PLCAA’s Legislative Day On The Hill Covers Important Industry Issues

The annual event brings lawn and landscape professionals to the U.S. capital to meet one-on-one with state representatives to discuss important issues affecting the industry. Those issues include continued funding of the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP), ergonomics standards and a self-employed health care deduction.

Issues discussed during PLCAA’s Legislative Day on The Hill are outlined below as distributed to attendees in the form of an issue briefing. For more information contact PLCAA at 800/458-3466 or visit www.plcaa.org.

SUBJECT: Continued Funding For The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program

BACKGROUND: The NTEP provides a working partnership that links the federal government, turfgrass industry and land grant universities together in their common interest of turfgrass cultivar development, improvement and evaluation. NTEP is the primary means by which cultivated varieties of turfgrass are evaluated in the U.S. It provides information on turfgrass cultivar adaptations, disease and insect resistance and environmental stress tolerance, which the public and private sectors of the turfgrass industry use to develop cultivar recommendations.

While the vast majority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) funds have been and will continue to be directed toward traditional "food and fiber" segments of U.S. agriculture, turfgrasses (e.g., sod production) are defined as agriculture in the Farm Bill and by many other departments and agencies. Further, it is estimated by the Economic Research Service that the turfgrass industry, in all its forms, is a $30-35 billion industry. Additionally, the turfgrass industry is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, while it receives essentially no federal support. There are no subsidy programs for turfgrass, nor are any desired.

For the past 70 years, the USDA's support for the turfgrass industry has been modest at best. USDA's support of NTEP at the $55,000 level does not cover all costs. In fact, NTEP relies most heavily on turfgrass industry (i.e., public sectors, end-users) support. However, it is essential that the USDA maintains its modest financial support and works closely with NTEP.

REQUESTED ACTION: Appeal to restore the vital $55,000 appropriation for NTEP in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the USDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS).

SUBJECT: Continued Funding For a USDA Turfgrass Scientist Position and Establishment of a National Turfgrass Research Laboratory

BACKGROUND: Currently, turfgrasses impact more than 90 percent of all people in the U.S. through exposure to home lawns, business landscapes, roadsides, parks or recreational turf on a daily basis. As more cropland is converted to houses, office parks, shopping centers, etc., the acreage of turfgrass is increasing exponentially. However, with the increasing urbanization comes a greater demand on resources, such as potable water. Also, with the general public experiencing heightened awareness of the environment and its protection, use of inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and water on turfgrass areas is coming under greater scrutiny.

In some jurisdictions, use of these inputs will either be banned or severely restricted for turfgrass use. In addition, the urbanization of America is leading to an overuse of current recreational facilities such as parks, athletic fields and golf courses. New facilities are being considered or constructed - many on abandoned sites such as landfills, industrial wastelands, gravel pits or mine spoils. Turfgrasses in these areas will play an important role in reclamation vegetation, recreational turf or both.

JUSTIFICATION: The USDA needs to initiate and maintain ongoing research on turfgrass development and improvement for the following reasons:

1. The value of the turfgrass industry in the U.S. is $30-$35 billion annually.



2. As our society becomes less rural and more urbanized, the acreage of turfgrass will increase significantly. Consequently, state and local municipalities will require the utilization of other water sources, reduction of pesticide use and elimination of nutrient runoff from turfgrass areas.



3. Private and university research programs are working to develop improved turfgrasses, but they do not have the time or resources to identify completely new sources of beneficial genes in commonly used species or the usefulness of potential new species.



4. USDA conducted significant turfgrass research from 1920-1988. The United States Golf Association (USGA) Green Section was initially a cooperative program between the USGA and USDA. However, since 1988, no full-time scientist has been employed by ARS to conduct turfgrass research specifically.



5. Research on florist, nursery and ornamental crops is significant within ARS with new funding and programs being added virtually every year - industries with far less public and commercial value than turfgrass.

A new turfgrass research scientist position within ARS was created by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 budget. ARS welcomed the new position but felt strongly that its description was too broad in scope. ARS was concerned that just one person working in turfgrass research would be ineffective in addressing the needs and concerns of the industry, and felt the duties described in the earlier funding request warranted several scientists working in a team effort. To accomplish this, ARS proposed a national strategy for turgrass research.

ARS will refine the proposal to meet the specific needs of the industry and plans to include this updated proposal in its fiscal 2003 budget proposal.

The turfgrass industry supports the efforts of ARS, however, the needs are so great, the turfgrass industry cannot wait an additional year to establish the national laboratory. Therefore, for fiscal year 2002, the turfgrass industry requests that the following unit be established within ARS:

A turfgrass genomics unit that includes the following:

1. Plant Germplasm Collection and Evaluation: this person will identify new genetic sources of commonly used and potential turfgrass species in natural habitats, will collect specimen plants as a first step in conserving resources and maintaining bio-diversity, and will conduct germplasm evaluations to identify important traits that provide improved resistance to various environmental stresses and extreme conditions.



