SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
48–967 CC
1998
1998
THE PLANT PROTECTION ACT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
NUTRITION, AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3766
MAY 20, 1998
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 105–49
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon, Chairman
LARRY COMBEST, Texas,
Vice Chairman
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
NICK SMITH, Michigan
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
MARK FOLEY, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ROY BLOUNT, Missouri
CHARLES W. (CHIP) PICKERING, Mississippi
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas,
Ranking Minority Member
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
SAM FARR, California
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JAY W. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
Professional Staff
PAUL UNGER, Majority Staff Director
DAVID G. DYE, Chief Counsel
STEPHEN HATERIUS, Minority Staff Director
VERNIE HUBERT, Minority Counsel
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and ForeignAgriculture
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
Vice Chairman
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
NICK SMITH, Michigan
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARK FOLEY, Florida
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
Canady, Hon. Charles T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, opening statement
Clayton, Hon. Eva M., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, opening statement
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, opening statement
Witnesses
Cross, Gene B., Federal Noxious and Invasive Weeds Committee, Weed Society of America
Prepared statement
Johnson, Stephen V., president, National Plant Board
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Reed, Craig, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
Regelbrugge, Craig J., director, regulatory affairs and grower services, American Nursery and Landscape Association
Prepared statement
Submitted material
Stuart, Mike, president, Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association
Prepared statement
Urmston, Dean, executive vice president, American Seed Trade Association
Prepared statement
Submitted Material
American Farm Bureau Federation, statement
American Phytopathological Society, statement
''Analysis of Enforcement Provisions under the Plant Protection Act'', submitted by Mr. Canady
Entomological Society of America, statement
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, statement
Sunkist Growers, statement
Western Growers Association, statement
THE PLANT PROTECTION ACT
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998
House of Representatives,
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Canady, Thune, Clayton, and Berry.
Staff present: Kevin Kramp, subcommittee staff director; Bryce Quick, professional staff; John Goldberg, professional staff; Russell Middleton and Andy Johnson, minority professional staff; and Wanda Worsham, Callista Bisek, clerks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony and written statements concerning H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act, introduced by Congressman Charles Canady, a member of this subcommittee. I want to congratulate Mr. Canady for introducing a bill that streamlines the actions and authorities of USDA. Shaping a smaller, more efficient and effective Department of Agriculture is certainly a priority for this committee.
H.R. 3766 consolidates 11 plant quarantine laws which date back to 1913 and which comprise a patchwork of sometimes confusing and inadequate authorities. Introduction of harmful, non-indigenous species is occasionally a consequence of free trade. These species, which include insects, pathogens and weeds, can be introduced on plants, plant products, and packing materials among other means. Non-indigenous species, once introduced, have no natural enemies to keep their population in check and can prove to be devastating to agricultural and managed ecosystems.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Plant Protection Act seeks to fill gaps in existing law and enhance the Secretary's ability to carry out the mission of the Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. In addition, it furthers the goal of regulatory reform by eliminating laws that are no longer used. H.R. 3766 eliminates duplication, redundancy, inconsistencies and confusion over which provisions apply.
For example, the Plant Quarantine Act, the Federal Plant Pest Act, and the Federal Noxious Weed Act contain provisions prohibiting the application of one law when another law applies. But each of the laws addresses similar issues differently. In one notable case under the Federal Noxious Weed Act, the Department lost a lawsuit that resulted from confusion over which law to apply to a commercial shipment of grass seed that contained noxious weed seed.
The Plant Protection Act would also provide more flexibility to address the constantly changing needs of a global environment. It provides a clear and simple framework, allowing APHIS to address its mission of agricultural protection consistent with the concepts of regionalization and risk-based decision-making required under GATT and NAFTA.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses testimony today. We have assembled uniquely qualified witnesses that will provide insight into the need for the Plant Protection Act.
I would like to recognize the ranking member of this subcommittee, Congresswoman Eva Clayton of North Carolina.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EVA M. CLAYTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for having this hearing and to say that I'm also supportive of the bill for which, this H.R. 3766 and the opportunity that it gives to modify some of our existing laws and also to remove some of the confusion and conflict that's inherent as it is now.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also want to hear from our witness and we know that they bring in a tremendous amount of experience and I want to welcome them. I look forward to their testimony.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mrs. Clayton. I'd also like to recognize the author of the bill and a member of the subcommittee, Congressman Canady.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES T. CANADY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my gratitude to you for conducting this hearing on the Plant Protection Act which I introduced to increase protection for our agricultural producers from invasive and harmful plants and plant pests. The 21st century will present us with unprecedented global food needs. American farmers have been preparing to meet those challenges by using advanced technology in production methods to improve quality and yields; exercising responsible stewardship to preserve our environment and arable land; and revamping their industries to compete in an international economy. America possesses the most productive agricultural sector in the world, but it will need to be stronger in order to continue in prospering in the future.
Congress is playing a role in helping our producers reach that goal. Two years ago, we passed a landmark farm bill that began laying the foundation for tomorrow's agriculture by phasing out Government subsidies and allowing farmers the freedom to grow what they want, when they want. We are preparing to enact legislation that will fund much-needed agriculture research—research to develop the new technologies that will feed the world's ever-growing population in the decades to come. In addition, Congress and the administration recognize that international trade will play a very important role in American agriculture in the future. In order to realize that potential, we are attempting to forge new, fair trade alliances with nations around the world, alliances that will open international markets and reduce barriers to our agricultural products. So far, the results of these efforts have been promising: In fiscal year 1997, the United States exported $57.7 billion in agricultural products, resulting in a significant agriculture trade surplus of $22 billion.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With increase trade, however, come new problems. In recent years, the influx of foreign agricultural imports and international travelers have overwhelmed the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service officials who conduct inspections at U.S. ports of entry. Each one of these shipments or travelers could be carrying a prohibited plant, plant pest, or other invasive species into the country. According to a May 1997 General Accounting Office report, the volume of agricultural imports rose 31 percent between 1990 and 1995. The number of international passengers increased by 50 percent to 55 million. Although APHIS has increased its number of inspectors and made changes in its operating procedures in order to help cope, the sheer volume of goods and individuals that must be inspected is overwhelming APHIS personnel.
The results of this problem are disturbing and predictable: it is estimated that the United States loses 4,600 acres per day to non-indigenous weed species such as Brazilian pepper and karnal bunt. Although there are few comprehensive methods of calculating exact losses due to plant pests, citrus and vegetable growers in my own State of Florida are currently waging and expensive battle against infestations by the Mediterranean fruit fly. This strain of fruit fly is a particularly destructive insect that feeds on and lays its larvae in over 200 different types of crops, including citrus and vegetables, rendering them unsalable.
Although prompt actions by government authorities averted the kind of disaster that Florida growers suffered in a similar infestation in the mid–1980s, it has been a very costly exercise. To date, both the State of Florida and APHIS have spent millions of dollars on medfly eradication. It is clear that the cost of waiting for outbreaks to occur and then cleaning up massive infestations is becoming prohibitive. In addition, the recently-enacted Food Quality Protection Act will change the ways we use pesticides and fungicides in combatting pests. Clearly, we need to reassess our defensive strategy.
H.R. 3766 is a first step toward a stronger APHIS and a more capable national defense against invasive pests and plants. The bill accomplishes two important goals: the first is a consolidation of 11 existing plant quarantine laws that date back to 1913 and that make up an often confusing patchwork of authorities. The second is a substantial increase in the penalties for knowingly smuggling prohibited items into the United States. These higher penalties are needed to deter smuggling not only by individuals trying to bring in a few pieces of fruit, but also companies that may try to hide contraband in large quantities of imported goods.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are several new authorities proposed for APHIS in the legislation. These include language regarding the control of biological control agents and noxious weeds, as well as a comprehensive set of investigatory tools that will enable APHIS enforcement to keep pace in the rapidly changing world of agriculture.
Now, this bill is not a panacea. It is merely one part of a larger strategy to prevent destructive pests and plants from establishing themselves in the United States. Reforming the law is one thing. It will take a renewed effort by APHIS to carry it out, along with strong, transparent, and equitable sanitary and phytosanitary agreements with our trading partners.
Further, I want to emphasize that this bill is very much a work in progress. As this issue moves forward, I fully intend to work with members, APHIS, and industry to address any concerns that they might have with the legislation.
I want to express my gratitude for the contribution that industry and APHIS, as well as the members of the subcommittee and the subcommittee staff have made in developing the legislation to this point. And I particularly want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for holding this hearing and his leadership on this issue.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Canady.
We would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. Mr. Craig Reed is the Acting Administrator for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Reed is accompanied by Mr. Al Elder who, is the Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine at USDA, and Mr. Tom Bundy, who is from the Office of General Counsel at USDA.
Mr. Reed, welcome, and you may give your testimony, your entire statement will be made a part of the record and you may summarize your remarks.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG REED, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY AL ELDER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANT PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE; AND TOM BUNDY, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. We do have prepared remarks submitted for the record. It's a pleasure to be here to discuss H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act. The bill would streamline, as Mr. Canady has said, modernize, and enhance the Secretary of Agriculture's authority relating to plant protection and quarantine. The USDA supports the enactment of this legislation and also recommends one amendment, which I'll discuss later.
The Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service safeguards U.S. agriculture and maintains domestic and international markets in part through the plant quarantine laws, which date back as far as 1913. While these laws have endured reasonably well over the past 86 years, they haven't kept pace with advances in production, science, and technology. In the early part of this century, no one could envision the enormous expansion in travel and trade, the commercial production of biological control on the scale we see today, or the challenges of evaluating and regulating genetically-engineered organisms.
Existing laws have been stretched to their limits to meet these challenges. As we approach the 21st century, the time is right to streamline and modernize the plant quarantine laws and enact enhancements. The Plant Protection Act, will do just that. It condenses 11 statutes into one comprehensive and easily understood authority. It eliminates ambiguity, clarifies and reaffirms authorities, and enhances our ability to protect American agriculture.
Let me outline some of the significant enhancements of this bill. This bill enhances our existing penalty structure, which will help deter violations and ensure the punishment fits the violation. Some of the current plant quarantine laws don't even authorize civil penalties and can only be enforced through criminal proceedings. Others authorize maximum civil penalties of only a $1,000 and criminal penalties of only $5,000. Neither amount means very much when charged to a big company, especially when a violation can result in an outbreak costing millions of dollars to eradicate.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Plant Protection Act would increase the maximum civil penalty to $50,000 per violation for individuals and up to $250,000 per violation for others. It also provides an alternate civil penalty of twice the gross loss or gross gain if pecuniary loss or gain results from a violation.
Next, the bill enhances our investigatory and enforcement abilities by providing us some additional critical tools. For example, the bill authorizes us to subpoena witnesses for documentary evidence, an authority we have and use responsibly under the Animal Welfare Act, but have always lacked in the plant quarantine area.
Also, the bill authorizes APHIS to prevent dissemination of potentially infected progeny of imported plants. Legally imported plants have been assessed for disease risk, but when plants have been smuggled into this country, diseases can enter along with them that may take several years to manifest themselves. In such an event, we need to be able to take action not only against the original, illegally imported plants themselves, but also against the plants grown from their cuttings or seeds, even if they are not yet showing signs of the disease.
Next, the bill expands and clarifies our authority to deal with noxious weeds and pests of the environment. In recent years, we've been faced with new risks reaching beyond traditional agriculture. Pests that affect not only agricultural production, but private property, forestry, parks, waterways, and other natural resources. Existing authorities allow us to address some of these problems, but have constrained us in other areas, especially in the noxious weed area.
Also, the bill addresses biological control organisms by defining them as beneficial agents, rather than as plant pests. Existing laws were written before biocontrol was a commercially viable enterprise. The modern approach in this bill acknowledges the value of biological control as a control tool and eases the regulatory burden on this growth industry by improving the transparency of the regulatory process.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next, the bill provides authority for APHIS to work with industry to develop innovative, industry-driven quality assurance programs that improve marketability for plants, plant products, and biological control organisms. For years, APHIS has had a similar authority to assist the poultry industry in developing improvement programs. These industry-driven programs enhance the marketability of poultry products by addressing both health and product quality issues. It's been a unique and productive partnership between industry and government and the effort merits expansion into other industries that want it.
Also, the bill reaffirms the principle of Federal preemption, ensuring a solid, consistent Federal response to serious problems and sending a positive signal to our international trading partners.
