Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
105th Congress                                            Rept. 105-681
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                      Part 1

                   AFRICA: SEEDS OF HOPE ACT OF 1998


                 August 6, 1998.--Ordered to be printed


 Mr. Gilman, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4283]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on International Relations, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 4283) to support sustainable and broad-
based agricultural and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                            Committee Action

                           markup of the bill

    The bill was introduced on July 21, 1998 and referred to 
the Committee on International Relations. The Full Committee 
marked up the bill in open session, pursuant to notice, on July 
22, 1998. On that date the Committee by voice vote ordered the 
bill reported to the House with the recommendation that the 
bill do pass.

                      rollcall votes on amendments

    Clause (2)(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the record of committee rollcall votes 
on final passage or amendments during the committee's 
consideration of H.R. 4283. No such rollcall votes were taken.

                         background and purpose

    H.R. 4283, the Africa: Seeds of Hope Act of 1998 was 
introduced on July 21, 1998 by Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Hamilton and 
Mr. Gilman making changes to the text of the precursor bill, 
H.R. 3636 (introduced by Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Hamilton). 
Senator DeWine introduced a companion bill, S. 2283. H.R. 4283 
provides policy guidance for U.S. assistance programs to focus 
on the rural African entrepreneurs and continue relief feeding 
programs and strengthens the availability of food reserves for 
humanitarian assistance.

                              the problem

    According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO), the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa 
with inadequate access to food has doubled to 215 million since 
1973. If current trends continue, FAO estimates the number will 
increase by 50 million people over the next 12 years.
    The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) reports 
that over 75% of the people in sub-Saharan Africa are farmers 
tilling no more than five acres of land. Up to 80 percent of 
Africa's domestic food supply is produced by women. Because so 
many Africans depend on agriculture, both for their food and 
for their livelihoods, investments in small farmers and rural 
entrepreneurs (especially women) could make a critical 
difference to millions of people on the continent.
    In most African countries, agriculture suffered from 
decades of neglect and poor management by colonial, military 
and socialist governments. Conflict and civil strife, crippling 
debt and lack of rural roads and infrastructure exacerbated 
these problems.
    Lack of access to credit impeded agricultural development. 
Farmers require loans for seeds, tools and fertilizer long 
before they can generate income from the harvest. Most African 
farmers lack access to advanced agricultural methods that would 
help them increase production. The International Food Policy 
Research Institute cited the continuing neglect of Africa's 
small farmers as the ``root cause'' of the continent's chronic 
food insecurity.
    Progress will be neither easy nor quick, but many signs of 
hope demonstrate that conditions in Africa can improve. Life 
expectancy rates are gradually improving and child mortality 
rates have dropped dramatically, though there is still much 
progress to be made. The number of students enrolled in primary 
schools and universities increased. More African nations held 
democratic elections than ever before.
    Market-based economies are replacing highly-centralized 
economies and the residues of socialist administration. While 
overall economic progress is slow in some countries, ten sub-
Saharan Africa's economies had growth rates of more than 10 
percent per year in 1996.
    Since the 1980s, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 
blossomed throughout Africa. These groups demonstrate new and 
successful approaches to development and provide voices for 
communities that must be included in any effective development 

                             trade and aid

    H.R. 4283 complements H.R. 1432, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act. During the consideration of the African Growth 
Act, the U.S. government re-examined its policy emphasizing 
traditional aid programs for Africa. Both Congress and the 
Clinton administration joined in pursuing initiatives that urge 
more African governments to adopt market-based, private-sector 
growth policies based on open trade and investment 
opportunities for U.S. businesses. Total U.S. trade with sub-
Saharan Africa, at $22.6 billion in 1997, far exceeds trade 
with the former eastern bloc. Sub-Saharan Africa's trade with 
Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Ukraine combined totaled $11.8 
billion in 1997. Such trade and investment opportunities help 
raise Africans' standard of living and offer the only long-term 
hope for the economy of the region.
    Improvements in income through trade and investment will 
take time and will favor urban areas. The Africa: Seeds of Hope 
Act will complement this development by focusing on the need 
for broad-based growth in the area of economic activity that 
employs the largest number of Africans--agriculture. While the 
most promising prospects for the African economy are in cities 
under governments open to trade and investment, the 
international community cannot ignore the needs of farmers and 
people who live in rural areas. These people represent a 
majority of Africans, yet have the lowest incomes and suffer 
from the worst food shortages in the world. By focusing 
resources on farmers, the bill works to ensure the long-term 
political stability and economic growth of the region. In sum, 
H.R. 4283 is based on three principles: Service to the needs of 
small-scale farmers (most of whom are women), small-scale 
entrepreneurs, rural workers and communities; Consultation with 
hungry and poor people about decisions that affect their lives; 
and Participation of Africans, especially local communities, in 
planning and carrying out development programs.

                  u.s. assistance programs for africa

    U.S. bilateral assistance through AID's Development Fund 
for Africa (DFA) totals less than half of total U.S. aid to the 

            Estimated U.S. Aid For Africa, Fiscal Year 1997

                                                     Dollars in millions
Bilateral (incl. DFA, Peace Corps, etc.)......................  $1,030.7
Peacekeeping..................................................      13.0
African Development Foundation................................      11.5
Refugees......................................................     129.3
Emergency Refugee Account (ERMA)..............................      37.0
Disaster Assistance (OFDA 1996)...............................      62.0
World Bank (IDA)..............................................     405.0
UN Development Program (1996).................................      19.8
    Total.....................................................   1,709.3