2. Genomics/Genetics Studies: a molecular geneticist or cytogeneticist will study the genomics of various turfgrass species, collected wild germplasm and their evolution to work towards improved turfgrass species.



3. Transfer of Desirable Genes: a molecular geneticist will work to identify desirable genes and how they may be transferred to current turfgrass species.



4. Evaluation and Enhancement of Genetically Altered Grasses: a turfgrass breeder will evaluate and enhance the genetically altered plants from the program using recurrent genetic recombination techniques and selection of superior turfgrass plants.

REQUESTED ACTION: PLCAA requested $250,000 continued funding for the germplasm collection and enhancement position created last year and an additional $1,050,000 for three new scientist positions within ARS emphasizing turfgrass research.

SUBJECT: Food Quality Protection Act Of 1996 (FQPA)

BACKGROUND: The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) has introduced several new requirements for testing and risk assessment to the regulatory process for pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must now address aggregate exposure from drinking water, non-dietary residential sources like lawn care, and residues in food, as well as cumulative exposure from chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity. The implementation of the FQPA with its stronger standards presents a set of complex scientific and regulatory issues.

Since enactment of FQPA, EPA has eliminated products and cancelled uses of products related to the lawn care industry, such as dursban and diazinon.

OVERVIEW: What EPA is Doing to Implement FQPA

• EPA is creating policy "on the fly" to implement FQPA. This has involved several major reversals and decisions on individual products and on broader policies, without informing or consulting stakeholders. Instead of giving ample time to generate new data called for by FQPA, EPA penalizes pesticide manufacturers for not having data that the Agency hadn't even asked for yet.



• EPA is ignoring credible, reliable data about individual pesticides and selectively using questionable data from studies that help make its case against products.



• EPA has not yet published current data requirements needed to determine if a pesticide meets FQPA's new safety standards. As a result, pesticide companies must choose which tests to conduct, and these may or may not satisfy EPA reviewers.



• EPA is making pesticide decisions before finalizing and publishing science policies upon which the Agency says it will base decisions.

REQUESTED ACTION: Congress must provide strong oversight of the administration's implementation of FQPA. This includes oversight hearings, meetings with EPA and USDA leadership to convey congressional intent and possible legislation like the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 H.R. 1592 and Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act of 1999 S. 1464. Continuing congressional oversight is essential to prevent U.S. agriculture and others from suffering from EPA's regulatory actions that will ultimately shift food production from the U.S. to other nations, and have impact on the tools we all need to care for our lawn and landscapes, golf courses, sod farms and other areas of the green industry.

SUBJECT: Ergonomics

BACKGROUND: In March 2001, Congress passed S J RES 6, the joint resolution disapproving the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) ergonomics standard. The president signed the resolution into law on March 20. This is the first time that Congress has exercised its right under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal an agency rule.

The Department of Labor is again beginning its initiative to create a new and comprehensive approach to ergonomics that is appropriate to the 21st century workforce. In testimony before Congress, Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao set forth the following principles that the Department will use to guide its development of this new framework:

• Prevention: The approach should emphasize the prevention of injuries before they occur.



• Sound Science: The approach should be based on the best available science and research.



• Incentive Driven: The approach should focus on cooperation between OSHA and employers.



• Flexibility: The approach should take account of the varying capabilities and characteristics of different businesses and workers.



• Feasibility: Future actions must recognize the costs of compliance to small businesses.



• Clarity: Any approach must include short, simple and common sense instructions.

Secretary Chao has met with many representatives from business, labor and the public health community, as well as with members of Congress, to discuss possible approaches to addressing ergonomics injuries. As a result of those meetings, the Secretary has determined that consensus has not been reached on several very basic questions. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has issued a new report on ergonomic injuries noting that, "no single strategy is or will be effective for all types of industry."

Before designing a plan to address ergonomics injuries, the Department will hold three public forums to provide members of the public the opportunity to provide additional information on these questions.

REQUESTED ACTION: PLCAA extended a thank you for congressional action in passing S J RES 6, which prevented the Labor Department's regulation on ergonomics from being implemented. PLCAA also asked that any new regulation be reasonable and responsible, and follow the new framework that considers the principles noted above.

SUBJECT: Self-Employed Health Care Deduction

BACKGROUND: Legislation is needed that would accelerate the deduction for the self-employed to 100 percent as of January 1, 2001. As the result of legislation passed by the last Congress, the deduction is currently set to rise to 100 percent in 2003. The intent of the self-employed health care deduction legislation is to help the approximately 6 million Americans living in families headed by self-employed individuals with no health insurance.

In addition to accelerating the deduction, legislation should also make an important technical change to the tax code. Under current law, self-employed individuals are prohibited from taking a tax deduction for their health insurance if a spouse is eligible for benefits through his or her own separate employer, regardless of whether or not they choose to take such coverage. The spousal correction would limit the deduction only if the self-employed individual actually participates in a subsidized health insurance plan offered by a spouse's employer.

REQUESTED ACTION: PLCAA asked representatives to support and vote for legislation that includes provisions for small business health care deductions like those found in H.R. 1037, S.29, and S.189.