At the same time, the bill explicitly recognizes for the first time that there may be special considerations or situations at the local level that should be taken into account. The bill establishes the right to petition the Department for more stringent requirements if special needs or conditions can be demonstrated based on sound science.
APHIS, the States, and industry have worked hand-in-hand for many years to protect U.S. agricultural health. Our partnership has ensured an abundant, varied, and economical food supply here in the United States and has enabled us to take advantage of expanding markets overseas.
With so much at stake, no one should ever have a moment's hesitation about the state of U.S. agricultural health and our ability to maintain it. We need a solid foundation of statutory and regulatory authority and we need to be able to easily modify this foundation to respond to any unforeseen changes we may face in the future. There should be no confusion about which authority may or may not be applicable. There should be no question about what action the Federal Government can take and how we can take it. And there should be no doubt about whether the authority is sufficient to address new technologies and new science.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, as the internationally recognized body for plant quarantine matters, APHIS plays a leadership role in phytosanitary trade negotiations and in international standard-setting activities under the International Plant Protection Convention, the IPPC. We believe this bill provides the clarity that is so badly needed both domestically and in the international trade arena as we move into the 21st century.
Finally, I would like to respectfully recommend one amendment to the legislation. Given the critical nature of our mission of protecting the health and marketability of U.S. agriculture and its impact on the global marketplace, we believe the overarching organizational support of this mission should reflect the importance of the role that it plays.
For this reason, we recommend the legislation be amended to convert the current position of Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to the position of Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. This would help put the health of U.S. agriculture on a level with other critical missions of the Department of Agriculture and ensure a clearer understanding of the role of phytosanitary issues in the international arena.
With that, I conclude and we would like to answer any questions and respond to your concerns.
[The statement of Mr. Reed appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
You support the legislation as drafted other than that one change you just mentioned?
Mr. REED. Yes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Alright. And is this issue a priority for APHIS?
Mr. REED. Yes, it is. We'd like to get this consolidation going and I think it will help us address problems more efficiently and so it is a priority.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOODLATTE. As I recall, the drafting of this legislation began several years ago as an effort to consolidate the existing APHIS statute. However, the final legislation submitted by the administration in the 104th Congress had several new authorities for the agency. Since there remain several groups that believe that APHIS does not take its current authority to prevent the introduction of plant pests seriously, how would the enactment of these new authorities alter this attitude within the agency?
Mr. REED. Well, let me first say that we take any plant pest or animal pest problem extremely seriously. But let me ask Al to give you some specifics on the new authorities that we're asking for.
Mr. ELDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we don't agree with that statement, of course. We take this very, very seriously. Our mission is to protect American plant resources and we certainly take it very seriously.
We have certain activities that are very well funded and certain others that are not well funded. We have to set priorities on the use of our resources and our authorities and we certainly try to set those priorities in the best interest of the resources we're protecting.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I'm pleased to hear that, but we're going to hear from some other folks testify on the second panel and one of the problems that has been expressed by extension agents and weed specialists is the inability to get the attention of APHIS. They observe a new weed, they see it becoming a problem, and they can't get any action. It can take a year or longer to get a new weed on the Federal noxious weed list. How would this legislation fix that problem?
Mr. ELDER. We will have a petition mechanism by which people can petition and we will deal with those petitions within reasonable time-frames when adding additional species to our noxious weed list. We'll also have the discretionary authority to develop classification systems to address the specific problem. Noxious weeds may not all be listed in the same category. For instance, if the problem is one that a land management agency has authority to deal with perhaps by virtue of our listing and classifying it, it will enable them to use their resources in dealing with management of those types of species.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we think the additional authorities provided here will enable us to more readily address the kinds of problems that people have been concerned with.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Reed, how would this bill affect the exchange of biological materials among researchers?
Mr. REED. Well, we certainly don't want to impede researchers from making breakthroughs, but there may be situations where we would need to require permits for biological materials coming into certain States. Certainly, letting State Departments of Agriculture know what is coming in to their State just to make sure that their concerns are met, but still fulfilling what the researchers need to have.
Mr. GOODLATTE. And this legislation eliminates the phrase ''new or not widely prevalent'' from the definition of noxious weeds. What will this do in terms of opening up APHIS to litigation for widespread problems like kudzu? Is that a problem?
Mr. REED. Well, I think there are some definitional problems there. One of the things that we have found—that ''new'' is pretty hard to define. Some parts of the country may not have been visited recently and so the pest may not exactly be new, but it would be newly identified and new to the regulators that are concerned about those pests.
Let me ask Al, though, to amplify a little bit on that, but it does create some problems for us.
Mr. ELDER. Well, for instance, it's quite frequent that a weed will be a pest in one situation, it will be considered noxious in one situation, but not in another. There are a good number of ecosystems throughout the country and it doesn't necessarily follow that just because a weed is widely distributed it is not noxious in other areas and in other situations.
So we feel the that limiting factors in the current definition keeps us from being able to deal with some of the very situations that people are concerned with around the country.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOODLATTE. So you believe this legislation helps to solve that problem?
Mr. ELDER. Yes, I do.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is there, in your judgment—the chairman raised some reservations based on his, I guess, understanding there had been criticism of the slow place of APHIS and either certification or getting certain approval on the list. Also, APHIS plays not only a big part domestically, but plays a big part internationally.
Do you feel you have authority within Agriculture to achieve fully the goals of the Plant Protection Act as it's now being proposed and the mission is to bring clarity and consolidation and to have a greater tool for implementation? Are you with complete authority or are you still a collaborative effort in this whole issue of imports?
Mr. REED. Congresswoman, we do feel comfortable with many of the authorities that we already have. This would help us clarify, as you have stated, and make easier for others to understand the transparency of both what we do and how we do it. Some of these things are part of a legal question and let me ask Tom if he would care to expand on some of the provisions that he sees that would be helpful.
Mr. BUNDY. Well, certainly the act would fill many of the loopholes we currently have, such as the fact that at the current time if there's an illegal importation of some sort that we do not become aware of it right away, whoever imported it has the ability to take and create progeny—multiply it, get seeds, and raise them. At the current time, we only have authority to take action against that which was illegally imported and not authority to take action against the progeny. And the statute would give us the authority to take action against the progeny, which may also have the same pests and diseases as the illegal import.
It would also give us the ability to keep transparent with our international trading partners what we are doing, how we are doing it, and address their concerns and commitments that have been made in our international agreements.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Let me just ask this. I do know that as we try—and as I stated, I support the bill and I support the intent of the bill. And if I do, I also have to begin to think it works in an environment where we are protecting and should protect the imports from impugning the health and the quality of our food product.
By the same expectation, I know that other countries should expect that, too. You alluded to what has happened in the area of poultry and others. I know the whole issue of using environmental issues and sanitary issues gets to be used as a trading barrier. Do you see any opportunity, rather it's our intent or not, of using this as a red flag as a barrier to trade? And I say that with the assumption that I think—not saying on our part, but think I've seen countries use that as barrier trade. I can't just cite them all. But I just don't think we ought to expect—if we don't craft ours with a certain mind of objectivity and transparency, that we will be impugned equally as well that we have set up these artificial barriers.
Mr. REED. You've hit upon something that's very important. When we are working with our trading partners through international conventions like the IPPC, it's very important for us to have that transparency. It does work both ways. Right now, we don't have as much transparency as we need and the transparency is something that we ask of others, and so I think we have to come forward and provide it also.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. Thank you.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Canady.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you if you could explain the provisions of the bill relating to subpoena authority for the Department and why you believe that that would enhance your ability to do your job better. And also, if you could compare your subpoena authority in this bill and the current lack of subpoena authority in this arena with the subpoena authority you have with respect to other responsibilities of the Department.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REED. Let me give some response and then have Tom add to it. We see the subpoena authority as being a tool to get information when it's so badly needed, especially when we're trying to trace back an outbreak involving a potential violation. That subpoena authority is going to enable us to get information. That's the main reason we want it.
And we know that there are some people who would like to give us information, that would provide us with that information but they have other clients to consider and so they need us to subpoena them to protect that relationship. They've asked us I can help you, but give me a subpoena.
In those kinds of instances, it's very amicable. Other times there are people that just refuse to give us information and right now it just keeps us from adequately addressing something that day-by-day could end up being a much worse problem. I guess that's the policy answer. For the legal aspects, let me ask Tom to respond.
Mr. BUNDY. With regard to the issue of subpoenas, I think that where we would really have a great use for it is in areas where we have an outbreak of some pest or disease, be it medfly in Florida or other things elsewhere, where we could try and trace back, if possible, where an illegal introduction may have occurred so that we can identify pathways by which the Department can address and cut off future problems. It could also be used in instances, as I mentioned previously, where we had an illegal importation and it has been disseminated within commercial channels so that we can take and follow that up and be sure that we can take and ameliorate or eliminate all potential spread of a pest or disease.
At the current time, we have no such authority. They know it and they refuse to give us any records and I'm sure that there is a lot of product that in some of these situations could disseminate diseases and pests. And this would certainly be very useful also in witnesses for hearings that we would be handling for possible civil penalties.
Now, you also asked for some examples of other areas in the Department where we have a subpoena authority at the current time and where it's exercised. APHIS currently has it under the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act, and also, the Federal Seed Act. The authority is exercised under the Animal Welfare Act approximately five to 10 times a year. Most of those are in the area of dealers that are not licensed under the act and it's a method used to go back and prove that they have been buying and selling animals and are required to be licensed.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, the Department also has this subpoena authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act, and also the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, and in both of those cases, it's usually five subpoenas or less that are issued every year. The Food Safety Inspection service has the authority, as well. They usually only issue one to two per year. Let's see, the National Appeals Division also has this authority and they issue, usually, no more than a dozen a year.
Mr. REED. Let me add that the subpoena authority would be for investigatory use only. And we don't expect that it would be used a lot, but we think it would be important when we needed to have it.
Mr. BUNDY. Could I also add that we anticipate that we would only need to use it, probably five to 10 times per year, if we did have the authority. But those cases we anticipate would be commercial importations with the possibility of spreading pests or diseases. That would be very important.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. The gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to followup just briefly on a question that Mrs. Clayton asked and maybe asked a little bit different way, but you said in your testimony that to be in the strongest negotiating position possible when dealing with international trade issues, the statutory framework supporting phytosanitary activities must be transparent, comprehensive and consistent with those used by our trading partners. In your opinion, will the greater transparency of our sanitary and phytosanitary practices encourage our trading partners to follow our lead or simply give them an additional advantage, over us. If we are to become more transparent in our practices.
Mr. REED. Well, I think that the quick answer on that is we expect for those partners to follow our lead because we're asking them to do exactly that. But let me ask Al to give you a couple of specific examples to drive the point home.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ELDER. Dr. Reed, I think, hit the nail on the head. I think we are talking about the fact that our present authorities are very obtuse and sometimes contradictory and I think, to answer your question specifically, we are more open for challenge than we would be with clear transparent authorities.
So our feeling is that by clearing these up, we can live by what we call ''The Golden Rule of Trade'' which is our imports and our exports are treated the same way. What we export would be treated fairly and consistently with the way we treat imports, and that these are all science-based, risk assessment—based decisions and we can clearly point to the authorities that we have to make those decisions.
And so, I think this would help significantly in that respect. And I don't have any real clear-cut examples to use, but certainly in our bilateral negotiations with other countries, our authorities are very important to be able to point to as the types of authorities that we expect the other countries to have to deal with us in accordance with the international rules.
Mr. THUNE. Do you see any potential there for turning away new trading partners by strengthening and becoming more comprehensive and transparent in our approach?
Mr. REED. Only if the science would support that.
Mr. THUNE. OK. There are some groups who, I think, would argue that the language in the bill should be stronger than that which the bill contains and I think some of these groups would actually prefer to see mandates for APHIS. How do you respond to those groups?
Mr. REED. I think the mandatory approach leaves the agency without a number of choices to make and we would be forced to follow some things up that may in fact not be the kinds of things that we'd want to devote resources to, but a mandatory action would require that resources must be put to a certain area. So I guess, my thought on mandatory authority is that while it does cause the agency to do some things, it also removes a lot of flexibility in how we manage different problems and as you well know, we've got a lot of irons in the fire at one time. Whether it's in one State or another, as the growing season progresses, we don't know what's going to happen in places like your State.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. Right.
Mr. REED. But we will in another month or so.