    The DFA is the main U.S. government assistance program for 
the poor of Africa. The DFA guidelines first appeared in the 
conference report (H. Rept. 100-498) accompanying the FY1988 
appropriations legislation and were enacted into permanent law 
in 1990 (P.L. 101-513, Section 562) as Chapter 10 of Part I of 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
    Under Chapter 10, part of the DFA is to be used to support 
food assistance and food security needs. Chapter 10 requires 
that the DFA be used to ``promote sustained economic growth, 
encourage private sector development, promote individual 
initiatives, and help to reduce the role of central governments 
in areas more appropriate for the private sector.'' Chapter 10 
stresses local involvement and ``grassroots'' development, but 
it permits aid in support of economic policy reforms that 
promote several ``critical sectoral priorities.'' The 
priorities are agricultural production and natural resources, 
with an emphasis on promoting equity in rural incomes; health, 
with emphasis on maternal and child health needs; voluntary 
family planning services; education, with an emphasis on 
improving primary education; and income-generating 
opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed. In 
addition, Chapter 10 authorizes aid for regional integration 
and donor coordination.
    The DFA, with its broad phrasing and support for long-term 
funding, gave AID flexibility in designing the Africa-
assistance program. However, Congress included guidelines 
stating three activities should stand out (a minimum of 10% of 
DFA funds should be devoted to each): agricultural production, 
health, and voluntary family planning services.
    The DFA was last earmarked by Congress in the FY1995 
appropriations, and the Administration, in its proposed FY1999 
Budget, no longer seeks a DFA earmark. Rather, the Budget notes 
that ``beginning in 1996, development assistance for Africa has 
been appropriated under the Sustainable Development Assistance 
and Child Survival and Disease Programs accounts.'' (Budget 
Appendix, p. 947.) After FY1995, it became customary for 
analysts and others to refer to all Development Assistance for 
Africa as ``DFA'' even though there was no earmark, but whether 
this practice will continue remains to be seen. According to 
AID, the provisions of Chapter 10 govern the development 
assistance fund for Africa, whether or not there is an earmark.

                        food assistance programs

    Food aid to Africa fluctuates in response to the 
continent's needs. In FY1993, when a major drought afflicted 
eastern and southern Africa, food aid amounted to 43% of 
bilateral aid, but in FY1994, when conditions improved, it 
dropped to 27%. Most of Africa's food aid is in the form of 
emergency grants given under Title II of the P.L. 480 program. 
This program is implemented by AID in cooperation with the 
Department of Agriculture. On rare occasions, countries in a 
position to repay are given long-term, low-interest loans to 
purchase food under Title I of P.L. 480.
    Some of Africa's poorest countries received U.S. food 
donations under Title III, entitled ``Food for Development,'' 
which can be used in feeding programs or sold on the open 
market, with proceeds to be used for development purposes. 
Title III programs are underway in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and 
Mozambique. In addition, a few countries benefitted under Sec. 
416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, which 
permits donations of surplus food to developing countries, 
emerging democracies, and relief organizations.
    Assistance under these programs can also help the U.S. 
farmer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) forecasts 
that U.S. agricultural exports will fall to $55 billion in 
FY1998, $2.4 billion less than the $57.4 billion shipped last 
year. USDA's forecast reflects a decline in U.S. exports to 
East and Southeast Asian countries currently experiencing 
financial difficulties and increased global competition for 
U.S. corn and wheat exports. Agricultural exports are important 
to both U.S. farmers and the U.S. economy. Production from more 
than a third of harvested acreage is exported, including an 
estimated 55% of wheat, 43% of rice, 35% of soybeans, 18% of 
corn, and 32% of cotton. About 17% of the value of agricultural 
production is exported.
    Exports generate economic activity in the non-agricultural 
economy as well. According to USDA, each $1.00 received from 
agricultural exports in 1996 stimulated another $1.38 in 
supporting activities to produce those exports. Agricultural 
exports generated an estimated 895,000 full-time civilian jobs, 
including 562,000 jobs in the non-agricultural sector. In 
contrast to the large, continuing overall trade deficit, U.S. 
agricultural trade consistently registers a large export 
    Nearly every state exports agricultural commodities, thus 
sharing in export-generated employment, income, and rural 
development. In 1996, the states with the greatest shares in 
U.S. agricultural exports by value were California, Iowa, 
Illinois, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington, 
Indiana, and Arkansas. These 10 states accounted for 58% of 
total U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, Florida, Georgia, 
Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and 
Wisconsin each shipped over $1 billion worth of commodities.

