representatives through the Cooperator Program.
Question: Please explain how the private share is met during
the period of initial market penetration and whether this same share
is maintained once a market for a particular U.S. commodity is
established?
Answer: It has always been the policy of FAS to view government
funds as seed money when market development activities are expanded
into either high risk areas or new markets. In general, the
contribution of an industry group to market development is expected
to increase as projects for a given commodity and in a given region
mature.
IN–KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE COOPERATOR PROGRAM
Question: Are in-kind contributions attributable to the share
requirement, or is payment made solely in cash contributions?
Answer: In-kind contributions are attributable to market
development program shared cost requirements.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TEA PROGRAM
Question: How does the response to each of these questions
compare to requirements and contributions made under TEA?
Answer: Contribution types, either cash or in-kind, exist and
operate in the TEA program in an analogous fashion to contributions
in the Cooperator Program. During the start-up phase of the TEA
program, contributions as a percent of funding have tended to be
lower than those in the Cooperator Program, particularly in the case
of commodities designated for priority treatment under the law.
AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION AND MARKETING SYSTEM
Question: What is the purpose of the Agricultural Information
and Marketing Services (AIMS) program?
Answer: The purpose of the AIMS program is to encourage
commercial transactions between U.S. food and agricultural suppliers
and foreign buyers. Main functions include: a trade inquiry system
for foreign buyers to request U.S. products, called Trade Leads, and
a product announcement system for U.S. suppliers to publicize their
products overseas, called Buyer Alert.
Question: Who are its users?
720
Answer: The majority of AIMS users are small to medium-sized
food firms, brokers and agricultural producers. Grocery items
constitute 60 percent of all leads, while bulk and unprocessed
products account for 40 percent of all inquiries.
Question: How much does it cost each year?
Answer: The AIMS program costs about $215,000 per year. This
includes salaries, advertising, printing and travel. Receipts total
close to $45,000, so the net cost of the program is about $170,000.
Question: Is it effective in providing trade leads?
Answer: Trade Leads are provided by our attache service to
AIMS, which then distributes them to U.S agricultural product
suppliers. In a typical year our overseas posts transmit, and we
disseminate, over 4,000 Trade Leads for products ranging from canned
fruits and vegetables to bulk grain.
Trade Leads are made available via Daily Electronic
Dissemination, Daily Direct Mail, and weekly summaries mailed to
subscribers. Additionally, they will soon be published daily in the
Journal of Commerce. The combined total subscribers to all of these
dissemination services will be about 27,000.
Question: Has an evaluation of the system been conducted?
Answer: An independent group of outside observers evaluated The
Agricultural Information and Marketing Services (AIMS) program in
September 1985, after an 18 month pilot project period. The three
member team of users evaluated the effectiveness of the program in
meeting the needs of the agricultural community. It was found that
AIMS achieved its initial objectives, and had made significant
progress in establishing a framework for future improvements to
marketing services. Since that time AIMS services have been
reviewed on a continuing basis in-house. As a consequence, AIMS
programs are in the process of being continuously adjusted to meet
today’s demands.
Question: Do FAS personnel operate and maintain the system, or
is this service contracted out?
Answer: FAS personnel currently operate and maintain the entire
system.
Question: What are the plans for the future of the system?
Answer: We plan on further automating all operations to
decrease the lag time between receipt of Trade Leads and their
dissemination. We are putting additional resources into improved
U.S. supplier and foreign importer lists. We also plan some modest
improvements, in the promotion program for AIMS, which should expand
use. We are simplifying the promotional packet and applications for
the various AIMS services. We distributed 10,000 packets last year
and plan on increasing that by one half this year.
721
EXPORT OF WHEAT TO THE SOVIET UNION
Recently, USDA announced that about 650,000 tons of U.S. wheat has
been sold to the Soviet Union for delivery during 1987 and 1988.
Question: What are your anticipated projections for export
sales to the Soviet Union through the end of this fiscal year?
Answer: So far during fiscal year 1988, the USSR has purchased
7 million tons of U.S. wheat. During the recent U.S.–USSR
semi-annual consultations, the USSR was offered the opportunity to
purchase another 1 million tons of wheat under the Export
Enhancement Program. The USSR is expected to purchase this wheat
for shipment over the next few months. USSR wheat imports during
the July–September period are normally relatively small as this
coincides with their own harvest.
EXPORT OF GRAINS TO INDIA
Recent press reports indicate that India will require higher
than anticipated imports of wheat and rice in the coming year.
Question: What do you expect the U.S. exports to India will be
and through what programs?
Answer: Adverse weather resulted in sharp reductions in India's
wheat and rice crop last year. However, so far India has been able
to draw on large food grain stocks, minimizing their need for
imports. Indian Government officials have stated that future food
grain imports will depend on the size of this spring’s wheat crop
and on prospects for the summer and fall wheat and rice crops.
India is currently projected to import around 200,000 tons of rice
during calendar 1988 most likely from Burma and Thailand. Wheat
imports for the July/June 1987/88 are projected at 500,000 tons of
which the United States will supply a minimum of 100,000 tons under
Title II of the P. L. 480 program. The outlook for any additional
U.S. exports to India will depend on the level of total Indian wheat
and rice import demand in the month's ahead.
When India last imported quantities of food grains in 1983/84,
they purchased these commodities commercially. It is expected that
they would again be a commercial buyer. It is possible that India
might be considered for an Export Enhancement Program for U.S.
wheat to assist them in their import program. However, this would
have to be given careful consideration so as not to adversely affect
non-subsidizing suppliers of grain to India.
FOOD DISTRIBUTIONS TO AFRICAN NATIONS
The food crises encountered by the country of Ethiopia in recent
years have resulted in an outpouring of food assistance by the
United States Government and private resources.
Question: Please compare for the committee the donations of
food aid to Ethiopia through the government and private sector
organizations.
Answer: Governments and private sector organizations have
A *- **.
722
pledged a total of 889,000 metric tons of food assistance for
Ethiopia in fiscal year 1988. Of this total, governments are
contributing 842,000 metric tons, or 95 percent and private sector
organizations are contributing the remainder, 47,000 metric tons.
The largest government pledges have been made by the Soviet Union
with 250,000 metric tons or 28 percent of the total, and the United
States with 249,000 metric tons, also 28 percent of the total. The
European Economic Community has contributed 116,000 metric tons
which is about 13 percent. The largest pledges from private sector
organizations come from the Canadian Food Grains Bank with 15,000
metric tons and the Redd Barna and Menchen Fur Menchen provided
10,000 metric tons.
It should be noted that government food assistance is typically
consigned to and distributed by private voluntary organizations.
Question: What is the current trend in the food aid needs of
Ethiopia and the U. S. Government contribution?
Answer: Food aid needs for Ethiopia have been recently
estimated at 1.3 million metric tons. Based on current estimates of
food aid from all sources Ethiopia has a total of 1,427,000 metric
tons of food aid at its disposal. If the food can be delivered in a
timely manner to where it is needed, the situation should be
stabilized.
The U. S. Government's contribution to Ethiopian relief efforts,
to date, has been 249,000 metric tons of emergency aid and
17,000 metric tons of regular program food aid for a total of
266,000 metric tons. This represents close to 19 percent of the
total food aid available to Ethiopia at the moment.
Question: Noting the obstacles in transporting food aid
presented by rebel forces in Ethiopia, how is FAS working to assure
that food is received by the needy.
Answer: To help facilitate transportation within Ethiopia for
Section 416 commodities, the Commodity Credit Corporation has agreed
to defray internal land transport costs involved in moving food from
discharge ports to distribution sites. In addition, it has agreed
to bear a portion of the air freight costs to help move commodities
that cannot be transported overland due to a lack of passable roads.
Similar support is also provided to donated Title II commodities.
Question: Have there been recent interruptions in the
distribution of U.S. food relief?
Answer: The intensification of the civil war in the provinces
of Tigray and Eritrea has led to interruptions in the distribution
of food assistance, including that from the United States. The
heightened conflict has made the land transport of food aid
dangerous. Commodity backups at discharge ports have also
contributed to a slowdown in the distribution of U.S. food relief.
AFRICAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Recently, an independent review panel appointed by the United
Nations stated that African countries would require $2 billion in
assistance to achieve further economic development.
723
Question: How do you envision the role of FAS in providing food
assistance for development purposes?
Answer: FAS, acting on behalf of USDA, is primarily responsible
for the administration and operational implementation of the Title
I/III program of Public Law 480. It is also a participant in the
Title II interagency committee. One of the purposes of Public Law
480 is to support economic development. In fact, a major initiative
of this Administration is laying the basis to eliminate hunger in
Africa by the year 2000. Food aid is one of the tools to achieve
this goal and we in FAS are fully supportive of this use of our food
aid. In our capacity as chairman of the Food Aid Subcommittee, we
seek to allocate food aid resources efficiently and effectively. We
seek to assure that recipient countries fully benefit from the
long-term credit available to them under Title I.
Question: What level of commodities do you intend to program to
African nations in 1988 and in 1989 based on current information?
Answer: We can provide that information for the record.
(The information follows)
The following table shows the estimated allocations for African
countries in 1988 and 1989. It should be noted that the 1988 levels
include emergency approvals to date; however, the levels for 1989
are estimates for non-emergency programs only. Any emergency needs
in Africa in 1989 will be met from the general reserve and will
increase these estimates.
1988 1989
—— millions dollars —-
Title I 322.9 3.11.0
Title II 134.2 75. 6
Section 416(b) 28.9 1/
1/ Commodity availabilities for Section 416 (b) programing during
FY 1989 have not yet been determined.
MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Question: Would it be realistic to expect that the European
Community will cooperate in reaching agreement with the United
States in reducing its agricultural support programs?
Answer: Yes. The United States and the European Community
agree that world agricultural production and trade policies need
reform. In fact, both the European Community and the United States
endorsed the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development——OECD––Ministerial Statement that specifically states
that "the long term objective is to allow market signals to
influence by way of a progressive and concerted reduction of
agricultural support, as well as by all other appropriate means, the
orientation of agricultural production; this will bring about a
better allocation of resources which will benefit consumers and the
economy in general."
724
However, United States and European Community views differ
greatly on how to accomplish the objectives set out in the
Ministerial. The United States has proposed that all trade
distortive measures and barriers, in all commodities, be eliminated
within 10 years. The European Community has thus far taken a less
ambitious approach. The job of our negotiators is to resolve these
differences in views.
Question: Would the United States be willing to negotiate with
the EC on a short-term basis to approve measures for grains, dairy,
and sugar?
Answer: The United States has suggested that the long-term
elimination of trade distorting measures can begin as soon as all
governments, including the EC, are willing make the necessary
commitments. That can be 1989, if all agree. In addition, the
U.S. is willing to front-load the process to insure that the most
serious problems are dealt with expeditiously.
However, the United States is not interested in a solution that
would result in only short term solutions. Fundamental, long-term
reform is imperative. We would not, and could not, agree to any
short-term agreements without concrete long-term commitments from
all countries. Because of a unique confluence of circumstances, the
world has a real, but limited chance to achieve substantive
agricultural reform. A quick-fix, without long-term commitments,
would only permit this chance to evaporate.
Question: What concessions would the U.S. be willing to accept
in order to reach an agreement?
Answer: As stated in the U.S. proposal, all U.S. programs and
policies, on all commodities, that distort trade in agriculture are
on the table. The U.S. position is dependent on the full
cooperation of all countries to agree to phase-out their respective
trade distortive programs.
SECTION 416
Question: Were minimum tonnage levels for commodities to be
made available for donation met in fiscal year 1987? In fiscal year
1988? What were they?
Answer: Section 1109 of the Food Security Act of 1985 mandated
that the Secretary of Agriculture make available on an annual basis
500,000 metric tons of grains and oilseeds or an amount equal to ten
percent of CCC’s uncommitted stocks as of the end of the fiscal
year, whichever is less, and ten percent of CCC's uncommitted stocks
of dairy products, but not less than 150,000 metric tons, under
Section 416(b).
In fiscal year 1987, the Secretary determined that
1,975,000 metric tons of grains and oilseeds and 150,000 tons of
dairy products were available under Section 416(b). In fiscal year
1988, the Secretary has determined that 2.6 million tons of grains
and oilseeds are available for the program from CCC inventories.
