Table Of Content\^%i>\\j\ S. H.O. ,04-7,3. PT. 2
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
104-713/^
Y 4.AP 6/2; S.HRO.
PT. 2
Agriculture' Rural Developnenti and...
Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997
1 Q4'>& congress, second session
H.R. 3603
PART 2 (Pages 1-258) Hl\^
j S
NONDEPARTMENTALWITNESSES 13SP
S. Hrg. 104-713, Pt. 2
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIS-
CAL YEAR 1997
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOlSfD SESSION
ON
H.R. 3603
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRLATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVEL-
OPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGEN-
CIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
PART 2 (Pages 1-258)
Nondepartmental witnesses
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-976cc WASHINGTON : 1997
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053983-8
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
J. Keith Keiwedy, StaffDirector
Mark Van de Water, Deputy StaffDirector
James H. English, Minority StaffDirector
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
SLADE GORTON, Washington J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ex oflicio ex officio
Professional Staff
Rebecca Davies
Hunt Shipman
Galen Fountain (Minority)
Administrative Support
James B. Reynolds
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Agricultural Systems forEnvironmental Quality 1
AmericanAssociation ofNurserymen 4
AmericanAssociation ofRetired Persons 9
American Farm Bureau Federation 12
AmericanFederation ofGovernmentEmployees 16
AmericanForest and PaperAssociation 19
American Honey ProducersAssociation, Inc 23
American Indian HigherEducation Consortium 24
American Sheep IndustryAssociation 29
Association ofResearch Directors, Inc 33
California Farm BureauFederation 35
Cahfomia Industry and GrovemmentCoalition on PM-10 38
Center onHunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy 41
Centocor, Inc 43
Children's Nutrition Research Center 46
Coalition ofEPSCoR, University ofArkansas 50
Coalition onSmokingOR Health 53
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 56
Colorado River Salinity Control Program 57
Colorado State University 58
Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network 60
Council forAgricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 63
Defenders ofWildlife 66
1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities 70
FDACouncU 73
Florida State University 76
Fond du Lac Band ofLake SuperiorChippewa 78
City ofGainesville, FL 80
Georgetown UniversityMedical Center 81
Holden's Foundation Seeds, Inc 82
Human Nutrition Research CenteronAging, Tufts University 85
Humane Societyofthe United States 88
Illinois GroundwaterConsortium 91
University ofIllinois:
Statement ofDennis Campion 95
Statement ofPeterJ. Barry 96
Statements ofJamesJ. Stukel 99, 102
Statement ofNaomi B. Lynn 104
International Association ofFish and WildlifeAgencies 109
Livestock MarketingAssociation 114
Lummi Indian Business Council 115
MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthern California 116
National Association of Conservation Districts and National Association of
State ConservationAgencies 117
NationalAssociation ofState Foresters 120
National Association ofState Universities and Land-Grant Colleges:
Statement ofDr. Charles B. Browning 123
Statement ofDr. MiloJ. Shtdt 130
Statement ofDr. Hiram D. Palmertree 132
StatementofDr. Paul D. Hummer 135
StatementofDr. Francille M. Firebaugh 138
StatementofDr. James P. Lassoie 141
NationalAssociation ofWheat Growers 145
National CenterforResource Innovations 150
National Citrus Research Council 153
(III)
IV
Page
National Cooperative BusinessAssociation 155
National Cotton Council ofAmerica 157
National EasterSeal Society 162
National Oat Improvement Committee 166
National Potato Council 167
National Rural HousingCoalition 171
National Rural Telecom Association 175
National Rural WaterAssociation 179