Mr. THUNE. Yes, and let's hope for a change it's good. There are several groups also who depend upon plant introduction and I'm thinking of nursery men, plant breeders, botanical gardens, examples like that. Do you see this legislation as benefiting or deterring some of these activities?
Mr. REED. Well, I think overall it's going to benefit them. It's going to have a more clear-cut process so that they can see exactly what is required and how to get things through, whether it's permitting or certification or whatever the mechanism is to introduce new things. I think it's overall going to be beneficial.
Mr. THUNE. One final question, and again, coming back to my particular situation in our State. In recent years, and we expect this year not to be an exception to that, we've had quite an experience in terms of the infestation of grasshoppers. And I'm wondering if there is anything in this bill that gives APHIS additional ability, or flexibility might be the right way of phrasing that, in assisting South Dakota with the control of the grasshopper problem and perhaps other pests that might come up along the way?
Mr. REED. I think our ability to deal with those situations would remain unchanged with this. It really just incorporates the same authority that we've had previously. But there is one area that would be enhanced, and that is the area of biological control. Indeed, we would, under this act, have the authority, if we develop appropriate technology for biological control to transfer that technology and to use those types of mechanisms for dealing with these types of pest which we do not clearly have under the present statute.
Mr. THUNE. And overall, some improvement in terms of your ability to cope with that issue.
Mr. REED. Yes, because our effort has been to move toward more biologically-based ways of dealing with these kinds of problems, if indeed they're available. Yes.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. THUNE. Well, if you can figure out a way to totally get rid of them, we'd welcome that, as well.
Thank you. I thank the Chair.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Before we dismiss this panel, does anybody else have any other questions?
Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. I would ask unanimous consent to have included in the record a statement prepared that's titled ''An Analysis of Enforcement Provisions under the Plant Protection Act'' which was prepared by the Department.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, so ordered
[The material appears at the conclusion of the record.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Reed, Mr. Elder, and Mr. Bundy—you've been very quiet—but we thank you all for your participation today.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Our next panel includes Mr. Mike Stuart, who is president of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Mr. Craig J. Regelbrugge, the director of regulatory affairs and grower services for the American Nursery and Landscape Association; Mr. Gene B. Cross is on the Federal Noxious and Invasive Weeds Committee for the Weed Science Society of America; Mr. Stephen B. Johnson is president for the National Plant Board; Mr. Dean Urmston is executive vice president for the American Seed Trade Association.
Gentleman, welcome all. And Mr. Stuart, when you are ready, we will be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MIKE STUART, PRESIDENT, FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
Mr. STUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning. Members of the subcommittee, again, my name is Mike Stuart. I'm the president of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and we're an organization that represents growers of a variety of commodities in Florida, including citrus, vegetables, tropical fruit, and other agricultural products. Our growers in the State lead the Nation in the production of some 19 major commodities, including some of the ones I already mentioned.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our geographical location in the United States, quite frankly, has its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it affords growers an opportunity to provide American consumers and export markets with fruits, vegetables, and other seasonal crops during the months of the year when other domestic producers in the United States cannot grow and harvest these commodities.
On the negative side, though, Florida's tropical and semi-tropical climate also makes it highly vulnerable by plant pests and diseases. We've been concerned for some time whether existing plant protection and quarantine resources and penalties are sufficient deterrents to illegal imports of fruits, vegetables, and other products that are hosts to plant pests and diseases. And I think our recent experience particularly with the Mediterranean fruit fly and citrus canker would indicate that our concerns are highly justified.
State and Federal agencies are currently fighting medfly outbreaks in three separate locations in central and south Florida and citrus canker in two locations. Just last summer and fall, more than $24 million in State and Federal funds were spend to eradicate a medfly infestation in Tampa Bay and other areas in central Florida.
Potentially devastating diseases like tomato yellow leaf curl virus has been detected in recent months and pests such as pink hibiscus mealy bug have been found at our doorstep in Puerto Rico. And while these pests may sound innocuous, believe me, each of these has the potential of inflicting serious damage to Florida's fruit and vegetable production. Their presence in the State could also result in the loss of critical export markets or the inability to open up new ones.
To us, it's no coincidence that the increased frequency of plant pest and disease detection in Florida and elsewhere in the United States has occurred at a time when trade and tourism have reached all-time highs. With the lowering of trade barriers resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement and other initiatives, such as the Uruguay Round, imports of fruits and vegetables into the United States have more than doubled over the past 10 years.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Florida and other States are seeing record numbers of tourists and other visitors arrive each year. Just in Florida, some 24 million visitors entered through airports, seaports, and highways in 1997 and that was a 7 percent increase over 1996.
These factors have put tremendous pressure on the existing pest exclusion and detection programs at both the State and Federal level and it all adds up to a significantly increased risk of plant pest and disease introduction.
We greatly appreciate the efforts of Representative Canady in introducing H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act. The bill consolidates many, if not most of the existing statutes relating to the prevention and the introduction of plant pests and diseases. From our perspective, one of the most significant things the bill does is provide for an increase in penalties. H.R. 3766 calls for a substantial increase in civil penalties that can be imposed on those who bring illegal fruits, vegetables, and other host materials into the United States. Current levels of civil penalties are no longer a deterrent and are viewed by many smugglers simply as the cost of doing business. Smuggling of prohibited fruits, vegetables and other plant pests is indeed a big problem and is no doubt a major pathway for medfly, canker and other pests and diseases coming into our State.
During a recent State-Federal cooperative effort which is organized through a new program called ''The Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance Initiative'' officials confiscated what appeared to be canker-infested citrus leaves at an ethnic grocery store in central Florida. The leaves had been purchased through a local importer and were a delicacy being sold to local restaurants.
During another recent blitz at Miami International Airport this spring, officers seized dozens of illegal food products all within just a few hours. Unfortunately, these efforts are picking up only a small fraction of what is entering Florida and the rest of the country.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We strongly support a strengthening of penalties. A strong deterrent is an essential component of an effective exclusion program. But unfortunately, I have to say fines alone aren't going to get the job done. Additional personnel are needed to fight this battle, as is an aggressive public education campaign.
The resources and tools available to USDA and State plant health agencies to exclude these pests and diseases have not kept pace with the rapid increases in trade and tourism we've experienced over the past 10 years. This was confirmed last year by the General Accounting Office in a report to Congress. The report pointed out that despite changes to APHIS' funding and programs, and I'm quoting from the report here: ''Inspectors at the ports are struggling to keep pace with increased work load. Heavy work loads have led to inspection shortcuts which raise questions about the efficiency and overall effectiveness of these inspections.'' And that's the end of the quote.
We recognize the difficulty of increasing government spending during a period of fiscal restraint. However, in this case, increasing spending makes good fiscal sense. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in recent years on medfly and other pest eradication programs in Florida and California alone.
Strengthening our pest exclusion and detection efforts would result in fewer and less expensive eradication programs. Doing this, however, will require more personnel for inspection and interdiction and greater cooperative efforts between State and Federal plant health and quarantine agencies in order to maximize use of available resources. This is absolutely essential.
Improved public education must also be a high priority. Despite the heavy media attention given to medfly infestations and other pretty well publicized infestations, many people simply don't understand the risks associated with bringing contraband fruit or other products into the country. A better informed public will be less likely to unknowingly bring prohibited for restricted fruits and vegetables into the United States.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Make no mistake, the fruit and vegetable industry in Florida and elsewhere in the United States has a great deal at stake in keeping foreign pests out of the United States. Our producers are not the cause of the problem, but they certainly are impacted by the introduction of these pests and diseases, whether it be in lost production or lost markets.
We believe the passage of H.R. 3766 would provide Federal officials with added tools to help deal with this important problem. But it only represents one leg of the proverbial three-legged stool. Implementation is also crucial. Vigorous enforcement of the statutes must be APHIS' highest priority over trade facilitation and expediting travelers. Only then will we be able to make progress in the battle against the introduction of foreign plant pests. We appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Stuart appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Stuart. Mr. Regelbrugge, we're glad to have you here today and you may proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG J. REGELBRUGGE, DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND GROWER SERVICES, AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
Mr. REGELBRUGGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. The American Nursery and Landscape Association welcomes the opportunity to present the nursery industry's views regarding H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act. ANLA is the national trade organization for the nursery and landscape industry. We represent about 2,700 growers, landscape firms, retail garden centers, and the 16,000 additional family and small business members of our State and regional associations.
ANLA has been an active member of the broad, and indeed, growing coalition seeking passage of the Plant Protection Act, since a consensus-building effort was initiated several years ago. In addition to those testifying here today, H.R. 3766 is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Nation's largest organization of farmers and ranchers.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many other organizations have indicated their support for the bill, and Mr. Chairman, with your approval, I have provided a list of supporting organizations for the hearing record.
The nursery and greenhouse industry is the fastest-growing economic segment of American agriculture, according to USDA's Economic Research Service. Nursery and greenhouse crops in 1996 were worth $10.9 billion at the farm gate, representing nearly 11 percent of the total cash receipts for all U.S. farm crops. Our industry interestingly ranks as the third largest plant crop, behind corn and soybeans, yet ahead of such major plant crops as wheat, cotton and tobacco.
Our industry is also a viable agricultural segment in virtually every State, ranking among the top five commodities in 24 States and among the top 10 in 40 States. ANLA strongly supports enactment of H.R. 3766. The nursery industry depends on an effective APHIS plant protection program since new introductions of harmful plant pests can severely disrupt both the production and the marketing of our industry's products.
It's no small surprise that the last two new Federal domestic quarantines promulgated for the pine shoot beetle and for the Asian longhorn beetle have had direct impact on the nursery and landscape industry.
The Plant Protection Act would consolidate and streamline a sometimes confusing web of eleven plant quarantine laws which, while adequate at the time of their passage, no longer fully address the needs of the U.S. agricultural community in a time of unprecedented international movement of people and products. And new trading patterns are posing new and dangerous risks. For example, the United States and Canada are increasingly intercepting harmful new pests on wood packing material associated with commodities coming from China and elsewhere.
The Plant Protection Act would provide a clear and modern framework for APHIS programs to exclude damaging foreign plant pests and noxious weeds. It would facilitate international trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers, and finally, it would promote continued U.S. production of healthy agricultural products, including nursery crops for domestic and export markets.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While the Plant Protection Act mainly streamlines and clarifies existing authority, the bill would achieve several enhancements. Two of those are as follows: First, a stronger framework for managing noxious weeds. Gaps in authority and legal interpretations have weakened APHIS' ability to comprehensively manage the most serious noxious weed threats to both agriculture and the environment. The Plant Protection Act would address the major gaps. I've included more specifics in my written testimony.
Weed issues uniquely affect the nursery industry, because noxious weeds pose the same production headache for nursery growers as for other producers of traditional row crops. Also, the unintentional spread of noxious weeds via nursery crop shipments is a risk. But also, some intentionally introduced horticultural species have become weedy themselves, potentially impacting the environment and natural resources.
Leaders in our industry would like to pro-actively prevent problems associated with horticultural introductions that may escape cultivation in our landscapes and gardens and become unduly invasive. In keeping with the adage on the value of prevention, ANLA and the Weed Science Society of America have formed a working group to explore how proposed new plant introductions might be screened for potential invasiveness. Implementation of a science-based screening program will only be possible with the collaboration of industry, APHIS, State officials, and supporting scientists. The Plant Protection Act will allow APHIS more flexibility to pursue such partnerships to achieve mutual goals.
We also support enhanced penalty authority. Fruit flies in Florida and California, Asian gypsy moths in North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and Chrysanthemum white rust on both our coasts are examples of recent high-profile plant pest introductions. Such introductions often involve the illegal introduction of prohibited or restricted plant products.
H.R. 3766, as we've heard, would augment civil penalty authority to a level where penalties may deter illegal activity that threatens U.S. agriculture. To help ensure reasonable application of this added authority, the bill describes factors that shall be considered in determining the amount of civil penalty based on the nature of the violation.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, I'd like to say that the continued growth and success of the U.S. nursery industry, and indeed, all of agriculture, depends on our collective ability to achieve plant protection, pest safeguarding, and export facilitation goals. A strong and relevant USDA APHIS as American agriculture's gatekeeper is critical to this success. The American Nursery and Landscape Association is confident that the Plant Protection Act will better position APHIS to achieve these goals. We respectfully encourage its enactment. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Regelbrugge appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Cross, Mrs. Clayton regretted that she had to leave and wanted to extend her personal welcome to you because you are from North Carolina, am I correct in that?