725
Due to the extremely limited supplies of dairy products in CCC
inventory, dairy products were not available for programming under
section 416 for fiscal year 1988. Any dairy inventory available is
being used in domestic feeding programs and P. L. 480, Title II
donations as well as for the Congressionally-mandated direct export
sales by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Question: Do you expect that the minimum tonnage requirements
will be met in fiscal year 1989? If not, why?
Answer: We do not expect surplus dairy commodities to be
available for Section 416(b) programming during fiscal years 1989
and 1990 due to much reduced purchases of surplus products by CCC.
It is too early to determine the level of grains and oilseeds which
can be legally made available, but we do expect corn and sorghum
stocks to remain sizable.
WORLD FOOD PROGRAM
We have reports that the Administration plans to reduce
substantially its pledge to the World Food Program for U.S. food
contributions over the next two years, compared with the previous
biennial pledge. One reason for the reported cutback is that
Section 416 CCC surplus commodities will not be available for that
new U.S. pledge as they were before, because of dwindling surpluses.
However, the law does not require that any part of the U.S. pledge
be in the form of Section 416 surpluses.
Question: By what amounts are you intending to reduce the U.S.
pledge to WFP when AID is not even meeting P. L. 480 Title II sub
minimum requirements? (contributions to the WFP, by law, are
included in the subminimum.)
Answer: The Food Aid Subcommittee members are currently
considering the question of the next U.S. pledge to the World Food
Program (WFP), which will provide commodities during calendar years
1989 and 1990. No decision has yet been made on this matter. You
are correct that the reduction in CCC stocks will affect any
possible Section 416 component of this pledge. During the last two
biennia we have been able to augment our Title II pledge with
Section 416 commodities. We have also been careful to explain to
the World Food Program that Section 416 resources are of a
short-term nature and should not be viewed as regular or long-term
U.S. food aid. You are correct that there is no law specifying use
of Section 416 for this pledge; there is in fact no law specifying
any pledge level to WFP. Any commodities supplied to regular WFP
feeding programs can, of course, be counted a part of the Title II
subminimum. The interest of Congress in this program is appreciated
and this concern will be kept in mind as we review this matter.
U.S. trade sources have told us that they see possible large
markets in China for U. S. processed products such as flour,
vegetable oil, and dairy, which can be distributed there through the
World Food Program. Competitors such as Canada are pledging food
aid to China through the WFP with a stipulation that the aid be in
the form of flour, thereby helping their market prospects. The WFP
has been prepared to distribute U.S. P. L. 480 in China.
33–470 O - 88 – 24
726
Question: Is the USDA prepared to approve P.L. 480 for China,
through the WFP or otherwise, if there is a market development
prospect? If not, why not?
Answer: At present the World Food Program (WFP) is fully using
our pledged commodities. While U.S. commodities are not being used
by WFP in China, WFP is providing assistance to that country.
Naturally, not all donors's commodities are shipped to all recipient
countries. At one time WFP had queried the United States about the
possibility of supplying dairy products to its projects in China.
However, the dairy supply situation in the United States had
considerably tightened at that time so no additional dairy products
were available. Therefore, the WFP used products from other donors.
Any request for food aid is reviewed by USDA in terms of the
many legal requirements for this food aid, as well as considering
supply/distribution factors and trade implications. Such a review
would also be appropriate for any request from WFP.
P. L. 480 – TITLES I AND III
Question: For what reasons has the program level for Titles I
and III been reduced by $40 million in the fiscal year 1989 budget
request?
Answer: The Administration's fiscal year 1989 request for
P. L. 480 is designed to comply with the Congressional/Executive
Branch overall budget compromise for fiscal years 1988 and 1989. We
believe the requested level will meet anticipated food aid program
needs.
Question: Will there be carryover balances not obligated in
fiscal year 1988 that will be available under Titles I and III in
fiscal year 1989? How will such funds affect the appropriation
required to fund the programs?
Answer: The amount of carryover funds in a given fiscal year
cannot normally be determined until the year has ended, too late for
these funds to be included in the following year's budget request.
Therefore, in fiscal year 1988, any carryover funds would be
available to reduce the fiscal year 1990 P.L. 480 budget request,
not fiscal year 1989. The fiscal year 1989 budget request was
reduced by $51.8 million in carryover funds from fiscal year 1987.
P. L. 480 AND SECTION 416 – TRANSPORTATION
The GA0 issued a report in 1985 recommending that the Secretary
of Agriculture require publicly open transportation offers,
including nonnegotiable rates and awards for shipment of commodities
under P. L. 480.
Apparently, USDA is working on regulations to institute a
system of open, competitive bidding for transportation of cargo to
selected recipient countries.
Question: What is the status of the regulations?
Answer: The proposed regulations covering P. L. 480, Title I
727
commodities are now being prepared for publication in the
Federal Register during the first half of April 1988. Comments will
be received from interested persons within 30 days thereafter.
Question: To what selected countries will the regulations
apply?
Answer: The regulations will apply to all P. L. 480 Title I
countries. In some market situations, when it is determined that
little or no competition exists among U.S. flag carriers, freight
offers will not be opened in public, but rather negotiated down to
the maximum extent possible.
Question: When will the final regulations be promulgated?
Answer: We expect that the final regulations will be
promulgated by October 1, 1988.
P. L. 480 – GREAT LAKES SET ASIDE
There is continued concern that the provisions of the Great
Lakes set aside established under the 1985 Food Security Act are not
being met or that distributions of shipments are unevenly
distributed among the port locations during the limited shipping
SeaSOI] .
Question: In each of the fiscal years 1986, 1987, and according
to your estimates for 1988, what is the volume of cargo shipped from
each of the great lakes ports under P. L. 480? (Please prepare a
chart specifying the levels, ) include the total amount of shipments
and the percentage that has been shipped through the Great Lakes
ports compared to all U. S. ports.
Answer: The information we have available is on a calendar year
basis and will be provided for the record. The estimate for
calendar year 1988 are not available at this time.
(The information follows)
728
Great Lakes Ports
Title II P. L. 480
Port Allocations
1986 and 1987
Calendar Year's
1986
(metric tons)
198
7
(metric tons)
Duluth, MN 30,800 17,600
Superior, WI 61,700 6,000
Green Bay, WI 22,900 30, 300
Milwaukee, WI 68,000 174,800
Kenosha, WI 32,000 17,800
Chicago, IL O 1, 200
Burns Harbor, IN 14,900 O
Total 230, 300 247,700
Port Range 1986 1/ 1987 2/
(Metric Tons Purchased)
East 992.02 -* =-
Gulf 661,603.90 700, 345.51
Inland 104,347.45 108,955.44
Intermodal - - 197,353. 32
West 140,611.97 33,715.95
South 54, 192.58 20,397.78
North 6,981.77 4,618.91
Bridge - - 50,293.25
Great Lakes 230,457.92 245,123.26
Total 1, 199,187.61 1,360, 803.42
Lakes as percentage
of total 19.2% 18. Oż
1/ April 1, 1986 – March 31, 1987 (packaged Title II commodities
only)
2/ April 1, 1987 – March 31, 1988 (packaged Title II commodities
only)
(Please note that the totals for the individual Great Lakes ports
and the Great Lakes port range are slightly different. This is due
to different data sources.)
Question: Recognizing the climatic, lock passage, and other
limitations of the Great Lakes region, are port allocations being
• *
729
f
thoughtfully distributed to assure compliance with the set-aside
provisions of law? If not, why not? If so, please state specific
planning considerations that allow for distribution of the
allocations.
Answer: Last year the Title II, P. L. 480 procurement regulation
was amended to give the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) the
flexibility to comply with the Great Lakes set-aside provision.
During the months February through October of each year the CCC
gives consideration to shipments through the Great Lakes in its
monthly commodity procurements and allocations. When necessary,
action is taken within the competitive procurement process to set
aside tonnage for shipment through Great Lakes ports in order to
comply with the minimum tonnage requirements of the law. The
allocations apply on a port range basis as stated in the law. The
law states in effect, that at least the same amount of packaged
Title II, P.L. 480 commodities shipped through the Great Lakes in
calendar year 1984 are to be shipped through the Great Lakes in
calendar years 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989. This amounts to about
245,000 metric tons, or about 24 percent of the packaged Title II
commodities allocated during the 9-month period that the Great Lakes
is open. Accordingly, CCC attempts to set aside about 24 percent of
the tonnage each month for shipment through the Great Lakes. The
competitive bid system determines the individual ports to which the
tonnage is allocated for export.
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAMS
Question: How much in export credit guarantees were (a)
allocated, and (b) used for each of the last three fiscal years
(fiscal years 1985–87?)
(The information follows)
CCC Guarantee Program: Payment Guarantee Commitments fiscal years
1985–87 for GSM-102 and GSM-103
Country : Total Guarantees : Guarantees Approved
Allocated e
—— millions of dollars ——
GSM-102 e
1985 : 4,485.2 : 2,512.8
1986 : 4, 175.3 : 2,522.4
1987 : 3,821.4 : 2, 622.5
GSM-103
1985 1/ *** * : * *
1986 : 377. O : 12. 65
1987 : 410. 9 : 250. 4
1/ The GSM-103 program was authorized by the Food Security Act of
1985 and became operational in fiscal year 1986.
Question: What were the total export credit guarantees
outstanding on September 30, 1987?
730
Answer: The export credit guarantees outstanding under the
GSM-102 program were approximately $1.2 billion. Under the GSM-103
program the guarantees outstanding were approximately $161 million,
bringing total guarantees outstanding to about $1.4 billion.
Question: For fiscal year 1988, how many dollars in guarantees
have been allocated to what countries for the GSM-102 program? For
the GSM-103 program?
(The information follows)
Allocations Under the GSM-102 and GSM-103 Programs, By Country
Through March 4, 1988
Country : GSM-102 Program : GSM-103 Program
Algeria © 608 - : 5
Argentina o 2 g 3
Bangladesh © $º E-ºs º-e 40
Brazil o 100 º *-* = º
Chile © 30 o 3
Colombia : 45 : *E- ºgº -->
Ecuador : 84 : 2
Egypt : 200 : *= *m's sº
El Salvador : 22 : 3
Guatemala : 29 : 1
Haiti : 7 : º-E º ºs
Honduras : 12 : * * *
Hungary : 28 : * *s sºme
Iraq : 825 : 90
Jordan 2 20 : 25
Korea : 560 : * * * =
Mexico : 750 40
Morocco : 30 : 170
Pakistan : 217 : * * *
Panama 1/ : * * * : 5
Senegal : 11 : sº sº sº.
Thailand : * - º ºxº : 7
Tunisia : 99 : 25
Turkey : 97 : 15
Yemen Arab Rep. : 51 : 45
Yugoslavia : 20 : ---
Total : 3847 : 479
1/ Program suspended as of 1/20/88
Question: What countries being allocated guarantees for fiscal
year 1988 are considered to be high credit risk countries?
Answer: Of all the countries currently allocated guarantees
for fiscal year 1988, nine could be considered high risk: Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Iraq, Mexico, Morocco, and
731
Yugoslavia. It should be noted that the agricultural export
opportunities in these countries are significant.
Question: How were countries' creditworthiness assessed for
the export credit guarantee programs?
Answer: We consider a number of factors such as the country's
economic and financial situation, the level of debt service, its
balance of trade and balance of payments, and the prospects of
external debt rescheduling. We try to evaluate for countries that
have implemented economic recovery programs, their recovery efforts
and the degree to which they are in compliance with IMF guidelines
and other performance criteria.
Question: Was any quantitative analysis performed to identify
potential credit risk costs for the export credit guarantees
allocated for fiscal year 1988? If yes, what costs were identified,
and if no, why not?
Answer: The interagency review process chaired by Treasury
looks closely at the question of risk. We did not, however, conduct
specific quantitative analysis to determine the potential risk costs
for the guarantee programs. A necessary consideration in any
decision to approve credit guarantees for high risk countries is
whether the country is likely to fail to meet its credit repayment
obligations to the U.S. bank for any reason. Our program review
takes into account the immediate cost to the CCC of having to pay
claims against the guarantees that have been approved. We should
note that the CCC does not incur an outlay until a claim payment is
made. In most cases, non-payments are triggered by countries
rescheduling their foreign debt. When that occurs, the CCC pays
claims against the guarantees, but in turn is repaid by the country
under the terms of the rescheduling agreement.
Question: How much in credit guarantee fees has been
collected from fiscal years 1981 through 1987? How much of these
fees have been refunded?
g Answer: During fiscal years 1981 through 1987, the Commodity
Credit Corporation collected approximately $129.8 million in
guarantee fees under CCC credit guarantee programs. Approximately,
$1.0 million of these have been refunded.