National Telephone CooperativeAssociation 184
National Utilities ContractorsAssociation 187
National Watershed Coalition 190
National Water ResourcesAssociation 194
Northwestern University 195
The Oceanic Institute 198
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommuni-
cations Companies 199
Organization ofProfessional Employees ofthe DepartmentofAigriculture 202
Pharmaceutical Research and Maniifacturers of.^nerica 205
Regional Aquaculture Centers:
StatementofDr. Kevan L. Main 207
Statement ofLesterW. Myers 209
Statement ofDr. Richard Spencer 210
StatementofDr. Robert Rheault 212
StatementofDr. Ted R. Batterson 213
StatementofDr. C.G. Shepherd 214
The Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural 216
Rutgers, the State UniversityofNewJersey:
Statement ofFrancis L. Lawrence 222
StatementofTimothy M. Casey 224
StatementofRichard L. Guest 228
San Diego CountyWaterAuthority 232
Soil and WaterConservation Society 233
University ofSouthern Mississippi 237
SouthwestAnimal Health Research Foundation 240
Tarrant County Water Control and ImprovementDistrict 241
Turfgrass Producers International 243
Texas A&M University 244
Texas Tech University 247
U.S. Agricultural Export DevelopmentCouncil 250
United States TelephoneAssociation 253
The Wildlife Society 256
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
The following testimonies were received by the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies for inclusion
in the record. The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year
1997 budget request for programs within the subcommittee's juris-
diction,
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
prepared STATEMENT OF NEWELL KITCHEN AND TONY PRATO,
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA
Introduction
ThistestimonyissubmittedbyNewellKitchen,ProfessorofSoilScienceandTonyPrato,
ProfessorofAgriculturalEconomics,oftheUniversityofMissouri-Columbiaonbehalfofthe
AgriculturalSystemsforEnvironmentalQuality(ASEQ)program. ASEQisasystems-oriented
nationalresearchandeducationprogramdevelopedbyacoalitionofmorethan200university
andfederalresearchersandeducatorsfrom 14states. ThegoaloftheASEQprogramisto
developprofitableandsociallyacceptableagriculturalsystemsthatreducetheimpactsof
agriculturalproductiononourNation'sprecioussoil,waterandairresources.
USDAWaterQualityProgram
ASEQhasitsrootsinUSDA'sWaterQualityProgramwhichwasestablishedin 1989with
strongbipartisansupportfromCongress. ThegoaloftheWaterQualityProgramistoprovide
farmersandrancherswiththeknowledge,technicalmeansandfinancialassistancetorespond
independentlyandvoluntarilyinaddressingfarm-relatedenvironmentalconcernsandrelated
statewaterqualityrequirements. Theobjectiveoftheprogramistodeterminetherelationships
betweenagriculturalactivitiesandwaterquality,andadvocateimprovedmanagementsystems.
TheWaterQualityProgramconsistsofthreesub-programs:demonstrationsites,hydrologicunit
areasandresearch. Theobjectivesofthefirsttwosub-programsareto: a)adviseandassistin
theimplementationofknownagrichemicalmanagementandagriculturalproductionsystemsthat
enhancewaterquality;b)inducetheadoptionofappropriatewaterqualityenhancementor
protectionsystemsatsignificantlevelsinproblemareas. Theobjectiveoftheresearch
sub-programisto: a)improveandexpandknowledgeoftechnologiesandagriculturalpractices
forprotectingwaterquality;b)integratesuchtechnologiesandpracticesintoproduction
managementsystemsthatareeconomicallyandenvironmentallysound. Itisfortheresearch
programthatwehaverequestedthisopportunitytotestify.
(1)
WaterQualitj'ResearchProgram
—
Theresearchprogramconsistsoftwoparts prioritycomponentresearchandsystemsresearch.
Componentresearchexpandsourknowledgeofspecificaspectsoftheinteractionsofagricultural
chemicals,soils,waterandthehumandimension: reactions,degradation,persistence,movement
andotheraspectsofphysical,biologicalandsocialprocesses. WithintheUSDA-Cooperative
StatesResearch,EducationandExtensionService(CSREES),fundingforcomponentresearchis
currentlythroughtheNationalResearchInitiative(NRl)program.