Mr. CROSS. That's correct. Thank you very much.
Mr. GOODLATTE. She is glad to have you here and I'm her designated welcomer, but you may proceed with your testimony when you're ready.
STATEMENT OF GENE B. CROSS, FEDERAL NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS COMMITTEE, WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Mr. CROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the Plant Protection Act. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America, an organization of over 2,000 weed scientists from research, teaching, extension, industry, and regulatory disciplines. Through both oral and written testimony, I hope to provide you with a personal perspective relating to the devastation caused by the introduction and subsequent spread of invasive weeds and to review specific components of the proposed Plant Protection Act that will help to reduce the impacts of invasive weeds.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based on a comprehensive review, the Weed Science Society of America fully supports the Plant Protection Act as introduced. Problems related to the introduction of invasive weeds have escalated over the past several years, and are rapidly approaching the crisis level. Weeds are considered to be among the most serious of threats to agriculture, forests, wetlands, and natural areas in the United States.
From an agricultural perspective, weeds out-compete crops and significantly reduce both yield and quality. Weeds directly impact production agriculture by creating the need for additional land, labor, equipment, pesticides, and fertilizer.
The costs of weed control are staggering and require producers to make timely, effective, and economical treatment decisions to protect their investments. In its publication, ''Crop Losses Due to
Weeds–1992'' the Weed Science Society of America estimate the cumulative value of average crop losses due to both indigenous and non-indigenous weeds to be $4.1 billion annually. For the agricultural sector, weed control costs are estimated to range from $1.5 to $2.3 billion annually.
Since 1992, combined weed losses and control costs in agricultural areas are estimated to be approaching the $15 billion point. Examples of introduced weed problems in agricultural production areas are numerous. As Mrs. Clayton would know, witchweed, a parasitic weed introduced from Africa is only found in the Carolinas and it prompted one of the most intensive weed eradication efforts ever attempted by Federal or a State agencies. Witchweed attacks and damages many crops of the grass family, including corn, sorghum, millet, and rice by penetrating the roots of host plants, robbing them of necessary water and nutrients.
Parasitized plants are usually stunted and substantially reduce the yield and may even kill crops. Early in this weed eradication project, total infested acreage in North and South Carolina exceeded 430,000 acres. However, cooperative efforts during the last few years have reduced that infested acreage of this devastating weed to now 11,000 acres.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This level of success was achieved through an intense program focused on the elements of survey, control, regulatory, and eradication. In the absence of these efforts, this weed would have spread at an alarming rate throughout much of the United States and effectively restricted the movement of agricultural commodities to other areas of the country and also to foreign markets.
There's a long history of concern among weed scientists and governmental agencies relating to the overall impacts of invasive weed species. However, the approaches to the management of invasive species in the United States have been splintered and there are large gaps where laws are absent or ineffective or even not applied at all.
At the present time, there are at least 21 Federal agencies with either a direct or indirect responsibility for non-indigenous species. Of these Federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS, plays the most critical role in the regulation of plant imports, Interstate movement, and management of invasive species that pose a threat to agriculture.
The Federal noxious weed law administered by this agency should serve as a basic component in preventing the introduction and spread of invasive weed species. During the past several years, Weed Science Society of America members have reviewed the existing Federal noxious weed law and have developed recommendations necessary to ensure a more comprehensive approach to the protection of our agricultural and natural resources.
The proposed Plant Protection Act, as introduced, incorporates many of those components that we feel are necessary to effectively regulate the importation of invasive weed species. The proposed act expands the definition of noxious weeds, includes species that may pose significant risk to wetland or natural areas. Moving beyond the traditional agricultural role will enable APHIS to more effectively regulate invasive weed species that pose a significant threat to natural areas.
With this act, there's authorization to take emergency and extraordinary emergency actions should the presence of a noxious weed threaten plants or plant products of the United States.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Presently, several noxious weeds are being offered for sale as ornamentals in the seed and nursery trade, even though movement should not occur without a permit. The interpretation of the Federal noxious weed law up to this point has applied only to the movement of species that are being moved from quarantined areas. To date, only a single quarantine relating to noxious weeds have ever been invoked and that specific one is witchweed.
Under the Plant Protection Act, restrictions on movement may be imposed without the adoption of a quarantine, thus allowing for regional weed concerns. The Plant Protection Act also enables the Secretary to develop a classification system that describes status and action levels for noxious weeds. A classification system would enable us to develop priority or status rankings for these individual noxious weeds.
In order to effectively address the issue of invasive noxious weeds there must be concerted efforts at all levels to identify weed problems at an early stage and, when possible, prevent their entry into the United States. Without these efforts, the ability for us to develop effective strategies to address invasive weeds in the United States will fail.
I'm confident today that the Plant Protection Act provides important mechanisms, necessary for a cooperative effort among both Federal and State agencies in managing invasive weed problems. I urge you to support this initiative and to support this initiative and to eliminate those inconsistencies that lay out the welcome mat for our invasive weed species. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Cross appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Cross.
Gentlemen, I have been called for a vote in another committee, so I'm going to have to declare the hearing in recess. We're expecting another member here shortly to continue the process, but if you can stand by we'll get back to you as quickly as possible and I apologize but that's the life we lead here. Thank you very much.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Folks, let me begin by apologizing. The best laid plans don't always work out and the reinforcements never arrived, I understand. They just had a series of votes, as well. But we are ready to hear the testimony of Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for your patience.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN B. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PLANT BOARD
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the National Plant Board, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. The National Plant Board is an organization of plant regulatory officials of the 50 States and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The National Plant Board provides leadership in pest prevention and management and strives to unify efforts to protect U.S. agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and the environment from harmful plant pests. The members of our organization facilitate domestic and international trade in plants and plant products through the development of harmonized plant pest surveys, pest management, and certification programs. We partner with USDA and other Federal and State agencies to accomplish our mission.
The United States is under a constant threat from the introduction of plant pests. The U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment report ''Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States'' published in 1993, reported on many introduced species. Species introduced from distant geographical areas into the United States often lack environmental and biological restraints and may become serious plant pests of agriculture, forests, rangeland, and wetlands. The vigilance of the USDA is essential if we are to exclude these plant pests.
Some examples of harmful plant pest introductions include medfly, Asian longhorn beetle, Asian gypsy moth, and leafy spurge. Further details on these are included in my written testimony. The National Plant Board supports passage of H.R. 3766 and believes that it will provide USDA with the necessary framework to accomplish its dual mission of protecting the United States from the introduction of harmful plant pests and facilitating export trade opportunities. The expansion of foreign trade has increased the sheer volume of material that may harbor plant pests. It is imperative that American agriculture maintain its health in order to take advantage of expanding markets. To this end, our plant pest laws must be crafted to impose the least burden without sacrificing reasonable and necessary protection. this calls for better communication between plant regulatory officials and the regulatory community, including more partnerships and consensus building. Innovative solutions for our plant pest problems are needed.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Plant Protection Act will streamline USDA-APHIS statutory authority. One single consolidated act will clarify Federal authorities and responsibilities. This is important and timely, because many States are working to modernize their own plant test laws. A more uniform and transparent national plant protection and certification system will serve U.S. agriculture well.
Finally, the Plant Protection Act will serve as a model for foreign countries. Over the long terms, U.S. exporters will benefit. When the current laws were crafted, no one envisioned the expansion of travel and trade or the emergence of genetically-engineered organisms and biological control. To keep pace and remain relevant, it is critical that the current array of plant quarantine laws be modernized to assure that the necessary and appropriate level of plant protection is maintained.
To illustrate, the definition of biological control organisms in this bill separates it from the old plant pest definition, streamlining their approval and use. Screening new biological control organisms could be done at USDA facilities to ensure that these organisms will have the desired effect on the target host and won't become pests themselves.
Another major change involves penalty authorities. Increased civil penalties will serve as a deterrent to smuggling. Illegal importation of fruits has been implicated in the introduction of medfly in California and Florida. Authorization of civil penalties for illegal use of phytosanitary certificates is important to maintain a credible plant export certification system.
International trade agreements have elevated the role and the importance of plant protection programs. The Plant Protection Act will position APHIS to offer the necessary leadership in plant protection in the United States. Together we can protect our agriculture, forestry, and horticultural industries and environment from plant pests. Thank you for your time and please call on the National Plant Board if we can provide further information.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And in a further note, I was asked by NASDA with is the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, to enter a letter from their president, Leslie Lindal, concerning their support for H.R. 3766, so with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could enter that into the hearing record.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Urmston.
STATEMENT OF DEAN URMSTON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION
Mr. URMSTON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Dean Urmston. I am the executive vice president for the American Seed Trade Association and it's an honor to be here and to participate in this democratic process.
ASTA, as we have been known for the last 115 years, is the national trade association charged with representing the interests of the seed industry. Our membership tops 850 companies and ranges from huge multi-nationals like Pioneer Hybrid in Des Moines, IA, to very small family-owned businesses like the Latham Seed Company in Alexander, IA. You may be acquainted with Congressman Tom Latham who is a silent partner in that business right now as he serves here in Washington, DC.
I use Alexander, IA, population 160 because our current president happens to be Bill Latham, president of Latham Seed, from Alexander, IA. Both he and Tom will tell you, and brag about the fact that they do have a restaurant in Alexander. It's not right in town, it's up by the truck stop, as a matter of fact. And they'll tell you that the service is terrible, but you don't mind because the food's so bad. [Laughter.]
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OK, now I know somebody's listening. We represent all types of commodities and seed, from asparagus to zucchini, lawn seed, forages, flower seed, and almost the agronomic crops—corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. We also have the privilege to include representatives that provide support and services to the seed industry. These would include merger and acquisition specialists who are very busy in our industry these days. Bagging, labelling and other specialized equipment manufacturers. Some 46 States comprise our membership along with 25 plus foreign companies.
ASTA is pleased to join in discussions regarding H.R. 3766 and it sounds like we're all marching to the same drummer, the U.S. Plant Protection Act. International and national phytosanitary laws and regulations are of paramount importance to the U.S. seed industry. Currently, we export nearly $1 billion and imported over $300 million in planting seed to and from over 95 countries worldwide.
The sanitary and phytosanitary provisions found within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and supported by the World Trade Organizations require that countries endeavor to achieve international transparency with regards to their plant protection laws and regulations. H.R. 3766 consolidates, as you heard and know, and it was in your on opening remarks, 11 plant quarantine laws which date back to 1913.
Furthermore, H.R. 3766 eliminates the ambiguities and better defines the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in implementing all provisions of the Plant Protection Law. Passage of H.R. 3766 is consistent with current goals of streamlining government and regulatory reform. The Plant Protection Act would fulfill many goals, including strengthening essential regulatory programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, protecting the viability of U.S. agriculture by limited the introduction of harmful foreign pests, facilitating international trade, as well as promoting production of healthy agricultural products for domestic and export markets.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Introduction of harmful, non-indigenous species as a negative consequence of free trade. These species, which include insects, pathogens and weeds, can be introduced on plants and plant produces and packaging materials. Non-indigenous species, once introduced, have no natural enemies to keep their populations in check and can prove to be devastating to agriculture and managed ecosystems. It is estimated that the United States loses 4,600 acres per day to non-indigenous weed species and this estimate does not include losses incurred by other foreign pests.
The Plant Protection Act will allow the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to effectively prevent the introduction and movement of non-native plant pests in the United States.
In closing, the American Seed Trade Association wishes to emphasize the importance of a technically sound, science-based approach to implementing the Plant Protection Law. We encourage the Secretary of Agriculture and APHIS to take all necessary measures to ensure that the phytosanitary expertise and integrity of the United States is maintained.
We ask that more work be done in the areas of pest risk analysis, epidemiological surveys, as well as pest identification. Efforts along these fronts will effectively limit the number of phytosanitary trade disputes and strengthen the position of the United States in addressing the myriad of unjustified phytosanitary-based trade barriers impacting the U.S. agricultural sector.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of ASTA. We join in support of H.R. 3766, add our thanks to your, Mr. Chairman, and the full committee for their coordination and effective staff work in advancing this legislation. If there are any further questions for us, or in the future, we have staff people here. We'd be happy to respond.