Question: For each year from fiscal year 1981 to 1987, how
much has been paid out in claims for the credit guarantee programs?
Being country specific, how much of this amount was (a) repaid; (b)
rescheduled; and (c) still outstanding as of September 30, 1987?
Answer: We will supply that information for the record.
(The information follows)
The data below shows the claims paid by CCC and the repayments
to CCC for Export Guarantee Programs during fiscal years 1981 to
1987.
732
Claims paid Repayments
Fiscal Year by CCC to CCC
—— million dollar ––
1981 61.2 0.2
1982 393. 6 1. 3
1983 371.2 3.7
1984 701. 1 18.8
1985 184.1 19.5
1986 328. 3 77. 9
1987 478.1 85. O
The major share of the CCC claims paid tend to be concentrated
in several countries for a given year. Of the $1.5 billion in CCC
claims paid during the fiscal years 1982–84 period, 64 percent was
for Poland and 21 percent for Brazil and Peru. In fiscal year 1987,
over 60 percent of the CCC claims paid involved programs with
Mexico. When CCC pays claims to a financial institution that
financed export sales, CCC takes over the financial obligation of
the country that has failed to meet its repayment obligations to
the financial institution. CCC normally reschedules the debt
payments or may maintain the existing repayment schedule.
Based on CCC data as of December 31, 1987 the total debt
outstanding for export credit guarantees including both rescheduled
and unrescheduled debt was $2.7 billion.
Rescheduling Debt as of 12/31/87
Amount Principal
Country Paid by CCC Paid Outstanding
—— million dollars —-
Brazil 219. 1 32.9 186. 2
Chile 137. 1 39.1 98.0
Dominican Republic 111.4 O. O 111.4
Eypt 177.5 0.0 177.5
Jamaica 55.2 2.5 52.7
Mexico 346.5 0.3 346.2
Morocco 170.3 21.1 149.2
Panama 3.2 1.6 1.6
Peru 129.3 0.0 129.3
Philippines 40.8 1.8 39.0
Poland 1, 176.0 17. 9 1, 158.1
Romania 34.4 34.4 0.0
Sudan 63. 7 2.6 61.1
Total 2, 664.5 154.2 2,510.3
ºrms º ºsm ºr sºs º ºs * * = * sº * sº º sº smº, sº ºss
*- :=º º ºs º ºr *=º * -º- º ºs ºº - º 'º -- ºr º º
Question: How much of the claims rescheduled for the export
credit guarantee programs were still outstanding as of
September 30, 1987.
Answer: Based on our most current data as of
December 31, 1987, reschedulings totaled $2.7 billion and
$2.5 billion is outstanding as of this date. These figures do
not include the interest that accrues on these debts.
Question: With the decline in the dollar, do you anticipate
increased export credit guarantee program usage for fiscal years
733
1988 and 1989? Does FAS anticipate a need for increases in CCC
guarantee authority for either of the two years? -
Answer: In fiscal year 1987 the total value of GSM-102 and
GSM-103 credit guarantees approved was about $2.9 billion. The
authorization level was $5.5 billion. As of March 4, 1988 credit
guarantees, including short term and intermediate term, totaling
about $1.6 billion had been approved for fiscal year 1988. This
compares with $941 million for the same period in fiscal year
1987. If approvals continue at this pace for fiscal year 1988
CCC credit guarantee utilization will be substantially higher
than previous years but well within the authorized level. At
this time we continue to believe that the level of CCC guarantee
authority of $3.5 billion proposed for fiscal year 1989 will be
adequate for program needs.
Question: What controls are in place to assure that export
credit guarantees are used only for U.S. agricultural
commodities?
Answer: The CCC Charter Act and our regulations allow only
for credit guarantee coverage for U. S. agricultural commodities.
If there is the possibility that commodities may not be of U.S.
origin, the exporter is asked to certify U.S. origin. If we get
any indication that non-U.S. commodities have been exported under
the credit guarantee program, the complaint is forwarded to the
proper authorities for investigation and possible criminal
prosecution. r
Question: For purposes of the CCC export credit programs
what is the definition of a U.S. agricultural product?
Answer: Any product from U.S. farms, forests or fisheries
or products derived therefrom.
Question: What percentage of foreign content, if any, is
allowed in an agricultural commodity or product for it to still
qualify for a CCC export credit guarantee.
Answer: Our policy is to only approve credit guarantees for
U.S. agricultural products in accordance with the CCC Charter Act
authority. This has given some U.S. suppliers of processed
products difficulty since there may not be U.S. sources for all
ingredients.
Question: Are shipping costs also guaranteed? If yes, what
limits and controls are placed on shipping cost coverage?
Answer: On a case by case basis CCC may approve credit
guarantees to cover both commodities and freight. Once coverage
has been approved there is no formal limit placed on amount of
shipping cost coverage. As of March 4, freight coverage had been
approved on an individual country basis for Iraq and Bangladesh,
for wood products to Turkey and for all breeding livestock lines.
734
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
REDUCED FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989
Question: The Administration has requested reduced funding for
the Foreign Agricultural Service again this year. Last year we were
told that important offices would have to be closed under the
reduced budget request of the Administration. Will the decreased
funding for foreign market development affect the operation of FAS
offices, and limit their effectiveness?
Answer: The proposed reduction in foreign market development
will primarily be directed at the Cooperator Program, basically
bringing the budget for that program back in line with historical
funding levels. However, the effectiveness of our overseas offices
could be limited somewhat as we attempt to absorb expected overseas
inflation and exchange rate losses which are estimated at
$1.1 million in fiscal year 1989.
Question: The Senate has included language in the Trade Bill
which will make tobacco eligible for the Export Enhancement Program.
Considering the decline in the sale of tobacco products
domestically, I feel that it is important to increase our foreign
markets. Is the FAS prepared to initiate incentives to increase
exports of tobacco?
Answer: We have carefully reviewed and will continue to review
the issue of the eligibility of tobacco for export subsidies under
the Export Enhancement Program. FAS does support trade servicing
activities carried out by the leaf tobacco industry under the Market
Development Cooperator Program. Tobacco is also eligible for the
GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee program.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
Question: FAS operates one of four federal agency programs for
export enhancement. In light of the substantial success seen in the
export market for agriculture, and knowing of the importance of the
agricultural trade surplus to our overall balance of trade, how can
you justify a significant reduction of funding for your fiscal year
1989 request? Will either volume or price of the trade assisted be
affected as compared to fiscal year 1988?
Answer: The need to reduce the federal budget deficit was a
major factor in formulating the fiscal year 1989 budget request.
Holding the FAS budget request to a level consistent with that of
recent years will contribute to the government wide effort to reduce
the deficit. We do believe that Congress, in enacting the Food
Security Act of 1985, has given us the tools necessary to reverse
the down turn in U.S. agricultural exports. We intend to continue to
use these tools to the fullest extent with the resources made
available. FAS is optimistic that agricultural exports and the
agricultural trade surplus will continue to improve in fiscal year
1989.
735
EFFORTS TO ENHANCE RICE, COTTON, SOYBEAN AND POULTRY EXPORTS
Question: Will you detail for me efforts by FAS to enhance
rice, cotton, soybean and poultry exports?
Answer: These commodities are included in all of our major
export programs.
In the area of export credits, rice, cotton, soybeans and
poultry are eligible for both the P.L. 480 and GSM export credit
guarantee programs. Programming under the P. L. 480 program during
FY 1987 for these commodities was: Rice, $91 million; Cotton,
$21 million; Soybeans, $11 million. Exports under the GSM 102
program of these commodities in FY 1987 were: Rice, $137.6 million;
Cotton, $265.4 million; Soybeans, $324.6 million; Poultry,
$38.7 million.
We also support worldwide promotional activities for all of
these commodities, with aggressive programs both in developed and
developing countries. Funding under the Targeted Export Assistance
program over the past three years for those commodities has been as
follows: Rice, $11.5 million; Cotton, $15.25 million; Soybeans,
$17.0 million; Poultry, $17.0 million. Funding under the Cooperator
program has been: Rice, $4.7 million; Cotton, $3.9 million;
Soybeans, $18.3 million; Poultry, $4.7 million. Because these
programs are run jointly with the industry, which contributes its
own administrative and financial resources in partial support of the
marketing activities undertaken, the size of these programs has been
somewhat influenced by the industry's interest in supporting the
activities in question. The extent of industry support of each
program has been rising from year to year.
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Question: Are rice, cotton, soybeans, and poultry aggressively
promoted in the EEP program? Can you provide details? In other
export enhancement programs? How do the promotions of these
commodities compare to the promotions of wheat and feed grains?
Answer: The Export Enhancement Program is targeted to assist
with exports of specific commodities and counties which meet the
criteria for the program. The program is designed to offset the
adverse effects of unfair trade practices and subsidies of other
countries. Of the four commodities you mentioned rice and poultry
are targeted commodities and are promoted under the program. Cotton
and soybeans are not targeted commodities; however, vegetable oils
are promoted under the program. Sales under the program as of March
11, 1988, included 124,000 metric tons of rice, over 148,000 metric
tons of frozen poultry and over 255,000 metric tons of vegetable
oil. Over 60 percent of the vegetable oil was soybean oil.
Under the CCC short-term export credit guarantee program
(GSM-102) rice, cotton, soybeans and poultry are all aggressively
promoted. Since this is a commercial export program, the level of
credit guarantees announced by commodity are determined by the
requirements of the importing country. Under this program about 40
percent of the total announced guaranteed credit is for wheat and
feed grains.
736
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
Question: Last year, the Subcommittee recognized FAS’s
increased responsibilities and activities as a result of newly
mandated export programs and provided a substantial increase in the
FAS appropriation for a total of $92 million. If the committee were
to provide your budget request of only $89 million, what programs
would be reduced or discontinued? What effect would this have on
your staffing level?
Answer: The fiscal year 1989 budget proposes a reduction in
the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program of $3 million
below the level appropriated in fiscal year 1988. This reduction
will bring the funding for this program in line with historical
levels. Additionally, our overseas offices may be impaired in their
ability to maintain current services. The budget does not propose
the discontinuation of any current program activities. With respect
to staffing levels, the budget proposes 820 staff years, the same
level as in fiscal year 1988 budget.
Question: The Committee also provided supplemental funding to
off-set overseas inflation and exchange rate losses. Does your
current request provide adequately for these factors?
Answer: The fiscal year 1989 budget does not contain
additional funds specifically for overseas inflation and exchange
rate losses. To the extent possible, we will use savings from
reduced levels of participation in the Federal Employees Retirement
System to offset these increased costs. However, it is unlikely
that we will be able to fully absorb inflation and exchange rate
losses without some negative affect on our overseas presence.
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM GSM-102
Question: One of the disadvantages of the credit guarantee
program from the international buyer's perspective is the risk
associated with currency exchange rates. Has the Department
developed any program proposals to eliminate or minimize these risks
our customers take by borrowing and repaying U.S. dollar obligations
over a period of up to 3 years when exchange rates fluctuate
significantly?
Answer: We have not developed a proposal as yet, mainly
because it is uncertain how an exchange rate risk protection program
would work. It would be complicated to implement, and costly given
the wide fluctuations in exchange rates in some countries.
Question: Would it be helpful to establish a special
government-industry task force to review the operation of the
GSM-102 program and recommend possible improvements in this
important market development and maintenance tool?
Answer: We believe that excellent communication channels
already exist between the government and industry on the operation
of these programs. U.S. exporters, commodity and trade groups and
associations, bankers, and other industry representatives are
continually in touch with us by letter, telephone, cable, personal
visits, and seminars and panels. They do not hesitate to express
737
their views on operational questions or the changes needed for the
programs to work better. We welcome their input. These programs
exist to help them; and their comments and suggestions are essential
if they are to continue work properly and effectively.
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM GSM-103
Question: The President’s budget provides for $500 million in
intermediate credit guarantees. Please provide for the record some
examples of the transactions which have been registered under the
GSM-103 program.
Answer: Through March 4, 1988, FAS had announced intermediate
credit guarantees for fiscal year 1988 totaling $479 million, and
credit guarantees totaling $117.7 million were registered. Five
countries have registered under the GSM-103 program. The countries
include Argentina with $0.3 million for breeder livestock; Iraq with
$16.1 million for breeder livestock; Morocco with $0.5 million for
breeder livestock, and $2.7 million for feed grains and
$79.7 million for wheat. Registrations for Tunisia and Turkey for
breeder livestock are $13.7 million and $4.7 million respectively.