Incontrast,systemsresearchintegratesthemostpromisingindividualresearchcomponentsinto
agriculturalmanagement.systemsforimprovedcropandlivestockproduction. Thisallowsa
comprehensiveanalysisofbotheconomicandenvironmentalimpactswithinaregion. Systems
researchrequiresmultidisciplinarycooperationandisfocusedondevelopingsolutionsforreal
worldproblems. Thescaleofagriculturalsystemsresearchiswholefieldsandwatersheds,not
justlaboratoriesandplotsasisnormallyfoundwithcomponentresearch. CSREEShasfunded
systemswaterqualityresearchunderacompetitivegrantsprogramcalltheSpecialWaterQuality
Grants. Now,universityparticipationinthesesystemsprojectsisinjeopardybecausefunding
undertheCSREESSpecialWaterQualityGrantsprogramhasbeencutinhalfeachyearoverthe
pasttwofiscalyears. Thepurposeofthistestimonyistorequestrestorationoffundingintothis
programinorderthatresearchersatstateuniversitiesandcollegesareabletopartnerwithfederal
researchersandprivatecompaniesindevelopingprofitableandenvironmentallysound
agriculturalsystems.
ManagementSystemsEvaluationArea(MSEA)Program
ThesystemsresearcheffortwasinitiatedasapilotprogramintheMidwestthatestablishedfive
ManagementSystemsEvaluationArea(MSEA)projectswhichincludedresearchsitesineight
states(Iowa,Minnesota,Missouri,Nebraska,NorthDakota.SouthDakota,OhioandWisconsin).
TheMidwestregionwasselectedforthepilotprogrambecauseover80percentofthecomand
70percentofthesoybeansproducedintheUnitedStatesaregrownintheMidwest. Production
ofthesecropsrequires58percentofthenitrogenfertilizerandover60percentoftheherbicides
usedintheUnitedStates. MSEAprojectswereselectedunderapeer-reviewed,competitive
grantsprogram. TheMSEAresearchprogramcombinesfieldstudiesoffanningsystemsat
manysiteswithlaboratorystudiesdesignedtounderstandthemechanismsofnitrogenand
pesticidefateandmovementthroughsoilsandwater. Inthisrespect,theMSEAprogramblends
basicandappliedresearch.
AuniquefeatureoftheMSEAresearchprogramisthatitutilizesaninterdisciplinary,systems
approachtoagro-environmentalproblemsinvolvingthecooperationofmanyfederalandstate
agencies. Leadplanning,siteselectionandprogramimplementationfortheprogramwere
cooperativelyaccomplishedbythecombinedeffortsoftwoagencies:USDA-Agricultural
ResearchServiceandUSDA-CooperativeStatesResearch,EducationandExtensionService
(CSREES)workingthroughland-grantcollegesanduniversities. Approximately60-80percent
ofthetotal resourcesfortheMSEAprogramhascomethroughthesetwoagencies. Other
cooperatingandcontributingagenciesincludeUSGeologicalSurvey,USEnvironmental
ProtectionAgency,USDA-NaturalResourcesConservationServiceandvariousstateagencies.
Inaddition,privateagriculturalcompanieshavecontributedtimeandequipmenttotheprogram.
BenefitsofMSEAProgram
CongressistobecommendedforitsvitalroleinappropriatingfundsforcreationoftheMSEA
program. Theinvestmentmadeinthisprogramispayingoffbygeneratinglong-termresultsthat
willenableUSagriculturetoremainprofitableandcompetitiveonaworldwidebasiswhile
reducingadverseenvironmentaleffectsofagriculturalproduction. Someofthebenefitsof
MSEAareasfollows:
In Iowa,bandingofherbicidesandstripintercroppinghasbeensuccessfulinlowering
herbicideconcentrationsinshallowgroundwaterandrunoff. Ridge-till,no-till,split
nitrogenfertilizerapplications,applyingnitrogenbasedonresultsofthelatespringsoil
nitratetestandnewdevicesforinjectingliquidnitrogenfertilizerhavebeenfoundto
reducenitrateleachingtoshallowgroundwater.
