STATEMENT OF

THE

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

TO THE

SENATE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION

AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE

REGARDING

S. 910

THE NOXIOUS WEED COORDINATION AND

PLANT PROTECTION ACT

Presented by

Frank Priestley

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

May 18, 1999

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 S. 910, the Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act.

The control of plant pests is an important factor in controlling production costs for farmers and ranchers. Continued research and implementation of improved detection, exclusion, control and eradication measures are important contributing factors to assure that U.S. producers are protected from the introduction of new plant pests. Farm Bureau policy has long supported strengthening quarantine standards as a means of protecting American agriculture from new and exotic pests. Producers, and ultimately consumers, suffer when new and exotic plant pests are introduced into the United States. Production costs rise as control methods for the new pests may or may not be available. This limits farmers' ability to produce and market their crops to consumers. Farm Bureau supports most components of S. 910 because we believe that it addresses a number of problems, 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 impossible to 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.

The introduction of exotic plant pests has potentially far-reaching effects for 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 S. 910 improves the basic plant protection framework for managing noxious weeds. S. 910 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 and would also impose quarantine safeguards after entry to plants that may become noxious weeds. It also strengthens civil penalties for smuggling. The current measures are not adequate and do not act as a deterrent for willful quarantine violations.

Farm Bureau supports the preemption provisions included in Section 305 of the bill. Congress is charged with overseeing foreign and interstate commerce, so it is most appropriate that uniform regulations be established at this level. We recognize that in many cases "one-size-fits-all" regulations are not appropriate. The bill does include appropriate provisions to address these situations in item (2)(B) Special Local Need. This will maintain needed consistency for foreign and interstate trade, while still allowing special need situations to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

We are concerned with the inclusion of Title IV--Federal Coordination. We recognize the need for better federal coordination for the control of noxious weeds, particularly on federal lands and public land states. However, we fail to see the need to establish a new statutory bureaucracy to deal with "Invasive Species." If real problems exist or develop in an area, it appears that Sections 101, 102 and 104 provide appropriate tools for the department to use to deal with these situations in an expedient manner. The system included in Title IV appears cumbersome, costly and leaves wide latitude for identifying the species that it would seek to control.

The definition of alien species as written includes any species that is non-native or introduced by human activity. The definition of invasive species pivots on the definition of alien species. Invasive species are alien species, the introduction of which causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health. These definitions are very broad and biased solely in favor of native plants. Under these definitions, non-native cover crops would be prohibited and their eradication would be necessary. Additionally, we have all heard claims that grazing livestock, production agriculture and genetically modified agricultural crops are harmful to the environment. In some cases, it has been charged that crop and livestock production or practices related to them are a danger to human health or negatively impact economic conditions. Under this overly broad and biased definition, agricultural producers could find their crops and/or livestock operations defined as alien and invasive. This designation would subject them to increased regulation or outright prohibition of planting or raising certain species. We do not believe it is the intent of those who drafted this bill or the executive order on which these definitions are based to place farmers in jeopardy. However, the use of such broad definitions will ultimately require the courts to settle what Congress intended and what constitutes an alien and invasive species. While the Farm Bureau strongly supports the control of noxious weeds, we believe this section of the bill is severely flawed and, we would encourage deletion of this Title.

Overall, we believe that S. 910 improves the regulatory framework for managing new and exotic pests, but more needs to be done in implementing existing laws to improve safeguards. In recent years, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 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 S. 910. 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 and ranches is an important factor in controlling the cost of production for farmers. Farm Bureau believes that the resources granted to APHIS fall far short of actual needs with its inspection responsibilities. APHIS' ability to inspect and exclude pests from entering the United States will need to be improved in order to deal with additional import freedom granted under existing and proposed trade agreements. 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. S. 910 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 in the past 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 S. 910, with the change we have suggested, 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.