Question: The proposed budget would reduce Foreign Market
Development funding from $52.5 million in fiscal year 1988 to
$49.3 million in fiscal year 1989. Won't this reduction have an
adverse impact on the ability of cooperators to maintain the level
of market development activity currently being conducted? Given the
significant increase in FAS administrative and information—gathering
responsibilities, will the budget proposal allow FAS to maintain its
current level of support for foreign market development activities?
Answer: While the fiscal year 1989 budget will not support
cooperator market development activities at the level appropriated
in fiscal year 1988, the funding requested is sufficient to maintain
the program at traditional funding levels. It is our intention to
continue to support market development, as well as all the other
export programs under our responsibility, to the maximum extent
possible. However, the internal adjustments that will be necessary
in order to maintain current services, both here and abroad, will no
doubt affect our ability to do so.
COOPERATOR PROGRAM FUNDING
$30 MILLION REDUCTION IN TEA PROGRAM REQUEST
Question: The budget provides $295 million during fiscal
year 1989 for the TEA program. Doesn’t the 1985 farm bill call for
TEA funding of $325 million in fiscal year 1989? If so, why the
proposed reduction?
Answer: The Administration's proposal to cut back the TEA
program level from $325 to $295 million is to support the
President’s budget deficit reduction efforts while continuing to
maintain a program that meets the intent of the legislation. The
reduction is in no way an indication of a retrenchment from our
commitment of expanding U.S. exports. Although the number and scope
of projects under the TEA program would obviously have to be reduced
somewhat or deferred, the remaining authorized levels are
considered adequate to provide the essential promotional assistance
for most commodities envisioned by the legislation.
738
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TEA PROGRAM
Question: Authority for the TEA program expires in fiscal
1990. Would the Department support reauthorization of the program
beyond fiscal 1990?
Answer: It is too early for the Department to consider its
position on possible provisions in the 1990 Farm Bill. To a
considerable degree, our position will be influenced by the progress
of negotiations on agriculture during the Uruguay Round of the
multilateral trade talks. Also, more comprehensive evaluations of
thee programs will be necessary before consideration of new
legislation begins in 1990.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
FAS MARKET DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989
In 1989 you have proposed a reduction in Foreign Market
Development. This program seems to be one that helps a broad range
of agriculture producers and processors.
Question: What projects or proposals will be eliminated if the
budget is reduced by the $3.16 million suggested?
Answer: The requested budget level is consistent with the
original FAS market development budget proposed for fiscal year
1988. Market development programs would return to the base levels
established before additional funding became available in the 1988
Appropriations Act. Although this holding to base level funding
would not eliminate any projects, it would affect allocations now
being made to offset currency shifts, to expand program support and
services for new program participants, and to undertake expansion
plans for cooperator projects which we were previously unable to
fund.
ADDITIONAL FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS
Question: What could be undertaken with another $5 million in
this program area?
Answer: If additional funding were available, FAS would most
likely restore the level of market development funding provided by
the fiscal year 1988 appropriations and make adjustments for
inflation and dollar depreciation on current activities estimated at
approximately $1 million.
PEAS AND LENTILS
Peas and lentils are high in nutritional value, low in cost
relative to other commodities, and there is a two–year supply of
peas and lentils available. I am pleased to see that the purchase
of peas and lentils has increased significantly under the P.L. 480
program.
739
Question: Can you provide a breakdown of P. L. 480 shipments,
by country, that have been made as well as those that are
anticipated in the coming fiscal year?
Answer: Peas and lentils are shipped primarily under the
P.L. 480 Title II program. While we have stressed the availability
of peas and lentils for P. L. 480 programs, specific commodity
requests from the cooperating sponsors depend upon the needs and
preference of the importing country. Since the Title II program
began in 1954 about 110 million pounds of dry whole peas and
19 million pounds of lentils have been exported under this program.
In fiscal year 1987 over 6 million pounds of dry peas and
6 million pounds of lentils were exported under Title II. All of
the lentils were shipped to Lebanon and the dry peas were shipped to
Ethiopia, Bolivia, India, Ecuador and Mozambique. We anticipate
that requests for these commodities in fiscal year 1988 will be
close to the 1987 level. We will provide for the record a copy of
the Title II shipments by commodity and by country.
(The information follows.)
740
Zu & ' p {O v6 ' UŻ ：:CJET TIO?! JI VEIHNA
;*º vu v º 8 .CO v " JOEG}}ſ^OTA AOS
... <O v ſº '99 ||Þ6 tv ' €, o 2 " |ūR3ņJ Aos 1 vāHM
g6c "cæ 696 º pz2| 09" | 9669 v ' $9 tv ' v ſ}}[\QT = 1\/EH/A
ecz º 1 »czz ! v | 8C i 9 º 869 ' !269 '92 C ' i C1\/BHA
9 | 9 " Þ9ZOP 'OZ'2Þæð " ÞZZ ' !909 ° C G ſº ' izT | O BT9\/1393A
6 ， & '92 i692 ºg Z !Q3 N | -338 - Tl | O in N\/34
- ÞvöOO 1 ' !}}f\Q"!！! BAM!
- o 98 ° C99，2 º 9 įGEN? Tiº AOS E O || №
zco'z iO 29 ° C6 |G | C ºg i ºÞZ Z ' p. 2 l ' CO BTT I №. 30 | ►
08>OO !QÅH31C] - S3O1\/10d
-Z66 ' !9 CO º G9S1\/0
G€6 º 1G69 " O !906 º 9 ZZ92 ' 694CJ3T1TQ}{ S_1\/Q
C9 Þ º 2 !O 16 º Gcz9 i G '096C į 9 ' CC 9 " v03 | \!0 XT|| || №
C2,2 ' >Z 16 " OG939 º 9 l l29 țz ' Þ6O ' [S 1. || №ſ:90 || J/（\{-{º}}&OS 4 S
Z$ pº 2992 º Z9644 '462º l l ' Cæ6 'g'}}ſ^H9XJQS N 1 vºº)
609| || pHlO * 10 S 10.I’UJOM， NO 1100
9 & 66 ÞO ° CSDN || N.B.J. AJO}-{ S Tl | O CABBS NO 1 1@O
țzO !» º iz999 ' O20BN | 338 Ti | O QJ33||SNO 1 1 OO
Oſ SÚ ‘ Þ6 | 9 ' Z Í&ON I XQO O T} \ CO C133 SNO.1.1 OO
2x}{U ' & i600 º OgNO 1 100
999 " C iOZZ ' ºº !G9 v ' 69229 O' 99 G " CT!\/3!）NAJOO
-2 1 !2C9 ' 2O EXOVAJ O N8OO
I CA '4.C9 tv ' Z G |gu O ' 00 v.O26 " O Z Ľ ' ZN≡OO
29 įGC9 ° CC&O ’ ŻCOg 9 ' tzO !3S33}{3)
! 12 t ' ， !O92 ' v 1.Tl | O 83.1 10 \º
boC ' Jvvo v '9kºsıvıſı JoJJ JJ11n3
24. cu:țz ' !CS I ' ， ，\;\;\; ’4483.1 1 ſaei
229 ºgc1 CC º C9 v!» 6.2 ° C259.Oſº º 9OO?JOS) "Anºſ
9€6 '0'）;Þcz º 9. §{JJJ J']\} AOS NAJO Q
C69 º í Þ Ox:ē 'G9ų:|-64 2 ' 0 & 2906 º 9 € O 9+XA 1 I VJ V NOS NXJOQ
926 '9• •C v tv ' Gº-04. i ' DU£ 1 ） ' ' .. Þ2'-| ， |\] ] ( J J À XJC) SNY/Bº
� ·' .v cv. 'º C\, u, u: ''Jv0A ETÀjºfº
Eiſhº \\//\( SCINȚn Oc})3f) TIVA·( $. (JINTJO«] )
33 1 QAN I O99Al | lºN\/[^03 J 10/\IN I JJ JA.J. | 1 |JVí lui
Z96 i , ' 00 83 dwaldºs!\!O I 1 J3 JÌN I 3JJIN I S
|-f^\ſ|H.J.496 I Å3CJEJJeff | H-|S
Cl31&Od X3 SV SLNſ 1000\/ S, 09 J N I GJEJŲ: JOO3\}
( SGNW：/SŤhO|-|.| N | 9; 1N/YOŁĮV ÚNV SE || 1 | 1NVÔO TITIV )
Z \ski l '09 （J3€wĒJJ. d3S + O SV
1 &]'OJJ?) ,\&]\/WWT)S A 1 1 0 OļeļļJOO
SINU i l\/83，JÚ VNVºjº) 08c] QOOB, OTI?JÖr^
ONw ' ASNJ9w Aelw1Nnība " LN3wN-13/\og) o 1 1 NºviNº.3AOs) º l No 1 103s
SINO 1 1 v83c/0, 09 º " T " & " ] ] BºT 1 1 1 + O 1×10−338
741
REPORT OF T TLE | 1 , P L 480 OPERAT | ONS
SECT ( ON 9 - GOVERNIMENT - TCI – GOVERNMENT
VCL.UNTARY AGENCY AND WOR1. D FOCD PROGRAM CPERAT I ONS
COUNTRY
AND
COMMOD I TY
A NIGO LA
BEARIS DRY ED | B. F.
CCRN SOYA M i L.K.
S F SORūh-ţi 1ſt GR l l .
(-) I L.K OR I F iſ)
VE ſº E TABLF tº I L
BANGLADESH
WHEAT
EA HUT AN
BULGUR
VEGE TABLE O L
W]+[AT SOY M | Llº.
80L l V | A
CCRN SCYA M | LK
8 ULGUR
CORNMEAL
Nº I LK DR ED
CATS ROLLEC;
R CE M | LLED
vEGETABLE o I L
WHEAT
WHEAT FU.CUR
PEAS - DRY
BoTswana .