                      recent administration policy

    The Clinton Administration set its own ``strategic 
objectives'' for development aid. AID's FY1995 congressional 
presentation identified four of these--building democracy, 
stabilizing population growth, protecting the environment, and 
achieving broad-based economic growth--as most appropriate for 
Africa. It did not specifically include agriculture in its top 
priorities. During the past decade, AID's support for the 
agricultural sector has declined from 36% of the Africa Bureau 
budget to less than 15%. In 1985, the bureau employed 258 
professional agricultural staff. Today, AID reports only 75 
    In the FY1998 presentation, the growth objective--rephrased 
as ``broad-based economic growth with equity'' was listed 
first, while ``fostering democracy and participation'' was 
listed as the fourth objective. A fifth objective is to provide 
``emergency relief to help nations make the transitions from 
crisis to long-lasting development.'' AID's annual 
presentations relate DFA expenditures in each country to these 
strategic objectives rather than to specific provisions of the 
DFA legislation.
    AID officials testified that the United States has had a 
number of successes in promoting sustainable development and 
democracy, pointing to Ghana, Uganda, Zambia, Mali, and South 
Africa as examples where sustained AID projects and programs 
helped move the democratization process forward. Some programs 
have not been as successful, for example, in Zambia. AID also 
terminated assistance when there are persistent problems, as 
has happened with Togo, or directed aid solely through NGOs, as 
in Nigeria.
    In agriculture, AID reports that the DFA helped liberalize 
agricultural markets, increase smallholder production; and 
facilitate the development of new seed varieties. AID used the 
DFA to assist governments undertaking macro-economic reforms, 
including reductions in the size of government bureaucracies 
and the privatization of government enterprises.
    The Administration launched several development initiatives 
in Africa this year. The Greater Horn of Africa Initiative 
(GHAI), aimed at easing the perennial food insecurity in a 
region extendingfrom Eritrea and Ethiopia to Tanzania, promotes 
collaboration and consultation on food security strategies. The 
Initiative for Southern Africa (ISA), which will total $300 million 
over five years, reflect's AID's recognition of the region's economic 
potential and its desire to reinforce South Africa's democratic 
transition as a model for the rest of the continent. In addition, the 
Leland Initiative is a 5-year $15 million program aimed at connecting 
20 sub-Saharan countries to the Internet.
    President Clinton made a number of announcements and 
proposals with respect to Africa assistance while visiting six 
countries in the region from March 22 through April 2, 1998. It 
appears that most of the funding for these initiatives will 
come from either existing programs or would be provided under 
the Administration's FY1999 foreign assistance request, which 
was submitted to Congress before the President's departure. 
Some initiatives extend over two years, so that additional 
funds would have to be requested in early 1999 for FY2000. The 
President's initiatives included the following:
          $120 million over two years for an Education for 
        Development and Democracy Program. ($26 million in DA 
        and $10 million under the Economic Support Fund (ESF) 
        had already been requested in the Administration's 
        FY1999 Congressional Presentation on assistance to sub-
        Saharan Africa. The Administration plans that other 
        resources will be contributed in FY1999 by the U.S. 
        Information Agency ($5 million), the Peace Corps ($10 
        million) and the food aid program ($25 million).
          $60 million over two years under the Africa Food 
        Security Initiative to increase food production in 
        Uganda, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, and Ethiopia. (The 
        FY1999 Congressional Presentation requests $21 million 
        in Development Assistance (DA) for these countries 
        under the Food Security Initiative. Notes indicate that 
        another $10 million is being proposed in FY1999 under 
        the bilateral aid requests for Malawi and Uganda, and 
        that ``various bilateral programs'' will fund $25 
        million in obligations in FY1998.)
          $35 million to finance 100% reductions in 
        concessional debt for qualifying African states. (The 
        Administration had already requested these funds, which 
        would come from the Treasury Department's Special Debt 
        Relief program, in its FY1999 budget.)
          $30 million for the Africa Trade and Investment 
        Policy (ATRIP) program. (These funds were included in 
        the FY1999 Congressional Presentation, which states 
        that ATRIP ``will help African private and public 
        sector partners to design and implement policy reforms 
        that will make their countries attractive to 
        international trade and investment.'')
          $30 million to help strengthen judicial systems in 
        the Great Lakes-region of Africa. (Secretary of State 
        Albright had first proposed the Great Lakes Justice 
        Initiative (GLJI), as a means of promoting regional 
        reconciliation, during her December 1997 Africa visit. 
        $25 million is requested under the Economic Support 
        Fund in the Administration's FY1999 Congressional 

                      committee oversight findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         committee on government reform and oversight findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 

                      advisory committee statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 

                applicability to the legislative branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                   constitutional authority statement

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee cites the 
following specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution as authority for enactment of H.R. 4283 as 
reported by the Committee: Article I, section 8, clause 1 
(relating to providing for the common defense and general 
welfare of the United States); Article I, section 8, clause 3 
(relating to the regulation of commerce with foreign nations); 
and Article I, section 8, clause 18 (relating to making all 
laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution powers 
vested by the Constitution in the government of the United 

new budget authority and tax expenditures, congressional budget office 
             cost estimate, and federal mandates statements

    The Committee adopts the cost estimate of the Congressional 
Budget Office as its submission of any new required information 
on new budget authority, new spending authority, new credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in the national debt, 
which is set out below. It adopts the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, also set out below.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 27, 1998.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4283, the Africa: 
Seeds of Hope Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Craig 
Jagger and Joe Whitehill.
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 4283--Africa: Seeds of Hope Act of 1998

    Summary.--H.R. 4283 would provide direction to the Agency 
for International Development (AID), the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) regarding the operation of programs encouraging 
agriculture and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa. The 
bill would emphasize assistance to women, small farmers, and 
small rural entrepreneurs. It would require AID and USDA to 
develop a plan that would coordinate research and extension 
activities of U.S. land-grant universities, international 
agricultural research centers, and national agricultural 
research and extension centers in sub-Saharan Africa. It also 
would provide guidance to AID on the administration of 
nonemergency food assistance programs. Because the bill would 
not substantially expand the Administration's authority to 
provide assistance, CBO estimates that spending targeted at 
Africa would continue under the bill at the current rate--
approximately $1 billion per year in economic assistance, 
security assistance, and food aid. That spending would be 
subject to appropriation.
    H.R. 4283 would affect direct spending through its impact 
on the Food Security Commodity Reserve (FSCR). As a result, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill. The FSCR 
consists of grain stocks that can be released to continue food-
aid shipments (under a program known as P.L. 480) when U.S. 
supplies would otherwise be too tight to continue shipments or 
when recipient countries have unanticipated needs. Under H.R. 
4283, beginning in fiscal year 2000, USDA could use funds that 
it receives as reimbursement for the value of grain released 
from the FSCR to purchase grain to restock the FSCR. That 
authority does not exist under current law. CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 4283 would increase spending by $76 million over 
the fiscal years 1999 through 2003 and by $344 million over the 
fiscal years 1999 through 2008.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government.--The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 4283 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 350 

                                                                        By fiscal year, in millions of dollars  
                                                                       1999     2000     2001     2002     2003 
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                           
Estimated Budget Authority.........................................        0       17       18       20       21
Estimated Outlays..................................................        0       17       18       20       21