[The statement of Mr. Urmston appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Urmston. I understand that while each of your organizations supports this legislation, there was some internal discussion regarding the level at which civil penalties should be set. I wonder if each of you could address this issue, focusing on what you believe to be the pros and cons of penalties at the level suggested in the legislation.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my testimony, one of the things that has been a great concern to us in Florida has been the relative low level of penalties available to APHIS in dealing with smuggling and other illegal movements of fruits, vegetables and other potential host materials into the United States. We think the provisions of the bill will go a long way toward providing some type of a deterrent to people who would knowingly go around the law or just view the existing situation as being the cost of doing business.
One of the things happening right now in Florida—we've got a cooperative project going on between APHIS and the State plant industry people. In going into, as I mentioned in my testimony, whether it be stores or different areas trying to interdict violative product, and I think one of the things they've had to do is utilize the Federal authority to go in and handle these types of operations, but at the same time utilize the State penalties, because the State penalties in this particular case in Florida, are stronger than they are at the Federal level. That's why we were so glad to see the level of penalties included in the legislation to be as strong as they are.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
Mr. REGELBRUGGE. Mr. Chairman, the American Nursery and Landscape Association also has recognized in recent years the risk inherent in the kinds of smuggling activities that have been well documented now and we believe that the level at which the penalties are being recommended in the bill is consistent with other laws, pesticide related laws and so forth, and so we fully support what's being proposed in the bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Cross.
Mr. CROSS. I was just going to say from the Weed Science Society of America perspective, the same is true. We look forward to those penalties being a strong deterrents in the future for those individuals who attempt to get around the penalties that we have now.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. JOHNSON. I guess I might add, as per my testimony, we also welcome the inclusion of penalties for the falsifying of documentation for phytosanitary certificates. I know in Nebraska we do numerous ones a year, from 75-car units trains going down to Mexico to a few plants going to Japan. And the falsification of those documents and the credibility of those documents is very, very important to really ensure that we have a good, credible system for export certification. That, as well, I think is real important and I just echo the real need for some real civil penalties as far as the smuggling operations that might be going on with fruits and other plants in the United States.
Mr. URMSTON. We don't have a consensus from our entire membership. Those that we have visited with pretty much sent the same message, that we want to demonstrate that we're serious about this whole matter, then the penalty should be commensurate with the crime.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Here's another open-ended question. The agency sought input and consensus among several of organizations for several of the core issues in this legislation. However, I'm advised that a significant portion of this legislation, specifically many of the new authorities the agency is suggesting, particularly investigation authorities, were never discussed. Could you provide the committee with your views on each of the new authorities requested by the agency and if any of you want to do that in writing afterwards, after you've had a chance to think about it, we'll hold the record open to do that. Anybody want to comment on anything now?
Mr. URMSTON. I think our feeling is that APHIS has demonstrated that they're not getting carried away with that same authority they have in other areas and we don't have a problem with it at this time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Stuart.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STUART. Mr. Chairman, I would concur with that and we will take a look at each of the authorities that are listed in the legislation and come back to the committee and address those specific issues. But at this point in time, we don't have any objection to what's being suggested, at this point.
Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Cross, what characteristics make a plant a noxious weed? Can it be predicted prior to introduction if a plant species will be a noxious weed?
Mr. CROSS. Mr. Chairman, I think as early as the mid-seventies, Dr. Baker had some characteristics—he actually looked at a list of characteristics that he termed as a plant being invasive, or described a plant as being invasive. Those ranged from everything from vegetative characteristics all the way down to prolific seed production.
I have with me today a sample of such a plant. I mentioned in my testimony witchweed. The seed are almost microscopic in size. I want you to understand these have been devitalized, so I'm not violating any kind of quarantine restrictions by being those out.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Don't drop that glass. [Laughter.]
Mr. CROSS. They were microwaved so they're completely fine. There's no chance that they'll germinate. But a plant such as witchweed is a very prolific seed producer, and so it's adapted to spread—very fast spread, when it actually is allowed to go to seed.
There have been other models that have been developed over time. I would say the Australians are very much ahead of us in looking at using models to predict invasiveness of plants. I think overall there's hope for that area. I think there's an ability to be able to predict. I'm encouraged by the work of Dr. Sarah Reichard. She's looking at some characteristics again, as well as pest risk assessment in her overall assessment to arrive at a model, if you will.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are also other areas that we look at insofar as invasive window, a window of invasiveness that might be appropriate, as well. I feel overall there are models that would help us to be able to predict if a plant is going to be aggressive or not.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Stuart, there are numerous grass-roots volunteer groups willing to get out and apply physical labor to eradication noxious weeds. How could APHIS effectively use such groups?
Mr. STUART. Well, I think one of the keys to this whole effort, not only with noxious weeds, but any kind of pest that we're facing out there, is collaborative and cooperative efforts between APHIS as a Federal agency, State agencies, and other groups, grass-roots organizations that are willing to work with those agencies at the State and local level.
We have a finite set of resources out there, as has been mentioned by a number of the people on the panel this morning. And to the degree that we have a limited amount of resources, the cooperation between State and Federal officials, between other organizations with those officials is absolutely imperative, in my mind. And I would encourage the agency, our State agency and other groups, to work on a collaborative basis to try and make sure that we do make an active use of those resources.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Regelbrugge, an important aspect of the landscape and nursery industry is the importation of new plant species. Considering the strong influence of local conditions on plant growth and characteristics, how can we be certain that a species will not be invasive? Are there any programs in existence that evaluate this introductions?
Mr. REGELBRUGGE. Mr. Chairman, we think it's worth noting that, first of all, the vast majority of intentional introductions for improvement of our food and fiber and horticultural industries have been beneficial and well-mannered. I'm talking even about things like the azaleas and roses and so forth in your garden that are all introduced species.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nonetheless, we also need to recognize that some percentage of plants that have been intentionally introduced have proven to do too well under some circumstances. I mean, plants like kudzu that were brought for erosion control have simply done a little bit too well.
As Gene mentioned earlier, we've been looking at some decision models that take into consideration plant characteristics that might be indicators of invasiveness. Things like what plant family a plant belongs to. Certain families have more bad actors in them than others. Another example would be whether that plant has any record of being invasive somewhere else in the world, and that's turned out to be one of the best predictors of potential invasiveness in North America. So we are looking at those kinds of models. I think those models will never entirely limit the risk, but they will have us to manage the risk and to make better decisions. Right now, what we're looking at is trying to embrace voluntary screening of those things. There's no regulatory apparatus in place currently to screen new introductions and we'd like to see the industry move toward voluntary programs to do so.
Ultimately, I think this is an issue that will have to be dealt with at both at the national and the regional level for the reasons that you stated. Certainly plants will only be invasive in localized geographic areas.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Urmston, what data does an epidemiological survey provide? Who conducts the surveys? And is the data independently verified or peer reviewed by anybody?
Mr. URMSTON. I'm going to ask Mark Condon the person that wrote that for me, if he wouldn't mind responding to that question.
Mr. CONDON. I'm Mark Condon, vice president for international marketing for the American Seed Trade Association.
Epidemiological research is being conducted by the industry, at the industry level. It's being conducted at the university level, and at the Federal level by APHIS simultaneously and concurrently. More importantly, recently APHIS is also entering into agreements with universities and industries to perform pest risk analyses where necessary. We recognized that to perform a pest risk analysis it often takes 1, 2, sometimes even 3 years and with the cooperation of the industry we can get the task done to where we can formulate what we call scientifically-justifiable before requirements proceed.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently we are undertaking that, industry is seriously looking at that, but it's being performed at the university, private sector, and also the Federal level.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
Mr. Canady.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to all of you on this panel for the disruption in our proceedings. We had to be over at the Judiciary Committee as I'm sure you understand, but I apologize for not being present for all of your presentations and for you having to wait.
Mr. Stuart, I particularly want to extend greetings to you and thank you for your testimony. I know how important these issues are to the growers in Florida.
Let me ask you specifically about this, Mr. Stuart. There was mention of the large eradication programs that were needed for gypsy moth and Mediterranean fruit fly. How will such programs be affected by the EPA's current implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act in your view?
Mr. STUART. Well, Mr. Canady, the Food Quality Protection Act obviously is going to be an extensive process of looking at a variety of different agricultural chemicals and determining whether or not they're going to fit in the so-called ''risk cup'' and that, to the degree that they do or don't fit into the ''risk cup,'' their use to fit into that risk cup will determine whether or not we have certain tools available to us in normal agricultural production or in emergency situations, potentially for use in a medfly or some other type of an eradication program.
For medfly, unfortunately, the arsenal that we have to eradicate medfly is fairly limited. Malathion really is the only material we have available to us to conduct a substantial eradication program, similar to the one we have—is ongoing right now in Umatilla by both ground and air application, in the Bradenton area, and ground application as well in Miami on ground application.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the first set of chemicals out of the blocks that EPA is looking at in terms of FTPA implementation are organophosphates, Malathion being one. And to the degree that EPA finds that Malathion or that particular use of Malathion does not fit within that theoretical risk cup, we could stand to lose the use of that material. Without any alternatives, to be honest with you, in Florida we'd be a dead duck in terms of being able to eradicate medfly.
So, in my mind, it is a huge problem for us in something that I know that people at APHIS are concerned about. We're certainly extremely concerned about it and we need to spend some time looking at this. Because, again, our ability to eradicate a large-scale or even a small-scale infestation of medfly in Florida would be seriously jeopardized if we don't have that material.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Stuart. Let me ask you, Mr. Stuart or Mr. Cross, or perhaps both of you to address this question. Now, I understand that the cattlemen in Florida have agreed to hold their cattle for five days before shipping them out of State so that the cattle can pass any ingested tropical soda apple seed and prevent this weed's spread. Are there other types of voluntary actions that can be done to prevent the spread of noxious weeds?
Mr. CROSS. I'll mention one that we've utilized. I think it's been very successful overall. We've actually worked with our North Carolina Department of Transportation to put in some guidelines, some specifications in their bid process. We work with the DOT in the movement of wheat straw from place to place in North Carolina. In moving within the State, we've been able to document on many occasions movement of noxious weeds, but also other plant pests, for example, fire ants.
What we've been able to do with DOT in a voluntary fashion is to have them put into their contract, their bids upfront, stipulations whereby those that are going to be bidding on the project call ahead of time and find out if the county where they're growing wheat straw is in a quarantine area. Verifying if it is in a quarantine area, they'll take certain actions to prevent the movement of that plant pest from place to place. And in fact, they've gone so far to say if that action is not taken on the part of the bidder, the overall bid is null and void. So I think it's a very direct step on the part of DOT in a voluntary fashion to work with us in trying to quarantine the movement of plant pests from place to place. It's helped us out quite a bit.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CANADY. OK, thank you. That's an interesting and I think instructive example. I don't have any more questions. Again, I want to thank all of you for your contribution to today's hearing.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, and I also want to thank all of you for your participation and if there are no further questions, I think we'll conclude this panel and the hearing. The Chair would seek unanimous consent to allow the record of today's hearing to remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to any question posed by a member of the panel.
Without objection, it is so ordered. And this hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Statement of Craig Reed
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act. The bill would streamline, modernize, and enhance the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and quarantine. The U.S. Department of Agriculture supports enactment of the legislation, but respectfully recommends one amendment, which I will discuss later in my testimony. The Administration is continuing its review of the bill; if additional issues are raised, we will work with the Committee to address these concerns.
The Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service safeguards U.S. agricultural health and maintains domestic and international markets in part through a variety of laws known as the plant quarantine laws, which date back to 1912. While these laws have endured reasonably well over the past 86 years, they have not kept pace with advances in production, science, and technology. In 1912, no one could envision the enormous expansion of travel and trade; the commercial production of biological control on the scale we see today; or the challenges of evaluating and regulating genetically engineered organisms. Existing laws have been stretched to their limits to meet these challenges. Over the years, as problems arose, new laws were passed, usually without giving any consideration to how they complemented the existing laws.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under this framework, APHIS and State Departments of Agriculture, producers, and agriculture industry groups have worked hand in hand for many years to ensure the health of American agriculture. This partnership has enabled producers to provide an abundant, varied, and economical food supply to the American consumer. It has also enabled American producers to supply food to much of the world. This has benefited not only our producers and consumers worldwide, but the U.S. economy. Agriculture and related industries, such as input, food processing and service industries, continue to comprise a major component of the country's Gross Domestic Product, and play a major role in the economics of international trade.