CORN SOYA M I LK
CORNMEAL
VEGETABLE O ! L
BURUND,
BULGUR
KAMPUCHEA
VEGETABLE C I L
CAMEROCN REPUBL I C
VEGETABLE C I L
CAPE VERDE ISLANDS
BEANS DRY ED I BLE
CORN
R! CE M I LLED
WHEAT
CENTRAL AFR I CAN EM
CORNMEAL
83–470 O - 88 – 25
CCIUNTRY AND COMMOD 1 TY SUMMARY
( ALL Qt. IANT I T | ES AND AMCUNTS
SH | PFEO
QUANT I TY
( FOUNDS, )
21 3
'305
9'39
3/19
, 4 1 a
15, 970
:
I N THCl JSA].]DS )
CCC
| NVO CE
VALUE
21 6, 749
21 6, 749
3, 498
584
l, 264
5, 346
2, 294
34, 248
485
16, O26
200
2, 399
7, 340
4 O |
53, 3G2
2, 23.9
1 18, 9.94
43, Q4 O
275
1, 984
45, 299
4 OO
4 OO
772
772
4, 18O
22, 487
6, 624
lo, 225
43, 5 16
2,594
2,594
4, 822
22
551
5, 395
3O
3O
993
993
21 O
21 O
807
882
497
57 O
2, 756
21 7
21 7
REPORT
F scAl- YEAR 1987 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
EXPORT
VALUE
973
973
1, 9 |
| 9 |
7.91
882
497
57O
2, 740
2 12
21 2
742
COUNTRY
AND
CCMMOD I TY
CEYUGN/SR 1 LANKA
MI LK DRI ED
VEGETABLE CJ I L
WHEAT
wheat FLOUR
CHAD
CORN SOYA M I LK
CGRNMEAL
GRAIN sorghurt
S F SCRGHUM GR I TS
VEGETABLE CJ I L
CLUSA - 1 ND I A
VEGETABLE C I L
CCMCRO ISLANDS
CORNMEAL
R J CE M I LLIED
VEGETAP.l.. E O I L
congo/BRAzzAvi L.LE
R I CE M I LLI.D
VEGE TABLE O Í L
CCSTA R I CA
BEANS DRY ED I BLE
VEGETABLE C, 1 L
WHEAT FLOUR
BEN IN
CORNMEAL
MI LK DRI ED
VEGETABLE C I L
DCJM INI CAN REPUBL I C
CORN SOYA M I LK
BULGUR
CORNMEAL
M I LK DR 1 ED
VEGETABLE O I L
WHEAT FLOUR
ECUADCR
M LK DRI ED
CATS ROLLED
R 1 CE M I LLED
VEGE TABLE O L
PEAS-DRY
SH 1 PPED
QUANT I TY
( POUNDS )
1 O, GOO
558
56, 770
3, O50
70, 978
598
2, 648
17, 347
5, 188
346
26, 127
23, 6OO
23, GOO
7, 5 on
252
32
7, 330
33 1
ſ; G
3 Q7
46
1 1 O
9 OO
1, O56
4, 992
2, 314
1, 821
9, 127
399
4, O 1 7
3,769
2, 893
528
636
12, 242
1, 880
525
4, O94
18, 9 12
292
25, 703
CCC
I NVC I CE
VAl-UE
53O
127
2, 935
258
3, 850
68
225
735
526
96
1, 650
GOS
609
:
527
1 Q
an
*-
ſ. 21 O
1 3
3O
1 15
32O
| 16
482
9 | 8
47
328
266
1.45
1 4 3
54
983
94
EXPORT
VALUE
53O
1 24
2, 935
254
3, 84.3
67
22O
735
5 12
95
1, 529
5, 473
5, 473
631
19
23
673
26
15
4 1
13
25
7O
1 O&
3O4
| | 6
474
. 894
47
322
26O
! 45
130
54
958
94
EGYPT
CCIRN SOYA M | LK
Đl.JLGUR
MI LK DRI ED
VEGETABLE O I L
WHEAT FLOUR
1, 904
2, 33G
2, 463
6, 202
6, 3O4
l 9, 829
8 O
3 2
3, 191
36
3, 713
275
2 2
1 23
1, 695
527
2, 832
77
31 2
3, 128
3, 658
743
counſ RY
AND
COMMCD I TY
sH1 PPED
QUANT I TY
(PCJUNOS)
EL SALVADOR
BEANS DRY ED I BLE
CORN
CORNMEAL
M I LK DRI ED
R 1 CE M I LLED
VEGETABLE O I L
ETHICP I A
BEANS DRY EDI BI-E
CORN SOYA M I LK
BULGUR
S F SCRGHUM GR I TS
M! LK DRI ED
CATS RCILLED
R CE M I LLED
VEGET ABU E O L
WHEAT
WHEAT FLCUR
PEAS - DRY
ETH I CP I AN REFUGEE
CORN SOYA M I LK
GRA N SORGHUM
WHEAT
GAMBIA
CORNMEAL
M I LK DRI ED
R I CE M | LLED
VEGETAFLE C I L
GAZA
BULGUR
M! LK DR ED
R. I CE M I LLED
VEGE TABLE C I L
WHEAT FUCUR
GHANA
BULGUR
S F SORGHUM GR I TS
Mſ LK DRI ED
R I CE M I LLED
VEGE TABLE O I L
WHEAT SOY M I LK
GUATEMALA
BEANS DRY ED I BLE
BULGUR
CORN
CORNMEAL
M I LK DRI ED
CATS RejLLED
R 1 CE M I LLED
VEGETABl-E O I L
WHEAT FLOUR
GUI NEA-B I SSAU
GRA IN SORGHUM
R H CE M I Ll_ED
VEGETABLE C I L
2, 202
40, O56
8, 29O
9, O90
24, 648
6, 94
9 1, 227
1, 7 5
899
81 , 397
21, 833
2, 547
1, 12O
298
5, 456
19, 489
15, 391
2, 525
152, 670
1, 988 .
36, 677
1 O, 902
49, 647
600
1, 951
17, 933
1, O39
21, 573
702
2 7'
939
49 |
3, 397
5, 796
15, 322
6, 50
529
2, 552
3, 993
3, 29 1
32, 188
2, 516
1 O, O99
12, 157
11, 955
15, 91.4
7, 696
7, 263
9, 142
2, 3 l 1
79, O53
267
4, 85
3 O 8
5, 426
CCC
I NVC I CE
VALUE
485
2, 5oo
554
454
2, 135
1, 890
8, Ol 8
25 O
2, 440
34
1 2 3
2, 167
288
2, G 12
5
1
76
| 28
3OO
566
1, 201
574
26
28O
975
44 3
3, 499
490
845
5 O1
788
796
1, 287
735
2, 362
| 92
7, 996
1 )
375
80
46;
EXPORT
VALUE
471
2,500
546
454
2, 135
1, 854
7, 96.O
3 15
1 | 1
6, 484
2, 154
l 27
1 59
39
1, 504
l, OO8
33
1 23
2, 167
282
2, 605
375
466
744
CGUNTRY
AND
comMOD 1 TY
GU 1 NEA
CORN
R 1 CE M I Ll_ED
GUYANA
WHEAT FLCUR
HAI T I’
BULGUR
CCRNMEAL
M! LK DRI ED
VEGETABLE C I L
WHEAT
WHEAT FLOUR
SH 1 PPED
QUANT1 TY
(POUNDS)
88.1
2. O921
-- r-
2, ºn 7",
1 on
1 Oſ)
19, 733
17, O34
1 O, 563
3, 785
80, 541
497
CCC
I NVC, ICE
VALUE
38
! 57
l 95
17
17
, 603
1, 42O
528
997
4, 300
41
8, 889
ExPejRT
VALUE
38.
157
195
17
17
1, 574
1, 386
528
975
4,300
4 1
8, 804
HCNDURAS -
BEANs DRY EDIBLE
CORN SOYA M I LK
BULGUR
CORN
M : LK DRI ED
RI CE M I LLED
VEGETABLE CJ I L
WHEAT FLOUR
I ND I A
CORN soy A M I LK
BULGUR
R J CE M I LLED
VEGETABLE O J L
PEAS - DRY
I NDONES I A
BULGUR
M I LK DRI ED
R CE M I L.LED
VF'ſs ETABLE Of I L
I VCRY COAST
Rice MILLED
JAMA 1 CA
BUTTER
CHEESE
CORNMEAL
WHEAT
WHEAT FLOUR
JORDAN E BANK
RICE M | LLED
JORDAN W BANK
BULGUR
MILK DR1 ED
Rice MILLED
VEGETABLE C I L
WHEAT FLOUR
KENYA
coRN soy A MILK
132, 203
1, O 11
8, 186
1,445
15, 644
6, 478
6, Oſ30
2, 84.5
3, O78
44, 767
232, 438
209, 349
5, 490
44, 380
993
492, G:50
25, 992
9, 3:32
5, 2.17
2,13
41, 1 '54
1, 433
3, 635
15, 347
9, 78 l
786
30, 982
249
249
1, 325
878
790
957
8, O98
12, O48
84 O
8,4 O
245
929
! O 9
672
324
685
766
259
3, 989
26, 524
15, 522
4 12
1 1 O
54, OA7
2, O93
484
(395
72
3. */14
142
1 42
72
182
1, 439
528
7O
2, 29 |
33
33
| O4
44
72
256
738
l, 214
97
97
237
924.
1 O 8
672
324
685
708
251
3, 909
26, O.89
15, 221
4 12
1 1, 251
1 O 8
53, O&
2, O74
484
695
7O
3, 323
142
, 142
72
182
1, 4 12
528
68
2, 262
33
33
745
COUNTRY sHIPPED CCC
AND QUANT 1 TY | NVC I CE
COMMOD I TY .. (FCUNDS) VALUE
LEBANON
CORN SOYA M ll-K 8, 980 1, 1 Oes
M I LK DRI ED 6, OOl 3OO
R 1 CE M I LLED 13,440 1, OO8
VEGE TABLE O I L 5, 895 1, 566
LENT I LS - DRY 6, O 14 1, 333
40, 330 5, 3 13
LESOTHC,
BEANS DRY ED | Bl_E 1, 428 257
CORN SOYA M 1 LK 6, 389 757
BULGUR 6, 389 479
CCRNMEAL 21, 767 1, 348
Mſ LK DRI.ED 7, 459 4.32
VEGETABLE C I L 5,493 1, 463
WHEAT FLCUR 7, O90 625
56, O 15 5, 36
L I BER ( A
CORNMEAL 6 OO 37
VEGETABLE O I L 88 22
688 59
MALAGASAY REPUBL I C
M I LK DRI ED 2, 985 181
RICE M I LLED - 6, 762 532
VEGETABLE O | L 1, 526 4 O7
- 11, 273 1, 120
MALAW I
CORN S65VA M | LK 2, 796 342
WHEAT 3, O90 1 49
5, 886 49
MALI -
CORN SOYA M I LK - 99 12
_CORN . - - 33, OZ4 1, 779
CORNMEAL 25, 91 o 2, 275
M I LK DR 1 ED - 33 1 17
RICE M I LLED 768 1 O2
VEGETABLE O | L 353 96
PEAS - DRY 33 5
60,568 4, 286
MAURI TAN IA
S F SORGHUM GR I TS 2, 470 2 13
M LK DR ED 1, 765 | O4
R CE M | LLED | 1 r. 8
VEGETAEAl.. E. O. i. - 9 OS 233
- - 5, 254 ºr,3
MAURI T1 US
M I LK DR ED 55 | 28
WHEAT FUCUR 3, 59% 2.94
* 4, 150 322
MEXICO
BEANS DRY ED I BLE 5 13 1 O7
VEGE TABLE O | L 172 52
685 1 59
McRocco
Mi LK DRI ED - 11, 716 586
VEGETABLE C I L - 6, 151 1, 589
WHEAT FLOUR 39, 115 3, 3O8
- 56, 982 5, 483
MozAMB 1 ouB
BEANS DRY ED J BLE 18, 5.19 3, 569
coRN - 1 1, Q22 43 1
RICE M I LLED 22, 045 1, 653
VEGETABLE O ( I. | O, 4:20 2, 646
PEAS - ury 499 8 O
62, 505 8, 3.79
EXPORT
VALUE
1, 036
3OO
1, OO8
l, 519
1, 307
5, 22O
252
7.43
471
1, 336
4.32
1, 44 1
615
5, 290
36
22
58
181
532
4 O2
1, 1 15
328
149
477
12
1, 779
2, 231
17
1 O2
94
4, 24 O
2O.9
1 O4
237
558
28
288
3 || 6
90
5 |
| 4 |
586
1, 619
3, 245
5,450
3, 516
43 |
1, 653
2, 59
78
8, 276
746
SHI PRED CCC
ouan T 1 TY I NVC, ICE
(POUNDS ) VALUE
1 1, 42O 1, 552
1 1, 42O 1, 552
5, 199 652
3, 535 3 12
1, 345 370
1 O, of 9 1, 334
39, 4:57 5, 274
380, 953 18, 854
4, 211'10 2, 244
424, & O 27, Ozz
1, O99 | Ol
1, O'as 1 Ol
18, O76 1, 359
2, 828 1 72
11, 198 56O
5, O55 4 83
6, 729 1, 808
3, 8 13 1 95
37,275 3, 30 l
84, 974 7, 878
42, 600 4, 696
17, 480 1, 334
2
50, 689 2, 777
1, O99 1 79
1 7 5
15, O99 1, 204
126, 932! 1 o, 197
6, 609 6O !
8, OOS 2, l l 3
14, 6 1 4 2, 71.4
4, 486 274
4, 193 23O
255 4 O
14, 595 - 1, 335
2,593 668
1, 502 126
27, 624 2, 673
1, 291 - 95
1, 29 1 95
11, 532 8O1
2, 425 1 O !
7, O39 557
4, 556 228
1 32 | O
1, 277 34 |
27, Oſ31 2, O38
233 1 3
7 15 54
1 24 3
1, O72 98
COUNTRY
AND
COMMOD 1 TY
NEPAL T
WHEAT SCY MILK
N GER
coRN SOYA M I LK
S F SCRGHIJM GR I TS
VEGETABLE O I L
PAK I STAN
VEGE TABLE C I L
WHEAT
RAI S I NS-DRI ED
PARAGUAY e
wheat FLOUR
PERU
BULGUR
CORNMEAL
MI LK DRI ED
RICE M | LLFD
VEGETABLE CIL
WHEAT
WHEAT FLCUR
PH M L | PP 1 NES
CORN SOYA M I LK
BULGUR
CCRNMEAL
M I LK DR ED
CATS ROLLED
VEGETABLE O I L
WHEAT FLOUR
POLAND
RICE M I LLED
VEGETABLE O I L
RWANDA
CORNMEAL
M I LK DRI ED
CATS ROULED
RICE M I LLED
VEGETABLE O L
WHEAT FLCUR
SAC; TOME
CORNMEAL
SENEGAL
CCRNMEAL
GRA l N SORGHUM
S F SORGHUM GR I TS
M I LK DRI ED
R 1 CE M I LLED
VEGETABLE O I L
SEYCHELLES
Mſ LK DRI ED
R ( CE M | LLED
vegetABLE or L
ExPort
VALUE
1,438
1,438
64 1.