    Basis of estimate.--H.R. 4283 would change several aspects 
of the Food Security Commodity Reserve and would rename it the 
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (the Trust). The FSCR currently 
consists of grain stocks (currently all wheat) owned by the 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)--a corporation within USDA. 
The government can release these FSCR stocks to continue grain 
shipments under the P.L. 480 food-aid program when U.S. 
supplies would otherwise be too tight to continue shipments or 
when recipient countries have unanticipated needs. When grain 
stocks are released from the FSCR, CCC must be reimbursed with 
appropriated food-aid funds for the costs of the grain 
released. Under current law, FSCR grain stocks cannot be 
replaced unless other CCC grain stocks are available or 
purchases from the market are authorized in an appropriate 
    Under H.R. 4283, beginning in fiscal year 2000, USDA would 
be allowed to keep and to use funds from P.L. 480 
reimbursements to purchase grain to replace supplies released 
from the Trust. These purchases would be limited to no more 
than $20 million per year for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. 
(This limit would not restrict FSCR storage and other operating 
costs.) P.L. 480 reimbursements that were not used during a 
year would remain available for purchases in future years. H.R. 
4283 would also authorize CCC to hold money--not just grain--in 
the Trust. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, purchases would not 
be restricted and accumulated funds from previous years could 
be spent.
    Not only would USDA incur new purchase costs but storage 
costs would be higher as more grain would be in the Trust. Per-
bushel rates for P.L. 480 reimbursement would vary for a number 
of reasons but would likely be in the $3.50 to 3.75 range; per-
bushel storage costs would be about $0.25 per year. CBO 
estimates that these changes would increase outlays from direct 
spending by $76 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 and 
$344 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2008.
    Currently, the FSCR contains about 90 million bushels 
(about 2.5 million metric tons) of wheat compared to the 
maximum authorized level of 4 million metric tons of grain. 
Wheat has been released from the FSCR six times in the 18 years 
that the FSCR has been in existence. The average release per 
year has been about 8.5 million bushels. CBO estimates that, 
under current law, USDA would continue to release grain from 
the FSCR but at somewhat less than the historical average rate 
(while under H.R. 4283, we expect releases to continue at about 
the historical rate).
    Increases in costs for grain purchases would be limited by 
the $20 million annual limit through fiscal year 2003. After 
2003, cumulative P.L. 480 reimbursements that had not been used 
in earlier years would be available for purchases. Therefore, 
CBO estimates that purchase costs would rise substantially in 
fiscal year 2004 and somewhat less in later years. Because of 
expected purchases, the amount of grain in the Trust would not 
change much relative to current FSCR levels but would be 
substantially higher after 10 years than CBO expects under 
current law.
    CBO's estimated costs incorporate various adjustments to 
account for USDA's ability to hold money as well as grain in 
the Trust. CBO assumes that USDA would hold cash for short 
periods, mainly to facilitate more efficient management of 
grain stocks. Holding grain in the Trust is more supportive of 
farm prices than holding cash.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations.--The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures 
are shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year, 
the budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

                                                                                          By fiscal year, in millions of dollars                        
                                                                   1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008 
Changes in outlays..............................................       0       0      17      18      20      21      90      42      44      45      47
Changes in receipts.............................................   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)  (\1\) 
\1\ Not applicable.                                                                                                                                     

    Intergovernmental and private sector impact.--The bill 
contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by.--Craig Jagger and Joseph C. 
    Estimate approved by.--Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short Title

    This section provides the Act may be cited as the ``Africa: 
Seeds of Hope Act of 1998.''