InMissouri,precisionfarmingmethodshavebeendevelopedwhichhavethepotentialfor
reducingnitrogenuseincomby 15to50millionpoundsannually. About50percentof
thefarmerssurveyedattheMissouriMSEAwatershedsaidtheynowusegreatercaution
inhandlingandapplyingpesticidesasaresultofwhattheyhavelearnedfromtheMSEA
program.
Improvedtechniquesformanagementofnitrogenandirrigationwaterhavedecreased
nitratesingroundwaterinNebraska'sCentralPlatteValleyandhavereducedatrazine
concentrationsbelowthemaximumallowablefordrinkingwater. Programsto
demonstratemoreefficientirrigationpracticestofarmersinNebraskashowedthat
loweringtotalirrigationwaterapplicationsby 10percentreducednitrateleachingto
groundwater.
TheMinnesota-Dakotas-Wisconsin(NorthernSandPlains)MSEAsiteshaveshownthat,
withcarefulmanagement,comandsoybeanscanbegrownonsandysoilswhilekeeping
herbicidecontaminationingroundwaterbelowEPAdrinkingwaterstandards. Nitrate
levelsingroundwateratallsitesremainedthesameordecreased. Incooperationwith
theAnokaSandPlanWaterQualityDemonstrationProject,nitrogenfertilizerusein
Minnesota'sAnokaSandPlainwasreducedby 16percent.
TheOhioMSEAhasdeterminedthattheburiedvalleyaquiferunderiyingitssitehasnot
beencontaminatedbypesticides. Occasionally,nitrate-nitrogenconcentrationsinthis
sameaquiferexceedtheEPAdrinkingwaterstandard,butdonotpersist.
Inordertoachievecleanwater,abundantfood,andprovideahealthyenvironment,highquality
researchresultsfromtheMSEAprogrammustbetransferredandvoluntarilyadopted. MSEA's
researchandeducationalprogramsprovideusefulinformationtovariedaudiencesinandoutside
theagriculturalcommunity. Sinceinceptionoftheprogramin 1990,combinedeffortshave
providedmorethan700educationalprograms,disseminatinginformationtosome50,000users
annually. Theseactivitieshaveincreasedawareness,demonstratednewandimproved
technologiesandstrategies,andencouragedadoptionofcroppingpracticesthatminimize
impairmentoftheMidwest'swaterresources. Further,theprocessofevaluatingtheimpactsof
farmingpracticesongroundwaterhasgivenaclearerunderstandingofthemostsignificant
waterandsoilqualityproblemsinagriculturalwatersheds.
ASEQProgram
TheresearchandeducationalinfrastructureestablishedbytheMSEAprogramprovidesawayto
accomplishtheprogram'sgoalsonalong-termbasis. Forthisreason,in 1995,adecisionwas
madetofocusthisinfrastructureonthemostcriticalwaterqualityproblemsidentifiedduringthe
firstfiveyearsoftheprogramandtoaddprotectionofsoilandairresourcesasaresearch
objective. Thescopeoftheprogramhasbeenexpandedbyaddressingagro-environmentalissues
inadditionalstatesandregionsofthecountry. Specifically,scientistsfromIllinois,Indiana,
Mississippi,NorthCarolina,SouthCarolinaandTexasarenowinvolvedinagriculturalsystems
research. Toemphasizethesenewprioritiesandpartnerships,theMSEAprogramwasrenamed
theAgriculturalSystemsforEnvironmentalOualitv(ASEQ)program.
ThegoalsoftheASEQprogramaretoimproveandexpandscientificknowledgeaboutthe
relationshipsbetweenagriculturalproductionandthequantity/qualityofnaturalresources,andto
developandtransfertofarmersandagribusinessnewagriculturalproductionsystemsand
practicesthataresociallyacceptable,economicallyefficientandenvironmentallysound.