306
369
1, 31.6
5, 856
l 3, 854
2, 200
26, 91 O
99
99
1, 32O
1 70
56O
483
1, 778
- 1 95
3, 244
7, 750
4, 61 1
1, 31 l
2,777
| 76
1, 181
1 O, O61
6O1
2, O74
2, 675
277
230
38
1, 335
667
124
2, 671
94
94
787
1 O 1
543;
228;
335.
2, OO4
747
count RY - - - sHIPPED CCC :
AND f QUANT1 TY | NVO I CE ExpoRT
comMOD1 TY -: (POUNDS) VALUE VALUE
S1 ERRA LEONE . + .
BULGUR • *. - 4, 272 322 3.16
M1 LK DRI ED 2, 998 1 89 189
RICE M I LLED - - 772 .58 58
VEGETABLE C I L - 2, O44 536 526
: 1 O, Oſ36 1, 1 os 1, O.89
SoMAL1A REPUBLI c - * ,
coRN soy A Mi LK 1, 798 21 4 21 O
CORN - 18, 361 766 766
CORNMEAL 5, 467 41 O 402
M I LK OR I. ED - 17, 1 O4 855 855
R 1 CE M I LLED 2, 205 1 65 165
VEGETABLE C I L 5, 234 1, 337 1, 306
WHEAT FLO! JR 16, 325 1, 38 l 1, 351
66, 6 1 4 5, 128 5, oss
ST. K. I TTS
R 1 CE MI 1-1_ED 22 3 3
22 3. 3
ST. LUC I A -
RICE M l l LED } ] 1 !
* - | 1 1 l
SUDAN - - - * . . . . .
BEANS ORY ED I Bl_E 1, 1 Oo 232 229
CORNMEAL 7 OO 46 46
s F sorghum GRITs 3 OO 26 25
M I LK DR 1 ED - 1, 124 56 56
RICE M I LLED - - 3, 649 . 274 274
VEGETABLE O L | 65 4 | 4 O
- 7, O38 675 67 O
SWAZ I LAND - . -
CORN soy A M I LK - - 699 77 76
. 699 77 76
TANZAN ( A - - -
BULGUR - 2, O68 54 15O
MILK DRI Ep 1, 641 82 82
VEGETABLE O | L 2, 265 6.86 6O3
WHEAT FLOUR 54, 986 - 4, G8 O 4, 590
6O, 96.O 5, GO2 5, 425
THAI LAND
vegetABLE or L 1, 764 * A 84 474
1, 764 484 474
TCGC
..—BULGUR 4, 6 O2 34 6 34 |
CORN 1 , 432 - 58 . 58
CORNMEAL 3 236 272 266
GRA N SORGHUM 550 3 ] 31
M! LK DRI ED 2. 3ſ;O 17 177
vEGETABLE CIL 2 253 628 - 61
1 4 ×1ſ; 3 1, 512 l, 484
UGANDA - - - * - * . • . .
CORNMEAL - 7, 587 5 15 505
VEGETABLE O J L a , 8.18 2, 374 2, 344
| 6, 4:35, 2, 889 2, 849
BURK I NA FASe - r - -
CORNMEAL - . . 23, 737 - 1, 401 1, 378
M I LK DRI ED . . - - 12, 869 686 686
VEGETABLE G1 L . . . . . - - 8, 7.17 2, 428 . . . 2, 370
WHEAT FLOUR . . . . . . - 8oo 65. 64
46, 123 4, 580 4, 498
748
.*
COUNTRY SH | PRED CCC
AND QUANT I TY | NVO I CE EXPORT
COMMOD I TY ( FOUNDS ) VAL. UE VALUE
ZAl RE REPUBL I C
CORN 2, 349 1 O3 1 O3
M I LK DRI ED - 1, 763 88 88
RI CE M | LLED 22, 747 1, 706 1, 7 O6
26, 859 1, 897 1, 897
Z! MBABWE -
WHEAT 21, 480 1, O29 l, O29
21, 4 BO 1, O29 1, O29
3, 155, 572 28O, 356 276, 35
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
MEDIUM-TERM OUTLOOK FOR AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
Question: Mr. Kay, you mentioned in your testimony the export
outlook for this next year is positive. While I am encouraged by
this news, I am interested to know what you expect future
agricultural exports to be over the next two to four years?
Answer: It is difficult to project agricultural exports beyond
next year, since the area planted to annual crops throughout the
world changes in response to market conditions and government
programs, while yield is changing due to weather and other factors.
Certainly the trend-lines for U.S. exports of most agricultural
commodities are up, since population growth and rising incomes are
producing a gradual increase in total demand. We are confident that
our enhanced competitive position, due in great measure to the
provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill (lower loan rates, a temporary
export subsidy program, increased market development activity), will
increased our exports over the medium and long term.
LONG TERM MARKET DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Question: What role will the Foreign Agricultural Service's
long term market development policy play in the future of
agricultural exports?
Answer: FAS' long-term agricultural market development policy
is aimed at expanding market opportunities for the full range of
U.S. farm, forest and fisheries products. In the area of bulk
commodities, we will seek to increase demand from basic processing
industries, focusing on the developing world which will supply most
of the growth in total consumption in years to come. To maximize
the value to the American economy of our farm exports, promotion of
value-added agricultural products will continue to be a high
priority, with the focus on those developed markets where we can
increase U.S. suppliers' market share, and the newly-industrialized
countries (NICs) which offer the greatest medium-term market
expansion potential. Promotion of semi-processed goods offers
excellent potential in those countries in transition from the
highly-protected market regimes, typical of developing countries, to
the more open regimes that we hope to find in our major trading
partners.
749
FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
Question: Why was the budget for foreign market development cut
for fiscal year 1989?
Answer: The foreign market development budget requested for
fiscal year 1989 is consistent with the level of the original fiscal
year 1988 budget as submitted to Congress. Holding to a level
consistent with recent years supports the President's deficit
reduction efforts.
TEA BUDGET INCREASE
Question: You mention in your testimony the 1989 fiscal year
budget proposes an increase of $295 million in the Targeted Export
Assistance Program. Do you intend to distribute the additional
funds proportionately among existing commodities?
Answer: The Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, calls for a
Targeted Export Assistance program level of $325 million in fiscal
year 1989, up from $110 million in each fiscal year since 1986.
However, the Department is proposing legislation to reduce by
$30 million the program level for TEA in fiscal years 1989 and 1990
in support of the President’s budget deficit reduction efforts. If
the Congress acts favorably on this proposal then the TEA program
level for fiscal year 1989 would be $295 million. We intend to
distribute TEA funds as we have in the past, that is, through an
allocation process open to everyone that is interested and can
qualify for participation in the program. We do also expect, as in
allocations made for the first three years of TEA assistance, that
certain commodity groups already participating in the program will
likely receive additional TEA support. Each year's allocation
process requires all interested program participants to apply and
compete for the program support available. Participation in any
single year allocation does not guarantee continued favorable
allocations.
Question: What are the possibilities for placing additional
emphasis on traditional agricultural products such as soybeans, feed
grains, pork and beef?
Answer: 0f the products you just cited, soybeans, and red meats
will be given priority consideration for assistance, in the fiscal
year 1989 TEA allocation process, as they meet the criteria for
priority consideration as called for in the legislation. Feed
grains have received TEA allocations in every fiscal year since the
inception of the TEA program, and we expect to receive an
application for continued funding of feedgrain market development
activities through the TEA program in fiscal year 1989. As with
other commodities, it remains to be seen what level of additional
private contributions the groups supporting these commodities would
be prepared to raise.
TEA ACTIVITIES
Question: Your testimony included several examples of the use
of TEA funds. Are these projects being funded by moneys from the
1988 fiscal year.
750
Answer: Yes, many of these projects are supported with fiscal
year 1988 TEA resources, as well as those which were allocated in
the previous fiscal year.
Question: Does any of the fiscal year 1988 money remain to be
distributed?
Answer: The entire $110 million available for the fiscal year
1988 TEA program has been committed.
Question: How do you plan to distribute any remaining funds?
Answer: All funds have been allocated and the allocations have
been publicly announced.
ATTACHE OFFICES
Question: Your testimony mentioned the Agricultural Attaches
work on policy and market access issues. The 1985 Food Security Act
expanded export programs and increased the burden placed on our
overseas offices. Does the current budget allow these offices to
adequately meet all of the demands being placed on the Attaches
under the new programs?
Answer: There is no question that the export programs mandated
by the Food Security Act and expanding trade policy work have had a
significant workload impact on our offices overseas. While the
fiscal year 1989 budget does not propose reductions for these
offices, it does require the absorption of overseas inflation and
exchange rate losses from available funds. ge
751
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURDICK
MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY TRAINING PROGRAM
Question: The Middle-Income Country Training Program is again
proposed for termination in fisca 1 year 1989. Would the fiscal year
1988 appropriation be sufficient to allow the 180 program partici-
pants to complete their training if no additional funds were made
available?
Answer: When participants are selected, the entire amount of
funding necessary for them to complete their training is obligated.
Therefore, no additional funds would be required to complete the
training of the approximately 250 participants currently in the
program.
Question: Do any of the Middle-Income Country Training Program
participant countries offer United States agricultural students and
scientists opportunities for studying in their home countries?
Answer: We are unaware of any specific programs funded by MIC
participant countries which afford opportunities for Americans simi-
lar to those afforded to MIC participant country nationals.
However, this is not to say that they do not afford American scien-
tists the opportunity to study in their home countries, only that
they do not have the resources to fund programs such as the MIC
program. Of the 13 countries participating in MIC this year, nine
of them have been involved with programs allowing Americans access
to their research institutions or have been involved in technical
exchanges with us. Some of this involvement pre-dates the MIC
program.
Question: If so, which countries have offered such oppor-
tunities, and which have not? º
Answer: Of the MIC participant countries, Algeria, Cote
d'Ivoire, Colombia, South Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, Venezuela,
and Yugoslavia have offered such opportunities, either through activ
vities such as a recent visit by the Nebraska Agricultural
Leadership Council to Cote d'Ivoire which resulted from the MIC
program itself, or in conjunction with their participation in
programs sponsored by OICD's divisions of Scientific and Technical
Cooperation or International Research. Discussions are under way
with Malaysia to set up a program to allow such access to American
scientists. Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago are new MIC par-
ticipants in fiscal year 1988. As for Iraq, the thirteenth MIC par-
ticipant for this year, we are not aware of any such activities.
Question: What type of projects have been sponsored?
Answer: The type of projects include long-term research
lasting up to several years, technical exchanges involving recipro-
cal visits for the purpose of exchanging technical information or
germ plasm, or one-way visits by American de legations which grow out
of the contacts and relationships developed as a result of the MIC
program.
752
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
Question: The Scientific and Technical Exchange Division
directs exchange programs with foreign governments and research
institutions. Are the subjects of each exchange program of mutual
interest to the participants?
Answer: The underlying principle behind every OICD scientific
and technical exchange is mutual benefit and balanced reciprocity.
By conducting an in-depth analysis of each exchange activity and its
benefits, bilateral Working Group negotiations are designed to
ensure that this principle is adhered to. In fact, several bila-
teral agricultural agreements center around a core of mutually bene-
ficial topics that were agreed to at the time the agreement was
first signed. To say that each individual exchange activity is of
equal benefit to each country is , however, not the case. Often,
there is an overall, rather than one-on-one, balance struck. For
example, since the United States is more advanced in dealing with
salinity management in agricultural soils, the Soviets seek infor-
mation and technology from the United States to combat these
problems. The United States is interested in preventing soil com-
paction, a problem the Soviets have had to deal with extensively due
to their heavier agricultural machinery. So, U.S. scientists will
study this issue in the U.S.S.R. In the end, both sides obtain
information to benefit their respective agricultural systems,
although each side may benefit in different subject areas.
Question: What is the share of funds that is contributed by
the participants of the exchange program?