Sec. 2. Findings and Declaration of Policy

    Subsection (a) makes the following 13 findings:
          (1) The economic, security, and humanitarian 
        interests of the United States and the nations of sub-
        Saharan Africa would be enhanced by sustainable, broad-
        based public and private sector agricultural and rural 
        development in each of the African nations. The United 
        States should support such development.
          (2) According to the Food and Agriculture 
        Organization, the number of undernourished people in 
        Africa has more than doubled, from approximately 
        100,000,000 in the late 1960s to 215,000,000 in 1998, 
        and is projected to increase to 265,000,000 by the year 
        2010. According to the Food and Agriculture 
        Organization, the term ``under nutrition'' means 
        inadequate consumption of nutrients, often adversely 
        affecting children's physical and mental development, 
        undermining their future as productive and creative 
        members of their communities.
          (3)(A) Currently, agricultural production in Africa 
        employs about two-thirds of the workforce but produces 
        less than one-fourth of the gross domestic product in 
        sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Bank Group.
          (B) Africa's food imports are projected to rise from 
        less than 8,000,000 metric tons in 1990 to more than 
        25,000,000 metric tons by the year 2020.
          (4) African women produce up to 80 percent of the 
        total food supply in Africa according to the 
        International Food Policy Research Institute.
          (5) The most effective way to improve conditions of 
        the poor is to increase the productivity of the 
        agricultural sector. Productivity increases can be 
        fostered by increasing research and education in 
        agriculture and rural development.
          (6)(A) In November 1996, the World Food Summit set a 
        goal of reducing hunger worldwide by 50 percent by the 
        year 2015 and encouraged national governments to 
        develop domestic food plans and to support 
        international aid efforts.
          (B) Since then, several agencies of the United 
        Nations, including the International Fund for 
        Agricultural Development (IFAD), whose mission is to 
        provide the rural poor and women in the developing 
        world with cost-effective ways of overcoming hunger, 
        poverty, and malnutrition, have undertaken a 
        cooperative initiative on Africa.
          (7) Although the World Bank Group recently has 
        launched a major initiative to support agricultural and 
        rural development, only 10 percent, or $1,200,000,000, 
        of its total lending to sub-Saharan Africa for fiscal 
        years 1993 to 1997 was devoted to agriculture.
          (8)(A) The future prosperity of the United States 
        food processing and agricultural sector is increasingly 
        dependent on exports and the liberalization of global 
          (B) Africa represents a huge potential market for 
        United States food and agricultural products.
          (9)(A) Increased private sector investment in African 
        countries and expanded trade between the United States 
        and Africa can greatly help African countries achieve 
        food self-sufficiency and graduate from dependency on 
        international assistance.
          (B) Development assistance, technical assistance, and 
        training from bilateral governmental and multilateral 
        entities, as well as nongovernmental organizations and 
        land-grant universities, can facilitate and encourage 
        commercial development in Africa, such as improving 
        rural roads, agricultural research and extension, and 
        providing access to credit and other resources.
          (10)(A) Several United States private voluntary 
        organizations have demonstrated success in empowering 
        Africans through direct business ownership and helping 
        African agricultural producers more efficiently and 
        directly market their products.
          (B) Rural business associations, owned and controlled 
        by farmer shareholders, also greatly aid agricultural 
        producers to increase their household incomes.
          (11)(A) Over a decade ago, the Development Fund for 
        Africa (DFA) was enacted into law ``to help the poor 
        majority of men and women in sub-Saharan Africa to 
        participate in a process of long-term development 
        through economic growth that is equitable, 
        participatory, environmentally sustainable, and self-
          (B) In recent years, political change and economic 
        recovery in Africa have amplified the importance of 
        this policy objective while generating new 
        opportunities for its advancement.
          (C) Despite these developments, funding for the 
        Development Fund for Africa has declined from a high of 
        $811,000,000 for 1993 to approximately $635,000,000 for 
          (12)(A) United States bilateral development and 
        humanitarian assistance to sub-Saharan Africa is 
        approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of the total 
        annual budget of the United States Government.
          (B) Funding for agricultural development worldwide by 
        the United States Agency for International Development 
        has declined from 36 percent of its total budget in 
        1988 to 15 percent in 1997.
          (13) The United States Agency for International 
        Development has initiated an Africa Food Security 
        Initiative in an effort to improve child nutrition and 
        increase agricultural income in Africa.
    Subsection (b) contains a declaration of policy that 
consistent with title XII of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 (relating to Famine Prevention and Freedom from 
Hunger), the U.S. government should support governments of sub-
Saharan African countries, American and African nongovernmental 
organizations, universities, businesses, and international 
agencies, to help ensure the availability of basic nutrition 
and economic opportunities for individuals in sub-Saharan 
Africa, through sustainable agriculture and rural development.

               title i--assistance for sub-saharan africa

Sec. 101. Africa Food Security Initiative

    Subsection (a) adds new requirements carrying out the 
African Food Security Initiative (AFSI). Under the Initiative, 
AID plans to spend $30 million to facilitate agricultural 
policy reforms, improvements in rural infrastructure, and 
adoption of new technologies. AID reports the program will 
focus on Ethiopia, Mali, Uganda, Malawi and Mozambique where 
the governments have implemented political reforms and achieved 
substantial civil stability. AID plans to expand this 
initiative to Zambia, Tanzania, Guinea, Ghana, Angola, Rwanda 
and Eritrea.
    This subsection contains three additional requirements for 
the Administrator to carry out the Initiative. Under this 
subsection, the Administrator shall:
          (1) emphasize programs and projects that improve the 
        food security of infants, young children, school-age 
        children, women and food-insecure households, or that 
        improve the agricultural productivity, incomes, and 
        marketing of the rural poor in Africa;
          (2) solicit and take into consideration the views and 
        needs of intended beneficiaries and program 
        participants during the selection, planning, 
        implementation, and evaluation phases of projects; and
          (3) ensure that programs are designed and conducted 
        in cooperation with African and United States 
        organizations and institutions, such as private and 
        voluntary organizations, cooperatives, land-grant and 
        other appropriate universities, and local producer-
        owned cooperative marketing and buying associations, 
        that have expertise in addressing the needs of the 
        poor, small-scale farmers, entrepreneurs, and rural 
        workers, including women.
    Subsection (b) contains a sense of Congress that if there 
is an increase in funding for sub-Saharan programs, the AID 
Administrator should proportionately increase resources to the 
Initiative, or any comparable or successor program, for fiscal 
year 2000 and subsequent fiscal years in order to meet the 
needs of the countries participating in such Initiative.

Sec. 102. Microenterprise Assistance

    For technical reasons, AID exceeded its $135 
microenterprise funding directive in FY97, by spending $160 
million on such projects. The Committee is disappointed that 
only 38% of this amount was used for poverty lending programs 
which provide loans under $300 targeted at the poorest people, 
especially women. The picture was considerably brighter in 
Africa. In FY96 AID spent roughly 20% of its budget on African 
microenterprise projects. Approximately $9 million went towards 
credit programs, 80% of which was devoted to poverty loans 
averaging $130 each. Eighty-five percent of recipients were 
women. Repayment rates for these loans averaged 96%.
    Subsection (a) requires the AID Administrator, to the 
extent practicable, to use credit and microcredit assistance to 
improve the capacity and efficiency of agriculture production 
in sub-Saharan Africa of small-scale farmers and small rural 
entrepreneurs. In providing assistance, the Administrator 
should take into consideration the needs of women, and should 
use the applied research and technical assistance capabilities 
of United States land-grant universities.
    Subsection (b)(1) requires the Administrator to continue to 
work with other countries, international organizations 
(including multilateral development institutions), and entities 
assisting microenterprises and to develop a comprehensive and 
coordinated strategy for providing microenterprise assistance 
for sub-Saharan Africa. Subsection (b)(2) recommends that the 
Administrator encourage the World Bank Consultative Group to 
Assist the Poorest to coordinate the strategy described above.