With diminishing reliance on government to support farm prices and incomes, the expansion of international markets has become even more important in maintaining farm prosperity. At the same time, the adoption of sanitary and phytosanitary principles as the standards by which market access will be determined has sharpened the focus on agricultural protection and our ability to maintain that protection. In this global economy, it is imperative that American agriculture maintain its health and be positioned to take advantage of expanding markets overseas. To be in the strongest negotiating position possible when dealing with international trade issues, the statutory framework supporting phytosanitary activities must be transparent, comprehensive, and consistent with those used by our trading partners. USDA officials and other trade officials should never have a moment's hesitation about the state of U.S. agricultural health and our ability to maintain that health.
Our ability to protect American agriculture must be built upon a solid foundation of statutory and regulatory authority. The foundation should be one that can be easily modified to respond to changing risks and problems we may face in the future. It should provide a framework through which partnerships can be formed
and a variety of interrelated actions can work together for the benefit of all. There should be no confusion about which authority may or may not be applicable; there should be no question about what action the Federal Government can take and the conditions under which action can be taken; and there should be no doubt about whether the authority is sufficient to address new technologies and new science.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we approach the 21st century, the time is right to streamline and modernize the plant quarantine laws and enact enhancements that will establish a firm foundation for the future. H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act, will do just that. It condenses eleven statutes into one comprehensive and easily understood authority. It eliminates existing ambiguities, clarifies and reaffirms authorities, and enhances the Department's ability to ensure the protection of American agriculture. It ensures that our authorities are clear to those we regulate and those with whom we form partnerships. The legislation also ensures the clarity and transparency required under international agreements and it reaffirms the critical role the Agency plays in establishing, maintaining, and expanding international trade. I'd like to outline some of the significant enhancements contained in the proposed legislation.
In administering laws for the protection of agriculture, it is important to be able to enforce those laws effectively. For the most part, the plant quarantine laws authorize civil penalties of up to $1,000 in addition to criminal penalties of up to $5,000. Some of the plant quarantine laws do not authorize the assessment of civil penalties and can only be enforced through criminal proceedings. While a maximum penalty of $1,000 is a pretty stiff fine for an individual traveler carrying a couple of oranges, it isn't much for a company grossing hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, especially when a violation can result in a pest or disease outbreak costing millions of dollars just to eradicate. Having an adequate and appropriate penalty structure helps deter violations, ensures that the punishment fits the violation, and reinforces the integrity of the regulatory system. The Plant Protection Act would increase the maximum civil penalty to $50,000 per violation for individuals and up to $250,000 per violation for others. It also provides an alternative civil penalty of twice the gross loss or gross gain if pecuniary loss or gain is suffered because of a violation of the Act.
Penalty systems are most effective when they are supported by effective investigatory systems. For example, APHIS has no direct authority to subpoena witnesses or documentary evidence under the Plant Quarantine Laws—an authority that does exist under other laws enforced by APHIS such as the Animal Welfare Act. The legislation would provide a comprehensive set of investigatory and enforcement tools that are already available to most regulatory agencies, and that would greatly increase the Department's ability to protect American agriculture and resources. APHIS can be relied upon to use these tools effectively and responsibly, as we have with other laws we enforce such as the Animal Welfare Act.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are many disease organisms in the plant world that cannot be rapidly identified. One of these organisms could enter the United States on smuggled plants. The smuggled product could be planted and grown for several years before the disease is discovered. By the time the disease is identified, seeds and cuttings from the plant could have been distributed to other parts of the United States. Even though APHIS can take action against the diseased plant that was smuggled in, it cannot currently take action against any of the cuttings or seeds that were planted unless they are already showing signs of the disease. The legislation would provide the authority for APHIS to take action to prevent the dissemination of potentially infected progeny regardless of whether the disease has expressed itself yet.
In recent years, we have also been faced with new risks that reach beyond traditional agriculture—pine shoot beetle and Asian longhorned beetle are two examples. These pests affect commercial nursery production and forestry resources, but they also affect other natural resources, parks, and private property. In addition, many of the noxious weeds introduced into this country affect natural resources, waterways, and private property. Existing authorities have allowed us to address some of these problems, but our efforts to address other problems, especially in the noxious weed area, have been constrained by these same authorities. The Plant Protection Act expands and clarifies our authority to deal with noxious weeds and pests of the environment.
One of the most effective ways to deal with some of these problems is biological control. Biological control has brought many benefits as an environmentally friendly, sustainable, and cost-effective control tool. It has been developed and used by the Department for decades. Under existing authorities, biological control agents are evaluated solely for their plant pest properties. We do this to ensure that they do not become problems instead of beneficial tools. Because the plant quarantine laws were passed at a time when biocontrol was not a commercially viable enterprise, the laws do not specifically address it. Within the constraints of these laws, we have historically regulated biocontrol agents as potential pests and then released them from regulation when our assessment determined that they were host-specific. This approach does not acknowledge the positive aspects of biocontrol, nor does it recognize the commercial and economic benefits of this growth industry. Government should not hinder beneficial enterprises--it should ensure their safety then let the industry prosper. The legislation recognizes this explicitly by defining biological control organisms as beneficial agents and ensuring that any regulatory actions are science and risk-based.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another way we can help industry is through partnerships. For many years, APHIS has had authority to assist the poultry industry in the development of programs for the improvement of poultry. These industry-driven programs have enhanced the marketability of poultry products by addressing both health and product quality issues. It has been a unique and productive partnership between industry and government, and the effort merits expansion to other industries. The Plant Protection Act would provide similar authority for industry-driven quality assurance programs for plants, plant products, and biological control organisms to
improve their marketability.
Regulatory uniformity is also important to maintaining marketability and commerce. The benefits to commerce derived from having uniform application of quarantine requirements is difficult to contest. No producer or shipper can afford to meet the varying requirements of 49 other States. When Federal officials take an action, it should be based in sound science and be the least drastic measure necessary to address the problem. Federal preemption regarding matters in foreign commerce sends a positive signal to international trading partners and helps ensure compliance with international trading obligations. If there is a serious problem, preemption ensures a solid, consistent Federal response that protects production and commerce. However, where interstate commerce is concerned, States should be free to make their own decisions on quarantine issues in the absence of Federal action. H.R. 3766 reaffirms these principles. The Act also explicitly recognizes, for the first time, that there may be special conditions or situations at the local level that should be taken into account and establishes, by statute, a right to petition the Department to establish more stringent requirements if special needs or conditions can be demonstrated.
The health of our Nation's plant resources, be they crops, forestry, horticulture, or natural resources, can best be maintained when government at all levels and industry work together to identify and address pest and disease risks that threaten these precious resources. A clear, consistent, risk-based regulatory framework is critical to supporting these cooperative efforts and maintaining health so we can be poised to take advantage of market opportunities. Given the critical nature of this mission and its impact on the global marketplace, we believe the overarching organization supporting this mission should reflect the importance of the role it plays. For this reason we recommend the legislation be amended to convert the current position of Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to the position of Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. This would help put the health of U.S. agriculture on a level with other critical missions of the Department of Agriculture and ensure a clearer understanding of the role of phytosanitary issues in the international arena.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Statement of Mike Stuart
The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FFVA), an organization comprised of growers, packers and shippers of vegetables, citrus, sugarcane, tropical fruit and other agricultural commodities in Florida. The State's growers led the Nation in the production of 19 major agricultural commodities in 1996, including oranges, fresh tomatoes, grapefruit, bell peppers, and cucumbers. Florida's unique geographical location in the United States affords growers an opportunity to provide American consumers and export markets with fruits, vegetables and other seasonal crops during the months of the year when other domestic producers cannot grow and harvest these commodities.
Florida's tropical and semi-tropical climate also makes it highly vulnerable to infestation by plant pests and diseases. We have been concerned for some time whether existing plant protection and quarantine resources and penalties are sufficient deterrents to illegal imports of fruits, vegetables that are hosts to plant pests and diseases. Our recent experiences with the Mediterranean fruit fly and citrus canker would indicate that our concerns are highly justified.
State and Federal Government agencies are currently fighting medfly outbreaks in three separate locations in central and south Florida, and citrus canker in a two county area in south Florida. Just last summer and fall, more than $24 million in State and Federal funds were spent to eradicate a medfly infestation in Tampa Bay and other areas in central Florida. Potentially devastating diseases like tomato yellow leaf curl virus have been detected in recent months, and pests such as the pink hibiscus mealybug have been found at our doorstep in Puerto Rico. Each of these plant pests and diseases have the potential of inflicting serious damage to Florida's fruit and vegetable production. Their presence in the State could also result in the loss of critical export markets and the inability to open up new ones. Obviously, Florida isn't alone in this battle. Other states, such as California, have similar concerns. In 1993, USDA's APHIS estimated that annual losses in the continental United States attributable to the medfly alone would be about $1.5 billion, if the pest were to become established.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is no coincidence that the increased frequency of plant pest and disease detection in Florida and elsewhere in the United States has occurred at the same time trade and tourism have reached all-time highs. With the lowering of trade barriers resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement and other initiatives, imports of fruits and vegetables into the country have more than doubled over the past 10 years. Florida and other states are seeing record numbers of tourists and other visitors arrive each year. Some 24 million visitors entered Florida through airports, seaports and highways in 1997—a 7 percent increase over the previous year. Our increasing ethnic diversity has also brought about a greater demand for fruits, vegetables and other commodities from pest-infested regions. These factors have put tremendous pressure on the existing pest exclusion and detection programs at the State and Federal levels. It all adds up to a significantly increased risk of plant pest and disease introduction.
We greatly appreciate the efforts of Representative Canady in introducing H.R. 3766 the Plant Protection Act. The bill consolidates many, if not most, of the existing statutes relating to the prevention of the introduction of plant pests and diseases. From our perspective, one of the most significant things the bill does is provide for an increase in penalties.
H.R. 3766 calls for a significant increase in civil penalties that can be imposed on those who bring illegal fruits, vegetables and other host materials into the United States. Current levels of civil penalties are no longer a deterrent and are viewed by smugglers as a cost of doing business.
Smuggling of prohibited fruits, vegetables and other plant material is a significant problem, and is no doubt a major pathway for medfly, canker and other pests and diseases. During a recent State/Federal cooperative effort, which was organized through a new program called the Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance Initiative, officials confiscated what appeared to be canker-infested citrus leaves at an ethnic grocery store in central Florida. The leaves had been purchased through a local importer. During another recent blitz at Miami International Airport this spring, officers seized dozens of illegal food products, all within a few hours. Unfortunately, these efforts are picking-up a small fraction of what is entering the country.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We strongly support a strengthening of penalties. A strong deterrent is an essential component of an effective exclusion program. But, unfortunately, fines alone won't get the job done. More public education and additional personnel are needed to fight this battle.
The resources and tools available to USDA and State plant health agencies to exclude these pests and diseases have not kept pace with the rapid increases in trade and tourism we've experienced over the past 5 to 10 years. This was confirmed last year by the General Accounting Office in a report to Congress: ''Agricultural Inspection—Improvements Needed to Minimize Threat of Foreign Pests and Diseases''.
The report pointed out that despite changes to APHIS' funding and programs, inspectors at the ports are struggling to keep pace with increased workload. Heavy workloads have led to inspection shortcuts, which raise questions about the efficiency and overall effectiveness of these inspections.
We recognize the difficulty in increasing government spending during a period of fiscal restraint. However, in this case, increasing spending makes good sense. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in recent years on medfly and other pest eradication programs in Florida and California alone. Strengthening our pest exclusion and detection efforts would result in fewer and less expensive eradication programs. Doing this however, will require more personnel for inspection and interdiction, and greater cooperative efforts between State and Federal plant health and quarantine agencies in order to maximize the use of available resources. This is absolutely essential.
Improved public education must also be a high priority. Despite the heavy media attention given to medfly infestations, many people simply don't understand the risks associated with bringing contraband fruit or other products into the country. Information campaigns, such as the ''Don't Spread Med'' program, must be strengthened. Posters and notices should be prominently displayed in every air and sea port. And, public service announcements should be provided to radio and television stations in high risk areas. A better informed public will be less likely to unknowingly bring prohibited or restricted fruits and vegetables into the country.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fruit and vegetable industry in Florida and elsewhere in the United States has a great deal at stake. Producers are not the cause of the problem, but they certainly are impacted by the introduction of plant pests and diseases—whether it be lost production or lost markets. We believe the passage of H.R. 3766 would provide Federal officials with added tools to help deal with this important problem. But it only represents one leg of a three-legged stool. Additional resources and increased public education efforts must also be added to this effort. Only then will we begin to make progress in the battle against the introduction of foreign plant pests.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear at this hearing. Thank you.