Answer: STC exchange activities are all governed by a policy
of co-financing. Conservative estimates of outside funds received
for our scientific and technical cooperation effort is one dollar
for every one OICD dollar. The primary method of leveraging funds
is through co-financing with U.S. participants' home organizations
or universities. For about 90 percent of the participants, OICD
splits the travel costs with the participant's home organization on
an equal basis. The other organization also continues to pay the
participant's salary and non-wage benefits. The other ten percent
of participants pay all of their expenses, with OICD organizing the
trip and planning the itinerary. Private sector participants and
all participants in the U.S.–U.S.S.R. program fall into this cate-
gory and pay 100 percent of their travel costs.
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS OF THE MIC TRAINING PROGRAM
Question: Despite the reduction proposed for the Middle-Income
Country Training Program, OICD's budget proposal would maintain the
same level of staff as in fiscal year 1988. How many Washington,
D.C. staff work on the Middle-Income Country Training Program?
Answer: On page 26-7 of the explanatory notes, the Project
Statement table shows the elimination of the two staff-years as so-
ciated with the MIC Training Program for fiscal year 1989, which is
then reflected on the Available Funds and Staff-Years table on page
26-2. The line item "Salaries and Expenses" shows a reduction from
59 staff-years in FY 1988 to 57 staff-years in FY 1989. These two
staff-years represent the Washington, D.C. staff who work on the
Middle-Income Country Training Program.
753 |
FERS ENROLLMENT
Question: Do you expect that enrollment in the Federal
Employee Retirement System will increase in fiscal year 1989? How
many employees enrolled in FERS in fisca 1 year 1988?
Answer: Enrollment in the Federal Employee Retirement System
will increase by virtue of the fact that new hires will automati-
cally become FERS enrollees. If a second open season for transfers
from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) into FERS were
established, it is presumed that some employees might voluntarily
enroll in FERS because of the clarification of the technical amend-
ments in December, 1987. However, we have received few inquiries
which would indicate that this number would be significant.
So far in fiscal year 1988, we have four new FERS enrollees.
The total number of transfers during the open season was 12.
OICD FULL-TIME STAFF
Question: Does OICD plan to maintain 57 full-time staff,
including the proposed position for a representative in Rome?
Answer: The budget proposed for fiscal year 1989 includes 57
full-time staff funded out of appropriated accounts, which includes
the FODAG representative in Rome. The decrease of four full-time
positions funded by appropriations between fiscal year 1988 and
fisca1 year 1989 represents the elimination of the staff associated
with the Middle-Income Country Training program and the Foreign
Currency Research program, both proposed for termination in the
fiscal year 1989 budget. In addition, OICD plans to have 130 full-
time positions funded through reimbursable agreements with the
Agency for International Development (AID), and 16 full-time staff
funded through USDA development assistance and international
research projects with Spain, Saudi Arabia, and other developing
countries.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
OICD'S PROGRAMS AND FOREIGN TRADE PRACTICES
Question: The United States has been negotiating with South
Korea on the issue of tobacco trade. While South Korea has repealed
laws which made American tobacco products illegal, they are still
interfering with free trade through delays and expensive taxes on
American products. Much of the action on the part of the United
States has been through our trade representative. Can the Office of
International Cooperation and Development become involved to ensure
that American tobacco products are not discriminated against in the
South Korean market?
Answer: . The Office of International Cooperation and
Development (OICD) has no authority to become directly involved with
reducing barriers to American products in any particular country.
Question: What role, in general, can OICD play in eliminating
unfair trade practices on the part of other nations ?
754
Answer: OICD can contribute to eliminating unfair trade prac-
tices in basically two ways, both of which have their effects
indirectly. The first is through the work of our International
Organizational Affairs Division with multilateral organizations, in
which we represent USDA and advance U.S. interests. For example,
work carried out as part of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Trade Mandate study is now
being utilized in the Uruguay Round trade negotiations. The second
is through programs such as the Middle-Income Country Training
Program, in which mid-and senior-level officials from both the
public and private sector in AID-graduate countries come to the U.S.
for long or short term training in various aspects of agriculture.
The preliminary results show that the understanding gained and con-
tacts made can lead to increased U.S. agricultural exports to the
participating countries.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS
FOREIGN CURRENCY RESEARCH
Question: Mr. Goldberg - in your budget request for OICD for
fiscal year 1989, you propose to eliminate the Special Foreign
Currency Research Program. I am concerned that OMB and CB0 score
this funding program differently. Can you explain why? Why does
the State Department get a different scoring for its use of foreign
currency? What are you doing to pursue this issue?
Answer: Based on the discussions with the appropriate budget
analysts at both OMB and CBO, we have not been able to identify any
difference in their budget treatment for this or similar special
foreign currency programs. Because these programs receive dollar
appropriations which are used by the administering agencies to
purchase the foreign currencies, both OMB and CBO "score" budget
authority and outlays against the programs.
In the past, there were several cases where agencies were
appropriated excess foreign currencies directly, rather than the
dollars necessary to purchase them. In these cases, no outlays were
assigned to the appropriations. However, we have been advised that
this type of appropriation has not been used in recent years.
As you know, the President's Budget proposes to phase out the
Special Foreign Currency Research Program as well as all other spe-
cial foreign currency programs. Based on all of these con-
siderations, we see no need to pursue this matter further.
Question: Dr. Wallace - If you are successful in your request
to have the OICD budget reduced by $3 million, how will this affect
the many projects being conducted overseas that benefit U.S. farmers
that we would rather not conduct here for health and other reasons?
Answer: We propose to phase out the program. We will continue
to administer the research already underway for as long as funds
remain, but no new projects will be undertaken.
755
Question: Dr. Wallace - What is the current need for research
funds made available by the Special Foreign Currency program, con-
sidering all requests? Do you leverage these funds to attract
greater foreign financial cooperation?
Answer: During the 1980s, annual obligations under this program
have averaged just under $5.0 million. However, the real constraint
we are facing is the greatly diminished supplies of U.S.-owned
foreign currencies.
We are currently leveraging our funds. Currently, Poland,
Yugoslavia, and Taiwan match our contribution do 11ar-for-dollar.
However, there are countries that cannot do that, i.e., Pakistan,
Egypt, and Costa Rica. We have terminated our program with
Pakistan, and have only two projects in Costa Rica and three in
Egypt.
EFFECT OF MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY TRAINING PROGRAM ELIMINATION
Question: Dr. Wallace - If you are successful in getting the
Cochran MIC program eliminated, what will happen to the efforts to
solve development problems and to develop trade linkages in the 13
countries targeted for assistance in fiscal year 1988?
Answer: If the Middle-Income Country Training program is
eliminated, the International Training Division of OICD will cease
its activities in the 13 target countries. As these countries are
all AID-graduate countries, we know of no other U.S. program
available to offer training programs to these countries.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN
IMPACT OF FUNDING REDUCTION ON FOREIGN CURRENCY RESEARCH
Question: In FY 1988, OICD's appropriation was reduced -- from
$2.5 million to $1.5 million -- for scientific activities over seas
(foreign currency research). What have you done to adjust to this
lower funding level? Have you had to curtail any research activi-
ties?
Answer: Yes, we had to terminate the Translation Program,
which was the only source of funds that the USDA National
Agricultural Library had for foreign translations. We have ter-
minated our research program with Pakistan, which has been removed
from the excess foreign currency list, and curtailed our programs
with Poland and Taiwan.
Question: This year, no foreign currency research funding is
requested. Are you aware of any other funds that could be used to
continue this program?
Answer: No, not at this time. This is the major source of
funds for USDA-supported international research activities conducted
overseas with foreign currencies.
756
VALUE OF OVERSEAS RESEARCH
Question: With all the good research facilities we have in the
United States, why do we need overseas research?
Answer: The majority of our crops are not native to the
Americas. When it is desirable to expand the genetic base of a par-
ticular crop, then one must return to the area of the world where
that crop originated. Most of our pests, diseases and weeds have
also been imported. When it becomes desirable to obtain biocontrol
agents for insect pests or weeds, one must return to the region of
the world where they originated. It is impossible to study foreign
crop or livestock diseases in their natural habitats in the U.S. --
this can only be done where they originated. Study of these
diseases in U.S. laboratories under quarantine is of limited scope
and value -- and very expensive. Therefore, many studies cannot be
done here at all. In addition, some countries are more advanced in
certain areas of agricultural research than we are, such as
aquaculture and dryland farming, and we benefit by gaining access to
that information.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCLURE
AVAILABILITY OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES FOR RESEARCH
I noticed that you have proposed the termination of the Foreign
Currency Research Program. Your justification states that foreign
currencies in excess have declined and availability has diminished.
Your statement does not say this source of funding has gone, only
lessoned. Since literature from the Department of Agriculture shows
that research costs using this program are ten percent of in-house
research, it would seem reasonable to use any remaining funds for
this cost effective research.
Question: What remaining excess foreign currencies exist by
country?
Answer: The only countries that are considered to be in the
excess category are Poland and Burma. However, there are several
where repayments are still being made, i.e., Taiwan, Pakistan, and
Yugoslavia.
Question: Are there any potential sources of excess foreign
currencies?
Answer: While there may not be any countries other than Poland
and Burma in which U.S. owned foreign currencies are judged to be in
excess, USDA has the authority to use any foreign currencies "owned
by or owed to the U.S. government". This allows us to use Currency
Use Payment (CUP) funds, which are local currencies received as par-
tial payments -- generally five percent -- for P. L. 480 Title I com-
modity sales in some countries. During fiscal year 1987, CUP's were
included in 16 Title I country agree-ments, and those funds may be
available in some cases to fund Foreign Currency Research projects.
757
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SPECTER
IMPACT OF OICD PROGRAMS ON U. S. JOBS AND EXPORTS
Question: Dr. Wallace, as you may know, when Treasury
Secretary James Baker III testified be fore the Senate Appropriations
Committee on March 1, 1988, I expressed my concern about U.S. sup-
port for World Bank development programs in countries which engage
in unfair trade practices. What distinction would you draw between
the technical assistance and market development programs funded
under the Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD)
and World Bank development projects? Do you have any evidence of
lost U. S. jobs as a result of foreign export programs developed
with the assistance of OICD?
Answer: The Office of International Cooperation and
Development (OICD) does not engage in technical assistance and
market development programs which direct ly involve commodities in
surplus which would compete with commodities grown by U.S. farmers.
There is no evidence at present to indicate that U.S. jobs are lost
as a result of activities conducted by OICD. The agency is
required, under the Food Security Act of 1985, to conduct a regular
as sessment of USDA international assistance activities to determine
if such activities have a negative impact on U.S. agricultural
exports. The last two assessments have shown that USDA's inter-
national assistance activities do not have a negative impact on U.S.
exports. The vast majority of USDA international assistance activi-
ties are not commodity oriented. The few that are commodity
oriented involve either noncompetitive commodities or are not pro-
duction or export related. USDA's international assistance activi-
ties are designed to raise rural incomes in target countries through
improved institutional development. Raising rural incomes in deve-
loping countries has been shown to be a key element in increasing
the global demand for U.S. agricultural products.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator BURDICK. So this ends today's hearing. Our next hearing will
be held this Thursday, March 24, at 10 a.m., in this same room. At that
time we will hear from representatives of the Farm Credit Adminis-
tration. The Subcommittee now stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., Tuesday, March 22, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 24.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Page
Army, Thomas J., Deputy Administrator, Agricultural Research Service................... 109
Bair, Jim, Confidential Assistant, Federal Grain Inspection Service 433
Biographical sketch 441
Bentley, Orville G., Assistant Secretary for Science and Education............................ 109
Prepared statement 113
Boyle, J. Patrick, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service...: 459
Bridge, Galen S., Deputy Chief, Soil Conservation Service 577
Buchanan, Robert L., Acting Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service 419
Biographical sketch 432
Carlson, William D., Associate Administrator, Cooperative State Research Service....... 133
Carter, Mary E., Associate Administrator, Agricultural Research Service................... 109
Clegg, Denzil O., Associate Administrator, Extension Service...................................... 142
Crawford, Lester M., Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service................. 442
Prepared statement 444.