Sec. 103. Support for Producer-owned Cooperative Marketing Associations

    African state-run marketing associations have been some of 
the worst innovations in African agriculture. By imposing 
controlled prices and wielding monopoly power over the price of 
inputs, state-run associations devastated the livelihood of 
African farmers across the continent. Conversely, producer-
owned associations can offer lower-priced inputs and better 
marketing that actually improves productivity and pricing. 
Subsection (a) outlines four purposes for this section:
          (1) to support producer-owned cooperative purchasing 
        and marketing associations in sub-Saharan Africa;
          (2) to strengthen the capacity of farmers in sub-
        Saharan Africa to participate in national and 
        international private markets and to promote rural 
        development in sub-Saharan Africa;
          (3) to encourage the efforts of farmers in sub-
        Saharan Africa to increase their productivity and 
        income through improved access to farm supplies, 
        seasonal credit, technical expertise; and
          (4) to support small businesses in sub-Saharan Africa 
        as they grow beyond microenterprises.
    Subsection (b)(1)(A) authorizes the Administrator to 
utilize relevant foreign assistance programs and initiatives 
for sub-Saharan Africa to support private producer-owned 
cooperative marketing associations in sub-Saharan Africa, 
including rural business associations that are owned and 
controlled by farmer shareholders. Subsection (B) imposes three 
requirements in carrying out this subsection: that the 
          (i) shall take into account small-scale farmers, 
        small rural entrepreneurs, and rural workers and 
          (ii) shall take into account the local-level 
        perspectives of the rural and urban poor through close 
        consultation with these groups, consistent with section 
        496(e)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
        U.S.C. 2293(e)(1)--relating to consultations with local 
        private voluntary organizations); and
          (iii) should take into consideration the needs of 
    Subsection (b)(2) encourages the Administrator to:
          (A) cooperate with governments of foreign countries, 
        including governments of political subdivisions of such 
        countries, their agricultural research universities, 
        and particularly with United States nongovernmental 
        organizations and United States land-grant 
        universities, that have demonstrated expertise in the 
        development and promotion of successful private 
        producer-owned cooperative marketing associations; and
          (B) facilitate partnerships between United States and 
        African cooperatives and private businesses to enhance 
        the capacity and technical and marketing expertise of 
        business associations in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sec. 104. Agricultural and Rural Development Activities Of the Overseas 
        Private Investment Corporation

    Subsection (a) sets out the purpose of this section to 
encourage the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to 
work with United States businesses and other United States 
entities to invest in rural sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in 
ways that will develop the capacities of small-scale farmers 
and small rural entrepreneurs, including women, in sub-Saharan 
    Subsection (b) contains the sense of the Congress that:
          (1) OPIC should exercise its authority under law to 
        undertake an initiative to support private agricultural 
        and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa, including 
        issuing loans, guaranties, and insurance, to support 
        rural development in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly 
        to support intermediary organizations that--
                  (A) directly serve the needs of small-scale 
                farmers, small rural entrepreneurs, and rural 
                producer-owned cooperative purchasing and 
                marketing associations;
                  (B) have a clear track-record of support for 
                sound business management practices; and
                  (C) have demonstrated experience with 
                participatory development methods; and
          (2) OPIC should utilize existing equity funds, loan 
        and insurance funds, to the extent feasible and in 
        accordance with existing contractual obligations, to 
        support agriculture and rural development in sub-
        Saharan Africa.

Sec. 105. Agricultural Research and Extension Activities

    Subsection (a) requires the AID Administrator, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and appropriate 
Department of Agriculture agencies, especially the Cooperative 
State, Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), to 
develop a comprehensive plan to coordinate and build on the 
research and extension activities of United States land-grant 
universities, international agricultural research centers, and 
national agricultural research and extension centers in sub-
Saharan Africa.
    Subsection (b) adds three additional requirements that the 
Plan must provide that:
          (1) research and extension activities will respond to 
        the needs of small-scale farmers while developing the 
        potential and skills of researchers, extension agents, 
        farmers, and agribusinesspersons in sub-Saharan Africa;
          (2) sustainable agricultural methods of farming will 
        be considered together with new technologies in 
        increasing agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan 
        Africa; and
          (3) research and extension efforts will focus on 
        sustainable agricultural practices and will be adapted 
        to widely varying climates within sub-Saharan Africa.

     title ii--worldwide food assistance and agricultural programs

           subtitle a--nonemergency food assistance programs

Sec. 201. Nonemergency Food Assistance Programs

    In late 1997, the Committee heard reports from major 
humanitarian relief organizations and Cardinal John O'Connor 
that AID planned to reduce funding for nonemergency food relief 
programs. Such programs include U.S. food aid donations to the 
Missionaries of Charity, founded by Mother Teresa. The 
Committee strongly supports these programs. While the Committee 
applauds AID's emphasis on providing food aid to projects 
designed to end food aid dependency, the Committee also 
believes that some food aid to chronically dependent 
communities of sick, elderly and handicapped persons should 
continue. On June 22, 1998, the Committee received a letter 
from the AID Administrator promising to ``at least double the 
dollar value of these activities to more than $30 million in FY 
1999.'' The Committee applauds this commitment. Should this 
commitment be implemented, the Committee will entertain 
proposals to modify the language of Subtitle A.
    Subsection (a) sets forth three requirements for the AID 
Administrator to implement nonemergency assistance under title 
II of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.). These provisions require that the 
Administrator shall ensure that:
          (1) in planning, decision making, and implementation 
        in providing such assistance, the Administrator takes 
        into consideration local input and participation 
        directly and through United States and indigenous 
        private and voluntary organizations;
          (2) each of the nonemergency activities described in 
        paragraphs (2) through (6) of section 201 of such Act 
        (7 U.S.C. 1721) (relating to the purposes of emergency 
        and private assistance programs), including programs 
        that provide assistance to people of any age group who 
        are otherwise unable to meet their basic food needs 
        (including feeding programs for the disabled, orphaned, 
        elderly, sick and dying), are carried out; and
          (3) greater flexibility is provided for program and 
        evaluation plans so that such assistance may be 
        developed to meet local needs, as provided for in 
        section 202(f) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1722(f)--relating 
        to the effective use of commodities).
    Subsection (b) requires that in providing assistance under 
the Agriculture Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the AID Administrator shall 
ensure that commodities are provided in a manner that is 
consistent with sections 403 (a) and (b) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
1733 (a) and (b)--regarding adequate storage, no disruption of 
local production, and consultations with the World Bank).