Statement of Craig J. Regelbrugge
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, the American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA) welcomes this opportunity to present the nursery industry's views regarding H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act. ANLA is the national trade association for the nursery and landscape industry. ANLA represents 2,700 production nurseries, landscape firms, retail garden centers and horticultural distribution centers, and the 16,000 additional family farm and small business members of the State and regional nursery and landscape associations.
ANLA has been an active member of the coalition seeking passage of the Plant Protection Act since the consensus-building effort was initiated a few years ago. This legislation is now supported by a broad and growing list of organizations. In addition to those testifying here today, H.R. 3766 is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest organization of farmers and ranchers. The Farm Bureau will offer written testimony in support of the bill. The California Citrus Quality Council, California Avocado Commission, California and Florida Farm Bureaus, National Christmas Tree Association, Society of American Florists, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Sunkist Growers, National Potato Council, and other organizations support the bill as well.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Overview of the U.S. Nursery & Landscape Industry
The nursery and greenhouse industry is a bright spot in American agriculture. According to USDA's Economic Research Service, the nursery and greenhouse industry remains the fastest growing agricultural sector in cash receipts. Nursery and greenhouse crops in 1996 totaled an estimated $10.9 billion in farm-gate value, representing nearly 11 percent of the total cash receipts for all U.S. farm crops.
In 1996, nursery and greenhouse crops ranked seventh in total grower cash receipts among all agricultural commodities—the third largest plant crop, behind corn and soybeans, yet ahead of wheat, cotton, and tobacco. The nursery and greenhouse industry is a viable agricultural segment in virtually every state, ranking among the top five agricultural commodities in 24 States, and among the top 10 in 40 States. This phenomenal growth has taken place in a market-driven environment without direct Federal subsidies or price supports.
International, interstate and intrastate trade in nursery crops is regulated to prevent or slow the introduction and spread of harmful foreign plant pests. So our industry has a major stake in USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and State programs to exclude or manage harmful pests, and to facilitate U.S. exports of all types of plants and plant products.
ANLA Position on H.R. 3766, The Plant Protection Act
ANLA strongly supports enactment of H.R. 3766. The nursery industry depends on effective APHIS programs, since new introductions of harmful plant pests disrupt the production and marketing of our industry's products. The Plant Protection Act would consolidate and streamline a confusing web of 11 plant quarantine laws. Many of these laws are almost 100 years old and have been modified little over the years! While adequate at the time of their passage, they no longer fully address the needs of the U.S. agricultural community in an era of unprecedented international movement of people and products. New trading patterns pose new and dangerous risks. For example, the United States and Canada are now intercepting harmful new pests on wood packing materials coming from China and other countries. At the same time, new trading opportunities must be exploited.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Plant Protection Act would (1) provide a clear framework for APHIS programs designed to exclude damaging foreign plant pests and noxious weeds; (2) facilitate international trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers; and, (3) promote the continuing U.S. production of healthy agricultural products, including nursery crops, for domestic and export markets.
While the main thrust of the Plant Protection Act is to streamline and clarify existing authorities, H.R. 3766 would achieve several enhancements to USDA's authorities. These enhancements, fully supported by ANLA, include the following:
(1) A stronger framework for managing noxious weeds. Gaps in authorities, and legal interpretations, have weakened APHIS' ability to comprehensively manage the most serious weed threats to U.S. agriculture and the environment. H.R. 3766 would explicitly define noxious weeds to include plants that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to agriculture and/or the environment. The bill would allow for a streamlined process for listing noxious weeds that would be prohibited or restricted from entering the U.S., or subject to restrictions on interstate movement. H.R. 3766 would also extend the post-entry quarantine concept to plants that may become noxious weeds. Often, a period of growth and examination may be needed to adequately evaluate pest freedom or invasive potential.
Invasive plant issues uniquely affect the nursery industry. Noxious weeds pose the same production headaches for nursery growers as for producers of traditional row crops. In addition, because nursery growers typically ship living plants with soil or growing media, the unintentional spread of noxious weeds via our crops is possible.
Some intentionally-introduced horticultural species have become invasive themselves, potentially impacting the environment and natural resources. Some species still moving in the nursery trade are now widely considered invasive. Leaders in our industry desire to proactively manage the problems associated with horticultural introductions that may escape cultivation in our gardens and landscapes, and become unduly invasive.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In keeping with the adage on the value of prevention, ANLA and the Weed Science Society of America have formed a working group to explore how proposed new plant introductions may be scientifically screened for potential invasiveness. Implementation of such a screening program will only be possible with cooperative involvement of industry, APHIS and State plant regulatory officials, and horticultural and weed scientists. The Plant Protection Act will allow APHIS more flexibility to pursue partnerships with industry to achieve mutual goals.
(1) Enhanced penalty authority. Several recent high-profile plant pest introductions underscore the huge risks to U.S. agriculture and the environment that may result from harmful foreign pest introductions. Examples include exotic fruit fly introductions into Florida and California, Asian gypsy moth in North Carolina, Oregon and Washington; and repeated introductions of Chrysanthemum white rust in the Pacific Northwest. Many such examples involve illegal introduction of prohibited or regulated plants and plant products as a viable pest introduction pathway.
Unfortunately, civil penalties that may be assessed in the case of smuggling and other quarantine violations are so low as to be viewed as nothing more than ''the cost of doing business.'' H.R. 3766 would augment civil penalty authority to a level where potential penalties could serve as a deterrent to illegal activity that threatens U.S. agriculture. To help avoid any potential abuses of civil penalty authority, H.R. 3766 describes factors that shall be considered in determining the amount of any civil penalty.
The continued growth and success of the U.S. nursery industry, and indeed all of agriculture, depends on our collective ability to achieve plant protection, pest safeguarding and export facilitation goals. A strong and relevant USDA-APHIS is a critical component of this success. The American Nursery & Landscape Association is confident that H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act, will better position APHIS to contribute to these goals. ANLA fully supports this timely legislation. We respectfully urge its enactment.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Gene B. Cross
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the Plant Protection Act. Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). The WSSA is an organization of over 2,000 weed scientists from the research, teaching, extension, industry, and regulatory disciplines. The overall goals of the society are to protect the environment through the use of safe and efficient weed control practices, to facilitate the exchange of information about weeds and their control, and to enhance professionalism among weed scientists. Through both oral and written testimony, I hope to provide you with a personal perspective relating to the devastation caused by the introduction and subsequent spread of invasive weeds and to review specific components of the proposed Plant Protection Act that will help to reduce the impacts of invasive weeds. Based on a comprehensive review, the WSSA fully supports the Plant Protection Act as introduced.
Problems related to the introduction of invasive weeds have escalated over the past several years and are rapidly approaching the crisis level. Invasive weeds dissect our national interests causing problems for agriculture, natural areas, and human health. Weeds are considered to be among the most serious threats to agriculture, forestry, wetlands, and natural areas in the United States. From an agricultural perspective, weeds out compete crops and significantly reduce both yield and quality. Weeds directly impact production agriculture by creating the need for additional land, labor, equipment, pesticides, or fertilizer. The costs of weed control are staggering and require producers to make timely, effective, and economical treatment decisions to protect their investments. In its publication, Crop Losses Due to Weeds–1992, the Weed Science Society of America estimated the cumulative value of average crop losses due to both indigenous and non-indigenous weeds to be $4.1 billion annually. For the agricultural sector, weed control costs are estimated to range from $1.5 to $2.3 billion dollars annually. Since 1992, combined weed losses and control costs in agricultural areas are estimated to be approaching $15 billion.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Examples of introduced weed problems in agricultural production areas are numerous. Witchweed (Striga asiatica), a parasitic weed introduced from Africa, found only in the Carolinas, prompted the most intensive weed eradication effort ever attempted by Federal or State agencies. Witchweed attacks and damages many crops of the grass family including corn, sorghum, millet, and rice by penetrating the roots of host plants and robbing them of necessary water and nutrients. Parasitized plants are usually stunted, their yields are substantially reduced, and some are even killed. Early in the weed eradication program, total infested acreage in North and South Carolina exceeded 430,000 acres. Cooperative efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the South Carolina Department of Plant Industry have reduced infested acreage for this devastating weed to 11,000 acres. This level of success was achieved through an intense program focused on the elements of survey, control, and eradication. In the absence of these efforts, this weed would have spread at an alarming rate throughout much of the United States and effectively restricted the movement of agricultural commodities to other areas of the country and foreign markets. The financial and time commitment to this intensive weed eradication project on the part of Congress has been essential to its overall success. Since the project's beginning, over $165 million have been spent on the eradication effort in the Carolinas.
While the effects of invasive weeds on agricultural lands have been well documented, the focus has recently shifted to include the threat of invasives in natural systems. Invasive weed problems represent one of the most significant threats to natural areas. Effects created by the introduction and spread of invasive weeds include reduction of biodiversity and elimination of areas that might be utilized for recreational purposes. A recent Department of the Interior survey indicated noxious weeds are invading western wildlands at the rate of nearly 5,000 acres a day. Weed losses and control costs in nonagricultural areas in 1994 were estimated to be approximately $5 billion.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Examples of invasive weeds in natural areas are also abundant. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is commonly referred to as one of the major weeds on public lands. It is currently found in 26 States, primarily in the Northeastern, Central, and Western regions of the United States and infests nearly 400,000 acres. Native to Europe, it was accidentally introduced into North America in the mid–1800s. Purple loosestrife is a perennial species commonly found in wetland areas such as ditches, farm ponds or other disturbed habitats. It is a showy plant, teeming with pink to purple flower spikes making it a desirable addition to perennial flower beds. Planting in the landscape has in many cases hastened its spread. This plant is so aggressive that it quickly displaces native plant material commonly used by wildlife for food or nesting. With its continued establishment, it can effectively eliminate wetland areas and clog ditches or waterways. Estimates indicate about $45 million a year is spent in controlling this invasive species.
As society becomes more mobile, invasive weeds are exerting an increasing toll on new areas. British ecologist Charles Elton has noted, ''We must make no mistake: we are seeing one of the great historical convulsions in the world's fauna and flora.'' With our ability to transverse continents in record time, the introduction of invasive species, whether intentional or not, is rapid and easy. In many instances, the ability to quickly move plant material has created a love-hate relationship with transplanted flora and fauna. The desire is often to grasp the newest or the most intriguing plant without regard to potential problems. Many of our plant introductions are significant to agricultural production and without their presence, society would be lacking. However, in many cases, species introduced from distant geographical areas into the United States may lack environmental and biological constraints of previous habitats. Placed in new situations, their aggressive behavior may permit them to become serious pests.
There is a long history of concern among weed scientists and governmental agencies relating to the overall impacts of invasive weed species. However, the approaches to the management of invasive species in the United States have been splintered and there are large gaps where laws are absent or ineffective or not applied. Federal initiatives are often flawed. State weed laws, while effective in preventing the intrastate movement of weeds, lack full authority to prevent the interstate movement. At the present time, there are 21 Federal agencies with either direct or indirect responsibilities for nonindigenous species. Of these Federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service plays the most critical role in the regulation of plant imports, interstate movement, and management of invasive species that pose a threat to agriculture. The Federal Noxious Weed law, administered by USDA, APHIS, should serve as the basic component in preventing the introduction and spread of invasive weed species. However, interpretations of this Law and a preconceived lack of authority have created significant difficulties with regulatory enforcement at both the State and Federal levels. There is a basic need to review legislative initiatives as a means to streamline and enhance plant regulatory functions.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During the past several years, members of the Federal Noxious and Invasive Weeds Committee of the WSSA have reviewed the existing Federal Noxious Weed Law and have developed recommendations necessary to ensure a more comprehensive approach to the protection of our agricultural and natural resources. The proposed Plant Protection Act, as introduced, incorporates many of the components necessary to effectively regulate the importation of invasive weed species. The proposed Act expands the definition of noxious weeds to include species that may pose significant risks to wetland or natural areas. Moving beyond the traditional agricultural role will enable APHIS to more effectively regulate invasive weed species that may pose a threat to natural areas. Further, the phrase ''new to or not widely prevalent'' is eliminated from the original definition of noxious weeds. Omitting this phrase will allow the agency to respond effectively to all types of weed issues. Presently, there is no emergency action to specifically prohibit the introduction of invasive weed species not currently listed as Federal noxious weeds. With this act, there is authorization to take emergency and extraordinary emergency actions should the presence of a noxious weed threaten plants or plant products of the United States. Presently, several noxious weeds are being offered for sale as ornamentals in the seed and nursery trade even though movement should not occur without a permit. The interpretation of the Federal Noxious Weed Law up to this point has applied only to movement of species that are being moved from quarantine areas. Only a single quarantine relating to the noxious weed witchweed has ever been invoked. This interpretation has permitted the interstate movement of all other Federal noxious weeds to continue. Under the Plant Protection Act, restrictions on movement may be imposed without the adoption of a quarantine, thus allowing for the regional weed concerns. The Plant Protection Act also enables the Secretary to develop a classification system to describe status and action levels for noxious weeds. A classification system would enable the development of status or priority rankings for noxious weeds.