ObjectivesoftheASEQprogramareto: a)developalternativepracticesandsystemsfor
reducingadverseeffectsofagriculturalproductiononsoil,waterandairresources;b)evaluate
thesocial,economicandenvironmentalimpactsofthesepracticesandsystemsatthefield,farm
andwatershedscales;c)identifymodelsanddecisionaidsformanagingagriculturalandnatural
resourcesystemsandprotectingenvironmentalresources;d)assesstheeffectivenessofpublic
policiesandprogramsinstimulatingtheadoptionofmoresustainableagriculturalproduction
systemsandpractice;e)increasethecapacitytotransferinformationonthesocial,economicand
environmentalimplicationsofalternativeproductionsystemstousergroups.
Conclusion
Weconcludewiththreepointsthatunderscorethepurposeofourtestimony.
First.MSEAisasystemsresearchandeducationprogramforreducingtheimpactsof
agriculturalproductionongroundwaterresourcesintheMidwest. Theprogramhasasignificant
investment,creatinganetworkofpeople,equipment,institutions,andpublic/privateagenciesfor
soundassessmentofenvironmentalimpactsofagriculturalproduction. Theresearchand
educationinfrastructureestablishedbytheMSEAprogramhasbeenverysuccessfulas
evidencedbyitslonglistofscientificandeducationalaccomplishments. KeepingUSagriculture
profitableandcompetitiveonaworldwidebasiswhileminimizingadverseimpactsof
agriculturalproductionontheenvironmentprovidesastrongjustificationformaintainingthis
infrastructure.
Second,decliningappropriationsfortheCSREES'specialwaterqualitygrantsprogram,which
fundedtheMSEAprogram,areanobstacletoachievingthegoalsoftheASEQprogram. The
fundinglevelsforthisgrantsprogramhavedecreasedfrom$9millioninfiscalyear1990to$2.7
millioninfiscalyear1996. Thisamountstoa70percentreductioninfunding. Fundstaken
fromthespecialwaterqualitygrantsprogramwerereallocatedtocomponentstudiesofthewater
resourcesassessmentandprotectionresearchareaintheNationalResearchInitiative(NRI)
competitivegrantsprogram. Whilecomponentresearchisimportant,thisreallocationhas
createdanunder-fundedprogramforsystemswaterqualityresearch. Fundingsystemsresearch
ofthetypeproposedbytheASEQprogramwouldachieveamorebalsincedandeffective
environmentalresearchprogramforagriculture.
Third,intheinterestofachievingtheresearchandeducationgoalsenvisionedfortheASEQ
program,werequestCongresstoappropriate$5.5millionperyeartothespecialwaterquality
grantsprogramintheCSREES. Restoringthebudgetto$5.5millionwouldallowCSREESto
fundaninterdisciplinaryagriculturalsystems,competitivegrantsresearchprogramthatwould
enableresearchersatstateuniversitiesandcolleges,suchasthoserepresentedbytheASEQ
program,tocollaboratewithfederalresearchersandprivatecompaniesindevelopingagricultural
systemsthatwillkeepUSagriculturecompetitivewhileprotectingtheenvironment.
Weappreciatetheopportunitytotestifybeforethiscommittee.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
NURSERYMEN
Mr Chairman,theAmericanAssociationofNurserymen(AAN)welcomesthisopportunitytopresentthe
nurseryindustry'sviewsregardingtheFiscalYear1997(FY97)BudgetfortheUS Departmentof
Agnculturc(USDA).
AANisthenationaltradeassociationforthenurseryandlandscapeindustry AANrepresents2,200
productionnurseries,landscapefirms,retailgardencentersandhorticulturaldistributioncenters,andthe
16,000additionalfamilyfarmandsmallbusinessmembersofthestateandregionalnurseryandlandscape
associations.
ECONONnCSTATUREOFTHENURSERYINDUSTRY
AccordingtoUSDA'sEconomicResearchService(ERS),thenurseryandgreenhouseindustryremains
thefastestgrowingagnculturalsectorincashreceipts In 1969,anestimated 18,000farms(or 1 percent
ofallfarms)wereengagedinproducingatleastsomenurseryandgreenhousecrops. By 1992,an