subtitle b--bill emerson humanitarian international food security trust 
                              act of 1998

Sec. 211. Short Title

    This section provides that this subtitle may be cited as 
the `Bill Emerson Humanitarian International Food Security 
Trust Act of 1998'.

Sec. 212. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act

    Subsection (a) amends Section 302 of the Food Security 
Commodity Reserve Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1) to permit the 
Bill Emerson Humanitarian International Food Security Trust to 
hold funds as well as commodities. The Reserve was established 
by the Agricultural Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-494) which included 
the text of H.R. 6635, the Food Security Act of 1980, which 
Chairman Gilman was an original cosponsor. The current Food 
Security Commodity Reserve holds approximately 2.5 million 
metric tons of wheat (90 million bushels) and is limited to a 
total of four million metric tons. Commodities in the trust can 
be released when domestic supplies are tight or to meet 
unanticipated humanitarian needs in developing countries. Wheat 
from this reserve has been released six times since the Reserve 
was created in 1980. Changes made by this Act would allow the 
Reserve to continue providing commodities (or funds) at its 
current rate.
    In addition to changing the name of the Reserve to the 
Trust, the Act allows the Trust to hold funds. Spending funds, 
instead of commodities from the Trust, would allow the United 
States to more rapidly and effectively respond to food 
emergencies around the world. Allowing the trust to hold funds 
also reduces costs by eliminating storage and administration 
expenses (current costs total 25 cents per bushel of wheat to 
store for one year). It is the Committee's understanding that 
funds held by the Trust are to be used to purchase commodities 
for the stated purposes of the Trust.
    When the Africa: Seeds of Hope Act was initially introduced 
as H.R. 3636, the bill provided that funding used under current 
law to reimburse the CCC would be used instead to replenish the 
Trust. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) advised the 
Committee that this would entail a scoring of several hundred 
million dollars. This bill limited the total amounts provided 
to the Trust to limit this score. Subsection (B) specifically 
limits funding for the replenishment of the Trust to a total of 
$80 million, divided equally between FY 2000-2003. The 
Committee understands that the initial CBO scoring of this 
provision totals $76 million through 2003 and $344 million 
through 2008.
    It is the Committee's intent that the Secretary manage the 
resources of the Trust in a prudent manner to enable the U.S. 
to respond to humanitarian crises. Therefore, the Committee 
provided this subsection, which requires that the Secretary of 
Agriculture may release eligible commodities under subparagraph 
(A) only to the extent such release is consistent with 
maintaining the long-term value of the trust.
    Subsection (b) makes conforming amendments to rename and 
conform the Act to accommodate the Bill Emerson Humanitarian 

                  title iii--miscellaneous provisions

Sec. 301. Report

    This section requires that not later than 6 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the AID Administrator, in 
consultation with the heads of other appropriate agencies, 
shall prepare and submit to Congress a report on how the Agency 
plans to implement sections 101, 102, 103, 105, and 201 of this 
Act, the steps that have been taken toward such implementation, 
and an estimate of all amounts expended or to be expended on 
related activities during the current and previous 4 fiscal 

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):


           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



  [This title may be cited as the ``Food Security Commodity 
Reserve Act of 1996''.]



  This title may be cited as the ``Bill Emerson Humanitarian 
Trust Act''.