In order to effectively address the issue of invasive noxious weeds, there must be coordinated efforts at all levels to identify weed problems at an early stage and when possible prevent their entry into the United States. Without these efforts, the ability to develop effective strategies to address invasive weeds in the United States will fail. I am confident the Plant Protection Act provides important mechanisms necessary for cooperative efforts among Federal and State agencies in managing invasive weed problems. I urge you to support this initiative and to eliminate those inconsistencies that lay out the welcome mat for invasive species.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Testimony of Stephen V. Johnson
On behalf of the National Plant Board, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee and testify on the importance of H.R. 3766. The National Plant Board, established in 1925, is an organization of the plant regulatory officials of the fifty states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The National Plant Board provides leadership in pest prevention and management and strives to unify efforts to protect U.S. agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and the environment from harmful plant pests. The members of our organization facilitate domestic and international trade in plants and plant products through the development of harmonized plant pest surveys, pest management, and certification programs. We partner with USDA and other Federal and State agencies and industry to accomplish our mission.
The United States is under a constant threat from the introduction of plant pests. Plant pests include bacteria, fungi, insects, mollusks, nematodes, and noxious weeds. The U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Report on Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States published in 1993 reported on many introduced species. Species introduced from distant geographical areas into the United States often lack environmental and biological restraints and may become serious plant pests of agriculture, forests, rangeland, and wetlands. The vigilance of the USDA is essential if we are to exclude these plant pests.
Examples of harmful plant pests include the following:
The Mediterranean fruit fly is considered one of the most destructive pests of citrus and other subtropical fruits. Once established, this insect is capable of interrupting trade to citrus growing areas in other parts of the world. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost in damaged produce, pest control, and reduced export revenues when Mediterranean fruit fly infestations have occurred. Recent introductions of Mediterranean fruit fly into Florida and California have been linked to imports of prohibited foreign fruit.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Asian longhorned beetle infestations were detected in Brooklyn, NY in 1996. Delimiting surveys and eradication efforts are currently underway. This introduced plant pest poses an immediate threat to the health of the eastern deciduous forest. It has been intercepted in wood packing material associated with various imported products.
Asian gypsy moths were detected in North Carolina in 1993, Oregon, and Washington in 1991. Large eradication projects over three years were successful in eradicating this forest pest from the United States. The cost of the eradication in North Carolina approached $10 million. Eradication efforts in the Pacific Northwest required nearly $25 million in emergency funding. These insects have been found on the outside of shipping containers and ships entering our harbors.
Leafy spurge was detected in the eastern United States in 1827. This noxious weed is now established on over 2.5 million acres of rangeland in the western United States. It is an invasive species that outcompetes native plants and reduces range grazing capacity. USDA-APHIS and State cooperators have released numerous biological control organisms on leafy spurge which are showing success in the management of this noxious weed.
The National Plant Board supports passage of H.R. 3766 and believes that it will provide USDA with the necessary framework to accomplish its dual mission of protecting the United States from the introduction harmful non-indigenous plant pests, and facilitating export trade opportunities. The expansion of foreign trade has increased the sheer volume of material that may harbor plant pests. Yet in this global world, it is imperative that American agriculture maintain its health in order to take advantage of expanding markets. To this end our plant pest laws must be crafted to impose the least burden without sacrificing reasonable and necessary protections. This calls for better communication between plant regulatory officials and the regulated community, including more partnerships and consensus building. Innovative solutions for our plant pest problems are needed.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Plant Protection Act will streamline USDA-APHIS statutory authority. One single consolidated act will clarify Federal authorities and responsibilities. This is important and timely, because many states are working to modernize their own plant pest laws. A more uniform and transparent national plant protection and certification system will serve U.S. agriculture well. Finally, the Plant Protection Act will serve as a model for foreign countries. Over the long term, U.S. exporters will benefit.
When the current laws were crafted, no one envisioned the expansion of travel and trade or the emergence of genetically engineered organisms and biological control. To keep pace and remain relevant, it is critical that the current array of plant quarantine laws be modernized to assure that the necessary and appropriate level of plant pest protection is maintained.
To illustrate, the definition of biological control organisms in this bill separates it from the old plant pest definition; streamlining their approval and use. The screening of new biological control organisms could be done at USDA facilities to insure that these organisms will have the desired effect on the targeted host, and are unlikely to have unforeseen adverse effects.
Another major change involves penalty authorities. Increased civil penalties will serve as a deterrent to smuggling operations; too often, current penalties are looked as part of doing business. Illegal importation of fruits has been implicated in the introduction of Mediterranean fruit flies in California and Florida. The authorization of civil penalties for illegal use of phytosanitary certificates is important to maintain a credible plant export certification system.
International trade agreements have elevated the role and importance of plant protection programs. The Plant Protection Act will position APHIS to offer the necessary leadership in plant protection in the United States. Together we can protect our agriculture, forestry and horticulture industries and environment from plant pests. Thank you for your time and please call on the National Plant Board if we can provide further information.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Dean Urmston
Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Dean Urmston. I am the executive vice president for the American Seed Trade Association. ASTA, as we have been known for 115 years, is the national trade association charged with representing the interests of the seed industry. Our membership tops 850 and the commodities we represent includes all types of seed—from asparagus to zucchini, lawn seed, forages, flowers, and most agronomic crops. We also have the privilege to include representatives that provide support services to the seed industry. These associate members include merger and acquisition specialists, bagging, labeling and other specialized equipment manufacturers. Some 46 states compromise our membership along with 25 plus foreign companies.
ASTA is pleased to join in discussions regarding H.R. 3766, the U.S. Plant Protection Act. International and national phytosanitary laws and regulations are of paramount importance to the U.S. seed industry. Currently, we export nearly $1 billion and import over $300 million in planting seed to and from over 95 countries worldwide.
The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Provisions found within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and supported by the World Trade Organizations require that countries endeavor to achieve international transparency with regards to their plant protection laws and regulations. H.R. 3766 consolidates 11 plant quarantine laws which date back to 1913. Furthermore, H.R. 3766 eliminates the ambiguities and better defines the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in implementing all provisions of the Plant Protection Law.
Passage of the H.R. 3766 is consistent with current goals of streamlining government and regulatory reform. The Plant Protection Act would fulfill many goals including strengthening essential regulatory programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, protecting the viability of U.S. agriculture by limiting the introduction of harmful foreign pests, facilitating international trade, as well as promoting production of healthy agricultural products for domestic and export markets.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Introduction of harmful non-indigenous species is a negative consequence of free trade. These species, which include insects, pathogens, and weeds, can be introduced on plants, plant products, and packaging materials. Non-indigenous species, once introduced, have no natural enemies to keep their populations in check and can prove to be devastating to agricultural and managed ecosystems. It is estimated that the United States loses 4,600 acres per day to non-indigenous weed species; this estimate does not include losses incurred by other foreign pests. The Plant Protection Act will allow the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to effectively prevent the introduction and movement of non-native plant pests in the United States.
In closing, the American Seed Trade Association wishes to emphasize the importance of a technically-sound, science-based approach to implementing the Plant Protection Law. We encourage the Secretary of Agriculture and APHIS to take all necessary measures to ensure that the phytosanitary expertise and integrity of United States is maintained. We ask that more work be done in the areas of pest-risk analyses, epidemiological surveys as well as pest identification Efforts along these fronts will effectively limit the number of phytosanitary trade disputes and strengthen the position of the United States in addressing the myriad of unjustified phytosanitary-based trade barriers impacting the U.S. agricultural sector.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the ASTA. We join in support of H.R. 3766 and add our thanks to the Chairman and the full Committee for their coordination and effective staff work in advancing this legislation. Should you desire any additional assistance from the ASTA, please feel free to call on us.
Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation is the Nation's largest general farm organization with over 4.8 million member families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Our members produce virtually all farm commodities grown and raised in the United States. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3766, the Plant Protection Act.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The control of plant pests is an important factor in reducing farm costs. Continued research and implementation of detection, exclusion, control and eradication measures are important contributing factors to ensure that U.S. farmers are protected from the introduction of new plant pests. Farm Bureau policy has long supported strengthening quarantine standards as a means of protecting farmers from new and exotic pests. Farmers ultimately suffer when new and exotic plant pests are introduced into the United States. Farm costs rise, control methods for new pests may or may not be available and the ability to produce and market a crop are hampered by the introduction of new pests. Farm Bureau supports H.R. 3766 because we believe it achieves those broad objectives while streamlining and consolidating existing plant protection and quarantine laws.
It is critically important that existing plant regulation, inspection and exclusion be improved to protect against the introduction of invasive and exotic pests. Our past history of inspection and exclusion has not been particularly impressive. Clearly, it is difficult to inspect and exclude every plant pest. Citrus canker, gypsy moth, poinsettia whitefly, Mediterranean fruit fly, thrips palmi and many others are living examples of damaging pests introduced into the United States despite the best efforts and intentions to keep them out. These examples remind us that additional efforts are needed to improve existing plant protection safeguards.
Also, the introduction of exotic plant pests potentially affects all of agriculture. It is a mistake to assume that new plant pests will only attack the plants on which they were imported. A single plant pest can attack a wide range of agricultural commodities. It is impossible to predict what effect a new pest will have on non-target crops in the United States.
Farm Bureau believes that H.R. 3766 improves the basic plant protection framework for managing noxious weeds. H.R. 3766 would change the definition of noxious weeds to include plants that can either directly or indirectly cause damage to agriculture. It improves the listing process for noxious weeds that would face entry restrictions. It would also impose quarantine safeguards after entry to plants that may become noxious weed. It also strengthens civil penalties for smuggling. The current measures are not adequate and do not act as a deterrent for wilful quarantine violations.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we believe that H.R. 3766 improves the regulatory framework for managing new and exotic pests, more needs to be done in implementing existing laws to improve safeguards. In recent years, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) has gradually moved away from domestic inspection of imports to policies that give foreign agricultural officials greater opportunities to carry out 'self-inspections' of their exports. Under this program, exporting countries conduct inspections under an assured certification program. Farm Bureau believes that continued movement toward foreign agricultural inspections could negate many of the improvements in H.R. 3766. Relying on trade competitors for proper inspection and exclusion is unacceptable especially when many of our trading partners have denied U.S. farm products entry based on questionable phytosanitary rules and regulations.
Current APHIS inspection responsibilities are enormous in light of the amount of plant material imported into the United States. The Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program under APHIS performs a key role in preventing the introduction of harmful plant or animal pests and diseases into the United States. The control of these pests before they reach our farms is an important factor in reducing farm costs. Farm Bureau believes that the resources granted to APHIS fall far short with its inspection responsibilities. APHIS' ability to inspect and exclude pests from entering the United States will increase with additional import freedom. Additional imports will impact APHIS field operations. APHIS personnel will need additional training. APHIS will need to expand inspection and certification of foreign facilities. APHIS will also need to expand its budget to handle the increased costs. H.R. 3766 improves the regulatory framework for APHIS inspections and will hopefully provide opportunities to expand and improve upon existing safeguards.
The need for effective pest exclusion has never been greater. The protection of the United States agricultural economy from new and exotic plant pests should be a priority. New pest introductions have resulted in higher farm control costs, the inability to control some pests at all and reduced competitiveness in world markets. Farm Bureau believes that H.R. 3766 fundamentally improves current plant protection procedures, and more importantly, the legal and policy framework now embodied in a complicated and often conflicting web of 11 plant quarantine laws. For these reasons, Farm Bureau supports this important piece of legislation.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."