Dewhurst, Stephen B., Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis....... 1, 109,415,563
Fichtner, Gerald J., Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service …~~~~~~~ 419
Biographical sketch 431
Gilles, Kenneth, Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection 415
Prepared statement r 417
Glosser, James W., Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service 419
Prepared statement 421
Biographical sketch 430
Goldberg, Richard, Acting Under Secretary for International Affairs................... 563, 651
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from Iowa, prepared statement.................. 20
Guroff, Avram E., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of International
Cooperation and Development 678
Hall, David C., Director, Budget Division, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service 563
Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa, prepared statement 149
Harris, Clare I., Associate Administrator, Cooperative State Research Service......... 133
Hertz, Milton J., Administrator, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service 563
Prepared statement 569
Husnik, Donald F., Acting Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service....................................................................................…. 419
Biographical sketch 431
(i)
ii
Jesperson, Ruth B., Budget Officer, Office of International Cooperation and
Development
Biographical sketch
Johnson, Billy B., Acting Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
Biographical sketch
Johnsrud, Myron D., Administrator, Extension Service..................................................
Prepared statement..... ſº gº
Jordan, John Patrick, Administrator, Cooperative State Research Service .................
Prepared statement * * * * *
Kaplan, Dennis, Office of Budget and Program Analysis..............................................
Kay, Thomas O., Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service....................................
Prepared statement..... • & s is a s e º 'º e e º ºs &
Kinney, Terry B., Jr., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.......... ... • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e
Prepared statement
Long, Robert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Science and Education .............................
Lyng, Richard E., Secretary of Agriculture
Prepared statement.....
Manley, William T., Deputy Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.............
Marks, Howard S., Associate Administrator, Office of International Cooperation
and Development
Marshall, John, Director, Field Management Division, Federal Grain Inspection
Service.…~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~…
Massaro, Linda P., Deputy Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service...............
Medley, Terry L., Director, Coordination Staff, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.........
Biographical sketch....
Miller, W. Kirk, Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection Service..............................
Prepared statement........
Myers, Peter C., Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Palensky, Judith C., Director, Budget Planning and Analysis Staff, Soil
Conservation Service......
Biographical sketch
Peterson, John W., Deputy Chief, Soil Conservation Service........
Powers, Joseph A., Deputy Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service......
Prucha, Ronald J., Associate Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service ...
Rankin, Richard R., Deputy Administrator, Extension Service....................................
Robinson, Nancy J., Director, Legislative and Public Affairs, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service * e º &
Roeder, Joseph A., Director, Financial Management Division, Agricultural
Marketing Service -
Sasser, Hon. James R., U.S. Senator from Tennessee, statement of...........................
Prepared statement...
Scaling, Wilson, Chief, Soil Conservation Service...........................................................
Prepared statement.
Sequeira, Luis D., Chief Scientist, Cooperative State Research Service .....................
Biographical sketch....
Shaw, Robert R., Deputy Chief, Soil Conservation Service
Sims, Melvin E., General Sales Manager
Prepared Statement........
678
683
419
430
142
145
133
137
651
655
657
109
118
109
459
678
433
459
419
432
433
433
577
586
577
442
142
419
459
564
51
577
578
133
141
577
667
668
iii
Slagle, Larry B., Acting Associate Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
Biographical sketch
Soderstrom, Robert, Director, Resource Management Division, Federal Grain
Inspection Service
Tallent, William, Assistant Administrator, Agricultural Research Service...................
Veneman, Ann, Associate Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service......................
Biographical sketch
Victor, John R., Budget Officer, Agricultural Research Service
Walker, James L., Assistant Administrator, Office of International Cooperation
and Development
Wallace, Joan S., Administrator, Office of International Cooperation and
Development
Prepared statement
Wallace, William S., Director, Budget and Accounting Staff, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service
West, William L., Director, Budget and Finance Division, Food Safety and
Inspection Service e &
Wilder, Manly S., Associate Chief, Soil Conservation Service......................................
Biographical sketch.........................................................................................
Wiley, Harvey, Branch Chief, Financial Services, Federal Grain Inspection
Service
Biographical sketch
419
430
433
109
655
666
109
678
678
679
419
442
577
586
433
441
Williams, John W., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service... 655, 667
SUBJECT INDEX
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Agricultural: Page
Outlook 5
Reform 7
Trade - 87
Animal damage control 104
Asian trip 80
Beef imports 49
Budget Summit Agreement 26
Budget-1989 7, 18
Commodity supplemental assistance 107
Conservation reserve 24, 54, 61
Corn prices 46
Dairy program 25
Domestic food assistance 17
Economics and statistics 16
Export:
Enhancements. 86
Market development 9
Exports 48
Farm Credit Assistance Board 106
Farm:
Debt 33
Economy 18
Federal crop insurance ... 57 88
Feed grains . 60
Feeding programs 71
Financial Assistance Board 28
Food and nutrition 95
Food safety inspection 89
Food Stamps 73
Geneva talks 52
Investigations → - 91
Loans:
Crop 37
FmHA 32
Marketing 28, 79
Storage 22
Marketing and inspection 16
NAL grant 103
Nutrition education and training 76
Office of the Secretary l
Pesticides and herbicides 35
Plant Science centers 62
(v)
vi
Poultry: Page
Inspection............................... - * * g º º 'º a s 36
Isolation unit º 104
Program reductions 103
Pseudorabies & º ºs 59
Public Law 480 81
Questions submitted 77
REA programs 21, 23
Research and extension 15
Rural development ll, 58, 70
Small community and rural development 10
Soil and water conservation 13
Soil tilth center 62
Staffing 91
Sugar program 65, 82, 106
Sunflower oil 22
Surface and ground water quality 102
Swampbuster provisions 63
TEFAP tº gº e º is 72, 96
Temporary emergency food assistance 72
Trade negotiations 7
Trade zones 82
Trees - 56
Water and waste grants 34, 105
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE
EXTENSION SERVICE
Agricultural Research Service tº º 109
Budget-1989 * 117
Opening remarks. & tº e º 'º 110
Alternative crops. ... 153
Animal and pest research 392
Aquaculture 201, 206, 218, 384, 392
ATTRA 399
Barley....... 164, 209, 214
Beltsville facilities g 197
Biological control 183
Biotechnology 375, 381
Budget decreases 153
Budget-1989 157
Buildings and facilities ... 163, 216
Citrus canker 202
Competitive grants 112, 154, 220
Congressional directives 120
Cooperative State Research Service 133
Budget-1989 135
Opening remarks 133
Crossing house, Canal Point, FL 203
District of Columbia 406
EFNEP 399
Extension Service 142, 396
Budget 1989.…... 144
Opening remarks 142
vii
Facilities
177,
Farm safety
Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)
Fire ants
Food safety and quality
Germplasm
Graduate fellows
Grasshopper control
Ground water:
Quality
lll, 147,
Research
370,
Higher education
Human nutrition
151, 175,
Information dissemination
Informational documents
Laboratory space
Low input agriculture
166, 204, 304,
Madison, WI
New crops
Nonfood:
Products
Uses
Peas and lentils
183,
Planning
Plant Science centers
161,
Potatoes
Poultry isolation unit
... 168, 211,
203,
Program increases
Questions submitted
Rapeseed
Renaissance '93
Renewable resources
Research and Extension Users Advisory Board
Research:
Oregon
Outlook..............................….....
Rural:
Developments centers
Rivitalization................
Science and technology centers
Section 1440 grants
Sheep experiment station..........
Significant accomplishments.......
Soil tilth laboratory
Special projects.....
Special research grants
Stirling engine
Stratospheric ozone:
Depletion..........
tº s e º ºs e s ∈ º e º gº tº gº
Research
Sunflower and Sugarbeet research ......
Trade centers.
Tropical and subtropical research
University research........
Water:
w e º e º 'º e º e s e e º e s gº e º 'º e º 'º e º ºs s a sº e º ºs º & e e º ºs
Issues
Quality
... 389,
173,
Page
208
405
410
209
111
196
372
172
158
387
386
205
113
118
208
382
214
152
203
154
213
137
218
395
381
191
162
391
170
401
393
215
116
410
113
112
400
212
134
, 160
405
, 391
369
148
, 385
183
383
380
112
4ll
216
viii
Western Wheat Marketing Center.
Whitefly
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Administrative costs
Agricultural Marketing Service
Budget-1989
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Budget-1989
* & e º $ tº
420, 426,
Mission
Animal:
Damage control
Welfare
503, 504, 512,
Beef grade name change
Blackbird pilot project.
Boll weevil
Brucellosis and Screwworm
424,
Contaminated poultry
Cotton classing
Disaster relief purchases
Discretionary inspections
443,
Dust suppressant
EEO
Emergency surplus removal
Experimental use permits
Federal Grain Inspection Service
Budget-1989
Federal Seed Act
Fish inspection
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Budget-1989
471, 477,
Grain quality
Grasshoppers
Gypsy moth
469, 499,
Hazard analysis
Import inspection
Information systems
Inspection integrity
Leafy spurge
Market news
Marketing orders
Microbiological:
Control
Criteria
tº º ſº tº º
MOSCAMED and CAPMED
Noxious weeds
PACA
Pink bollworm
& sº s e º ºs e º e s e º a g
Pseudorabies
Questions submitted
4 g º e º e º e s e e s is s
.
556
543
460
419
468
419
519
518
547
470
515
527
444
557
476
538
534
438
475
470
433
433
560
536
536
442
535
525
531
540
479
443
472
470
480
550
ix
Residue control
Safety
Salmonella
Scientific base
States, payments to
Sunflower seed oil
Training center
User fees
Varroa mite
Wheat classification
Wholesale market development
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Administrative support
Agricultural Conservation Program
618,
563,
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Appropriation language
Australian SCS
Barley deficiency payments
593,
Budget summit
Colorado River Basin
Commodity certificates
Commodity Credit Corporation.........
Program signup
Commodity program outlays
Common yields
Conservation:
Plans 635,
Reserve 568, 573, 592, 595, 597, 603, 622,
Corn reserves
642, 644,
627, 630,
Cost-share programs
Dairy Commission Report
e e º e º 'º º e º is tº e º s
Dairy indemnities
Delayed grain delivery
Drought relief
Emergency conservation
612.
Erosion
Food Security Act
580.
Foreign persons, payments to
Grain storage loans
Loan extensions
National Technical Center
National, state, and local priorities
Payment limitations
613,
Production reduction
Questions submitted
Reserve grain
Reserve loan extensions
Rural Abandoned Mine Program
Salaries and expenses
Soil Conservation Service
Budget-1989
577,
Staffing
Sugar program
589, 596,
598,
Sunflower oil
472,
442
438
474
420
555
475
443
439
498
533
545
570
627
602
602
640
623
639
608
591
57]
622
567
617
647
647.
590
621
614
611
592
594
626
648
596
618
632
614
648
582
620
615
600
589
591
638
609
577
584
637
626
566
Swampbuster. 586, 602, 629, 634,
Water bank
Water resource projects
Wetlands
Wheat certificates
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SALES MANAGER
Activity plans * e º sº
Africa, food to...........................................
Attaché:
Agriculture
Language proficiency
Offices
Reporting
Barter program ... 668,
Budget proposal
Cooperator program
Dollar depreciation
Ethiopia, drought in.…...
Export:
Credit guarantees 667, 671, 676,
Enhancements 667, 670,
Exports * 653,
Meat and dairy
Farm Subsidies.........
Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) 697,
Food Security Act tº G
Foreign Agricultural Service
Budget request-1989 655,
Foreign currency research
Foreign markets.......
General Sales Manager
Budget request-1989...... * &
Great Lakes set aside........ 702,
GSM-102 is tº 689,
GSM-103 tº e
India, grains to ...
Information and marketing system....
Lebanon, wheat assistance to
Market development............................................. 663, 683, 696, 738,
Middle-Income Country Training Program .........
Minister-counselors
Office of International Cooperation and Development. 678,
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Peas and lentils
Personal Services..................................................
Public Law 480 & & e e 673, 694, 700, 703,
Questions submitted -
Reduced funding
Rice, cotton, Soybeans, poultry
Russia, wheat to
Scientific and technical exchange
Page
645
641
607
640
588
612
708
721
665
713
750
714
675
653
718
718
694
729.
735
685
675
704
753
692
655
665
754
656
667
668
727
736
737
721
719
715
748
751
657
753
712
738
657
726
695
734
735
721
752
xi
Section 416
Staffing..…. … 657, 683, 687,
Sunflower oil.............................................. 695,
Targeted export assistance.................................................................... 690, 700, 707, 738,
TEA audits............................................ 699,
Trade:
Bill
Missions
Negotiations 655,
Offices...................................... tº º gº e º &
Policy
With Japan........................... * G is e º 'º e ſº
U.S. jobs and exports................
Walnut TEA Program, OIG investigation of
World Food Program
O
724
752
697
749
709
693
685
723
712
660
706
757
717
III.iii.II
3 9015 03989 2347