  (a) In General.--To provide for a [reserve] trust solely to 
meet emergency humanitarian food needs in developing countries, 
the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this title as the 
``Secretary'') shall establish a [reserve] trust stock of 
wheat, rice, corn, or sorghum, or any combination of the 
commodities, totaling not more than 4,000,000 metric tons for 
use as described in subsection (c).
  (b) Commodities or Funds in [Reserve] Trust.--
          (1) In general.--The [reserve] trust established 
        under this section shall consist of--
                  (A) wheat in the reserve established under 
                the Food Security Wheat Reserve Act of 1980 as 
                of the date of enactment of the Federal 
                Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996;
                  (B) wheat, rice, corn, and sorghum (referred 
                to in this section as ``eligible commodities'') 
                acquired in accordance with paragraph (2) to 
                replenish eligible commodities released from 
                the [reserve,] trust, including wheat to 
                replenish wheat released from the reserve 
                established under the Food Security Wheat 
                Reserve Act of 1980 but not replenished as of 
                the date of enactment of the Federal 
                Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996; 
                  (C) such rice, corn, and sorghum as the 
                Secretary may, at such time and in such manner 
                as the Secretary determines appropriate, 
                acquire as a result of exchanging an equivalent 
                value of wheat in the [reserve] trust 
                established under this section[.]; and
                  (D) funds made available under paragraph 
          (2) Replenishment of [reserve] trust.--
                  (A) In general.--[Subject to subsection (h), 
                commodities] Commodities of equivalent value to 
                eligible commodities in the [reserve] trust 
                established under this section may be 
                          (i) through purchases--
                                  (I) from producers; or
                                  (II) in the market, if the 
                                Secretary determines that the 
                                purchases will not unduly 
                                disrupt the market; or
                          (ii) by designation by the Secretary 
                        of stocks of eligible commodities of 
                        the Commodity Credit Corporation.
                  [(B) Funds.--Any use of funds to acquire 
                eligible commodities through purchases from 
                producers or in the market to replenish the 
                reserve must be authorized in an appropriations 
                  (B) Funds.--Any funds used to acquire 
                eligible commodities through purchases from 
                producers or in the market to replenish the 
                trust shall be derived--
                          (i) with respect to fiscal year 2000 
                        and subsequent fiscal years, from funds 
                        made available to carry out the 
                        Agricultural Trade Development and 
                        Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 
                        et seq.) that are used to repay or 
                        reimburse the Commodity Credit 
                        Corporation for the release of eligible 
                        commodities under subsections (c)(2) 
                        and (f)(2), except that, of such funds, 
                        not more than $20,000,000 may be 
                        expended for this purpose in each of 
                        the fiscal years 2000 through 2003 and 
                        any such funds not expended for the 
                        fiscal year allocated shall be 
                        available for expenditure in subsequent 
                        fiscal years; and
                          (ii) from funds authorized for that 
                        use by an appropriations Act.
  (c) Release of Eligible Commodities.--
          (1) Emergency assistance.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Release for emergency assistance.--If the 
                eligible commodities needed to meet 
                unanticipated need cannot be made available in 
                a timely manner under normal means for 
                obtaining eligible commodities for food 
                assistance because of unanticipated need for 
                emergency assistance as provided under section 
                202(a) of the Agricultural Trade Development 
                and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1722(a)), 
                the Secretary may in any fiscal year release 
                from the [reserve] trust--
                          (i) up to 500,000 metric tons of 
                        wheat or the equivalent value of 
                        eligible commodities other than wheat; 
                          (ii) up to 500,000 metric tons of any 
                        eligible commodities under this 
                        paragraph that could have been released 
                        but were not released in prior fiscal 

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Emergency food [assistance.--Notwithstanding] 
                  (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of law, eligible commodities 
                designated or acquired for the [reserve] trust 
                established under this section may be released 
                by the Secretary to provide, on a donation or 
                sale basis, emergency food assistance to 
                developing countries at such time as the 
                domestic supply of the eligible commodities is 
                so limited that quantities of the eligible 
                commodities cannot be made available for 
                disposition under the Agricultural Trade 
                Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 
                U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) (other than disposition 
                for urgent humanitarian purposes under section 
                401 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1731)).
                  (B) Limitation.--The Secretary may release 
                eligible commodities under subparagraph (A) 
                only to the extent such release is consistent 
                with maintaining the long-term value of the 
          (3) Processing of eligible commodities.--Eligible 
        commodities that are released from the [reserve] trust 
        established under this section may be processed in the 
        United States and shipped to a developing country when 
        conditions in the recipient country require processing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Management of Eligible Commodities.--The Secretary shall 
          (1) for the management of eligible commodities in the 
        [reserve] trust established under this section as to 
        location and quality of eligible commodities needed to 
        meet emergency situations; [and]
          (2) for the periodic rotation or replacement of 
        stocks of eligible commodities in the [reserve] trust 
        to avoid spoilage and deterioration of the 
        commodities[.]; and
          (3) subject to the need for release of commodities 
        from the trust under subsection (c)(1), for the 
        management of the trust to preserve the value of the 
        trust through acquisitions under subsection (b)(2).
  (e) Treatment of [Reserve] Trust Under Other Law.--Eligible 
commodities in the [reserve] trust established under this 
section shall not be--
          (1) considered a part of the total domestic supply 
        (including carryover) for the purpose of subsection (c) 
        or for the purpose of administering the Agricultural 
        Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 
        1691 et seq.); and
          (2) subject to any quantitative limitation on exports 
        that may be imposed under section 7 of the Export 
        Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406).
  (f) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Reimbursement of the trust.--
                  (A) In general.--The Commodity Credit 
                Corporation shall be reimbursed for the release 
                of eligible commodities from funds made 
                available to carry out the Agricultural Trade 
                Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 
                U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) and the funds shall be 
                available to replenish the trust under 
                subsection (b).
                  (B) Basis for reimbursement.--The 
                reimbursement shall be made on the basis of the 
                lesser of--
                          (i) the actual costs incurred by the 
                        Commodity Credit Corporation with 
                        respect to the eligible commodity; or
                          (ii) the export market price of the 
                        eligible commodity (as determined by 
                        the Secretary) as of the time the 
                        eligible commodity is released from the 
                        [reserve] trust.
                  (C) Source of funds.--The reimbursement may 
                be made from funds appropriated for subsequent 
                fiscal years.
  (g) Finality of Determination.--Any determination by the 
Secretary under this section shall be final.
  [(h) Termination of Authority.--
          [(1) In general.--The authority to replenish stocks 
        of eligible commodities to maintain the reserve 
        established under this section shall terminate on 
        September 30, 2002.
          [(2) Disposal of eligible commodities.--Eligible 
        commodities remaining in the reserve after September 
        30, 2002, shall be disposed of by release for use in 
        providing for emergency humanitarian food needs in 
        developing countries as provided in this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                       trade suspension reserves

  Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) * * *
    (2) Applicability of certain provisions.--Subsections (c), 
(d), (e), and (f)(2) of section 302 of the [Food Security 
Commodity Reserve Act of 1996] Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust 
Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1 et seq.) shall apply to commodities in 
any reserve established under paragraph (1), except that the 
references to ``eligible commodities'' in the subsections shall 
be deemed to be references to ``agricultural commodities''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             SECTION 901b OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

                             OF AGRICULTURE

  Sec. 901b. (a) * * *
  (b) This section shall apply to any export activity of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation or the Secretary of Agriculture--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) carried out under the [Food Security Wheat 
        Reserve Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1)] Bill Emerson 
        Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1 et seq.);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *