- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 157
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-80
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000
_______
June 17, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Cochran, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1233]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1233)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $60,710,118,000
Amount of 1999 appropriations acts to date............\1\ 54,510,359,000
Amount of estimates, 2000.............................\2\ 66,883,182,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
Over the appropriations provided in 1999............ +6,199,759,000
Under the estimates for 2000........................ -6,173,064,000
\1\ Includes $1,250,000,000 rescission and excludes emergency
appropriations.
\2\ Includes fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations totaling
$5,000,000,000.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Summary of the Bill
Page
Overview and summary of the bill................................. 6-
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 7
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary.......................................... 9
Executive operations............................................. 11
Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................... 12
Office of the Chief Financial Officer............................ 13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration............. 13
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments......... 14
Hazardous waste management....................................... 15
Departmental administration...................................... 15
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.... 17
Office of Communications......................................... 17
Office of the Inspector General.................................. 18
Office of the General Counsel.................................... 18
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics...................................................... 19
Economic Research Service........................................ 19
National Agricultural Statistics Service......................... 20
Agricultural Research Service.................................... 21
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service..... 37
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs....................................................... 47
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....................... 48
Agricultural Marketing Service................................... 55
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.......... 59
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.................... 60
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................... 60
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services....................................................... 61
Farm Service Agency.............................................. 62
Risk Management Agency........................................... 68
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund.......................... 69
Commodity Credit Corporation fund................................ 69
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.................................................... 75
TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community
Development.................................................... 83
Rural Community Advancement Program.............................. 84
Rural Housing Service............................................ 88
Rural Business-Cooperative Service............................... 94
Rural Utilities Service.......................................... 98
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services....................................................... 103
Food and Nutrition Service....................................... 103
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and the General Sales Manager....... 116
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Food and Drug Administration..................................... 123
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Management Service..................................... 129
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission............................. 130
Farm Credit Administration....................................... 131
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 132
Program, project, and activity................................... 133
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the standing rules of
the Senate..................................................... 133
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the standing rules
of the Senate.................................................. 134
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the standing rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 134
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Committee
1999 \1\ recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... $14,481,998,000 $20,000,476,000
Title II: Conservation programs... 793,072,000 808,072,000
Title III: Rural economic and 2,175,234,000 2,184,449,000
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 34,817,199,000 35,546,075,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,196,718,000 1,062,908,000
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,046,138,000 1,104,888,000
Title VII: General provisions..... ................. 3,250,000
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 54,510,359,000 60,710,118,000
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $6,639,751,000 and $22,466,000
rescission of emergency funds (Public Laws 105-277 and 106-31).
Includes $1,250,000,000 Food Stamp Program rescission (Public Law 106-
31).
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 308(a) OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT
Section 308(a) of the Budget Control Act (Public Law 93-
344) requires that this Committee include in its report
specific budgetary information on the status of recommended
appropriations relative to the First Concurrent Resolution. The
following table provides this data:
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 2000: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies:
General purpose discretionary........................... 13,983 13,983 14,254 \1\ 14,254
Violent crime reduction fund............................ ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory............................................... 50,295 47,063 33,088 32,467
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 40,763
2001.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,159
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 595
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 343
2004 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 492
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000 NA 18,341 NA 15,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food programs; rural economic and
community development activities and electrification
assistance; and various export and international activities of
the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission [CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. It also provides money to the Department of the Treasury
for payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance
Corporation.
Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on
each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications behind the funding levels are included in the
report.
The Committee also has encouraged the consideration of
grant and loan applications from various entities. The
Committee expects the Department only to approve those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
Food Safety
For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends
$320,633,000, an increase of $45,886,000 from the fiscal year
1999 level for United States Department of Agriculture and Food
and Drug Administration activities included in the President's
Food Safety Initiative. The Food Safety Initiative includes
those activities identified in the May 1997 report to the
President entitled: ``Food Safety from Farm-to-Table: A
National Food Safety Initiative.'' It does not include other
federal food safety programs and activities, federal meat and
poultry inspection being a notable example. The increases
recommended by the Committee for the President's Food Safety
Initiative, by agency, are as follows:
--$10,000,000 for the Agricultural Research Service;
--$2,635,000 for the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service;
--$453,000 for the Economic Research Service;
--$2,500,000 for the National Agricultural Statistics
Service;
--$2,398,000 for the Agricultural Marketing Service;
--$2,900,000 for the Food Safety and Inspection Service; and
--$25,000,000 for the Food and Drug Administration.
The United States continues to have one of the safest food
supplies in the world. These additional measures are intended
to increase the protection of the American public through the
implementation of science-based food inspection systems and
other technologies to control and detect food safety hazards,
additional research, education on food safety procedures and
safe food handling, enhanced public health surveillance, and a
faster, more efficient response to incidences of foodborne
illness.
At the same time, however, the Committee believes that it
is equally important for the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to reassure
the public about the safety of our food supply and to educate
the American public on the safety, effectiveness, and consumer
benefits of practices and processes used in food production.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to develop a
plan of action to achieve this goal and to submit this plan,
identifying those activities underway or proposed to be
undertaken, to the Committee by December 1, 1999.
Food recalls
The Committee believes that agencies with jurisdiction over
meat, poultry and food products should, to the extent
practicable, have consistent recall protocols. Both the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) have established recall coordinators
to implement the agencies' respective protocol. The Committee
expects the FDA and the FSIS each to provide to the Committee a
report detailing the operations of its recall coordinator. The
report should include descriptions of the coordinator's
authorities, operating procedures, and budget and descriptions
of actions taken during recent recalls handled by each. The
Committee expects this report to be provided to the Committee
by January 30, 2000.
Food irradiation
The Committee supports the use of new technology and
innovative methods to improve the safety of the nation's food
supply. Among these new tools is the use of irradiation in both
meat and poultry and processed foods. The Committee is
concerned that the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the
Food and Drug Administration have not completed their December
1995 proposals for harmonizing and improving the efficiency of
procedures used by the agencies for reviewing and approving the
use of substances, including irradiation, in meat and poultry
products. In addition, the Committee urges the Secretary of
Agriculture to finalize and fully implement its proposed rule
to allow the use of irradiation on meat.
Antibiotic resistance in livestock
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress in
April 1999 reflects the difference of opinion between the
United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Health and Human Services about the potential risks associated
with the use of human antibiotics in animals and to what extent
on-farm antibiotic use contributes to resistance in humans.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to implement the GAO report's recommendation and
develop a strategy, including a proposed timetable and budget
to conduct an assessment of the risk to human health from
antimicrobial resistance in foodborne pathogens resulting from
on-farm antibiotic use. The Secretary should consult with all
stakeholders in designing the assessment and should also detail
how the result of the risk assessment will be incorporated into
regulations governing the approval of on-farm antibiotics.
Furthermore, the Committee directs the USDA to submit a report
on the status of its research on the effectiveness of the use
of growth promoting antibiotics in animals that may compromise
human therapies and on alternatives to this practice.
Government Performance and Results Act
Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results
Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop
succinct and precise strategic plans and annual performance
plans that focus on results of funding decisions made by the
Congress. Rather than simply providing details of activity
levels, agencies will set outcome goals based on program
activities and establish performance measures for use in
management and budgeting. In an era of restricted and declining
resources, it is paramount that agencies focus on the
difference they make in citizens' lives.
The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends
to use the agencies' plans for funding purposes. The Committee
considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending
while achieving a more efficient and effective Government and
will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is
fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements
as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this
Committee.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 1999.................................... \1\ $2,836,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,942,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,836,000
\1\ Excludes $250,000 emergency appropriation provided by Public Law
105-277 to support mandatory price reporting pilot investigation.
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $2,836,000. This amount is $106,000 less
than the budget request and the same as the 1999 appropriation.
``InfoShare'' funds.--In the Fiscal Year 1996 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 104-37), $7,500,000 of
the amount requested by the President was made available for
``InfoShare'', the Department's project to integrate
information systems and business processes to improve service
delivery to customers of farm service and rural development
agencies. These funds were made available until expended. The
Committee notes that only a portion of these funds have been
obligated, and an estimated $4,300,000 of these funds will
remain unobligated at the end of fiscal year 1999. Due to
budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide the
requested program funding increases to meet the Department's
USDA Service Center modernization and other information
technology requirements. The Committee suggests that during
fiscal year 2000, to the extent feasible, the Secretary use
unobligated ``InfoShare'' balances to fund the highest priority
information technology needs of the Department, with the prior
approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Markets for U.S. Agriculture.--The Committee believes that
a strong agricultural economy is dependent on open and fairly
structured markets both at home and abroad. While downturns in
foreign economies, and the effect of those downturns on U.S.
commodity prices, are outside the scope of USDA policy or
involvement, there remain many elements in the arena of foreign
trade which are inherently unfair to U.S. producers and
exporters and the Committee strongly urges the Secretary, in
conjunction with other parts of government, to act on behalf
and in the best interest of U.S. agriculture in opening and
maintaining fair marketplaces abroad for U.S. commodities.
Similarly, the Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize
existing authorities to examine domestic markets to ensure
price transparency and to avoid undue concentration of market
power in any segment of the U.S. agriculture industry.
Conservation partnerships.--The Committee encourages the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency and
other related agencies to work with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation to develop partnerships to restore and
enhance natural resources on land used for agricultural
purposes as provided in the conservation title of the Federal
Agriculture and Improvement Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR).
Environmentally preferable products.--The Secretary shall
work with the General Services Administration, the Department
of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other
appropriate agencies to maximize the purchases of
environmentally preferable products, as defined by Executive
Order 13101 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste
Prevention. Such products are not only useful in improving the
environment, but they can, when the product contains a
substantial amount of agri-based content, also open
considerable markets for farmers.
The Department should actively participate in joint task
forces and other multiagency entities in this area. It should
actively work to properly define standards for agri-based
content of products and work towards the development of such
environmentally preferable products.
Codex Alimentarius.--The Committee supports the activities
of the U.S. office to implement Codex Alimentarius (Codex). The
Food Safety and Inspection Service has had primary
responsibility for the Codex activities of the Department, but
other USDA agencies have shared in Codex activities and costs.
The Committee urges the Secretary to provide at least
$3,200,000 for Codex activities for fiscal year 2000. Further,
the Committee expects the Department to submit a budget request
for Codex activities for fiscal year 2001.
Commissions.--Within the limitation on funding to cover
necessary expenses of activities related to advisory
committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the
Department of Agriculture, the Committee expects funding for
the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture and the
National Drought Policy Commission each to be maintained at the
fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee encourages the National
Drought Policy Commission, created in July, 1998, to expedite
its work to develop recommendations for a coordinated
preparedness and response to drought emergencies.
Migrant housing.--The Committee is concerned about the
availability of migrant farm worker housing, particularly in
areas with short harvest seasons. The Committee requests that
the Department, along with input from growers, migrant farm
worker groups, and nonprofit housing organizations, examine
alternative construction technologies to address the lack of
proper farm worker housing. The Committee directs the
Department to report these findings to the Committee by
February 1, 2000.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--The Committee
encourages the agency to allocate Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) funds to all eligible livestock
producers on an equitable basis.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected Departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Chief Economist
Appropriations, 1999.................................... \1\ $5,620,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 6,622,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,411,000
\1\ Does not reflect $791,000 for the transfer of the Office of Energy
from the Economic Research Service.
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used
to develop outlook and situation material within the
Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee
recommends $6,411,000. This amount is $211,000 less than the
budget request and $791,000 more than the 1999 appropriation.
Included in the Committee's recommendation is $791,000
associated with the transfer in fiscal year 1999 of the Office
of Energy Policy and New Uses functions to this account from
the Economic Research Service pursuant to the Secretary's
reorganization authority.
National Appeals Division
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $11,718,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 12,699,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,718,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
rural development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends
$11,718,000. This amount is $981,000 less than the budget
request and the same as the 1999 appropriation.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $6,120,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 6,583,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,583,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decisionmaking
process; provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the
Committee recommends $6,583,000. This amount is $463,000 more
than the 1999 appropriation and the same as the budget request.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $5,551,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 7,998,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,551,000
\1\ Excludes total emergency funding of $46,168,420 transferred from the
Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses Account for Year
2000 (Y2K) compliance pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. The
Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in
August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, to
provide policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery. The Office provides long-range planning
guidance, implements measures to ensure that technology
investments are economical and effective, coordinates
interagency information resources management projects, and
implements standards to promote information exchange and
technical interoperability. In addition, the Office of the
Chief Information Officer is responsible for certain activities
financed under the Department's working capital fund (7 U.S.C.
2235). The Office also provides telecommunication and automated
data processing [ADP] services to USDA agencies through the
National Information Technology Center with locations in Fort
Collins, CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational
services are also provided to the Office of the General
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and executive operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $5,551,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $2,447,000 less than
the budget request and the same as the 1999 appropriation. Due
to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide
any of the increases in funding requested for this Office.
The President's budget for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer requests program funding increases totaling
$2,250,000 for various activities related to information
technology. Under the ``Office of the Secretary'' account, the
Committee suggests that unobligated funds made available to the
Office of the Secretary in fiscal year 1996 for ``InfoShare''
be used, to the extent feasible, to meet high priority USDA
Service Center and other information technology requirements.
Requested program increases for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer may be determined by the Secretary to
qualify for the use of these funds.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $4,283,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 6,288,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,283,000
Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction
and oversight of the Department's financial management
operations and systems. The Office is also responsible for the
management and operation of the National Finance Center. In
addition, the Office provides budget, accounting, and fiscal
services to the Office of the Secretary, departmental staff
offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of
Communications, and executive operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the
Committee recommends $5,283,000. This amount is $1,005,000 less
than the budget request and $1,000,000 more than the 1999
appropriation.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 of the $2,005,000
increase requested to restore USDA financial credibility and
accountability. The Committee also includes language in the
bill directing the Chief Financial Officer to actively market
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $613,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 636,000
Committee recommendation................................ 613,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, equal
opportunity and civil rights programs, ethics, and other
general administrative functions. In addition, the Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for
certain activities financed under the Department's working
capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, the Committee recommends $613,000. This amount
is the same as the 1999 level and $23,000 less than the budget
request.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $137,184,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 166,364,000
Committee recommendation................................ 145,364,000
Rental payments.--Annual appropriations are made to finance
the appropriated portion of the payments to the General
Services Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for
related services to all USDA agencies, except the Forest
Service, which is funded by another appropriations bill.
Agency budget estimates for rent are based on GSA's
projection of what it will charge the Agency in a given budget
year. GSA sets rates according to the market value of property
or space occupied, and independent of any agency input. Rent
receipts are placed in a fund used by GSA in the management of
its real property operations. All Federal Government agencies
utilizing Government-owned or leased property pay into this
fund, which provides GSA with a pool of capital to support
overall Government space needs. In effect, agencies are paying
prevailing commercial rental rates in order to subsidize the
inflated cost of new construction and newly leased space, and
to provide for vacant space in GSA's inventory.
Building operations and maintenance.--On October 1, 1984,
the General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the
operations and maintenance function for the buildings in the
D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides
departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain,
and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. GSA expanded the
delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1,
1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms
in Lanham, MD, and the other is a leased warehouse for the
excess property operation located at 49 L Street SW,
Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major
nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began
operations and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.
Strategic space plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the
Metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people,
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-priority
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient reallocation of
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA strategic
space plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which
exist in the Agriculture South Building.
During fiscal year 1998, the Beltsville Office Facility was
completed. This facility was constructed with funds
appropriated to the Department and is located on Government-
owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. Occupancy by USDA agencies
began in fiscal year 1998 and will be completed in fiscal year
1999.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the
Committee recommends $145,364,000. This amount is $21,000,000
less than the budget request and $8,180,000 more than the 1999
appropriation.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
1999 and budget request levels:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 budget Committee
1999 estimate request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments.............................................. $108,057,000 $115,542,000 $115,542,000
Building Operations.......................................... 24,127,000 24,822,000 24,822,000
Strategic Space Plan......................................... 5,000,000 26,000,000 5,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 137,184,000 166,364,000 145,364,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Waste Management
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $15,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 22,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,700,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous waste as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous waste in areas under the Department's jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $15,700,000 for hazardous waste
management. This amount is the same as the 1999 appropriation
and $7,000,000 less than the budget request.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $32,168,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 36,117,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,738,000
Departmental administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, management improvement,
occupational safety and health management, real and personal
property management, procurement, contracting, motor vehicle
and aircraft management, supply management, civil rights and
equal opportunity, participation of small and disadvantaged
businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in
the Department's program activities, emergency preparedness,
small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the
regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by
the administrative law judges, judicial officer, and Board of
Contract Appeals.
Departmental administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, departmental administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For departmental administration, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $34,738,000. This amount is $2,570,000 more
than the 1999 appropriation and $1,379,000 less than the budget
estimate.
The Committee recommendation includes the increases
requested in the President's budget of $1,639,000 and 17 staff
years for the Office of Civil Rights, and $931,000 and 11 staff
years for the Office of Outreach to continue to implement
recommendations from the Civil Rights Action Team report, the
National Commission on Small Farms report, and to carry out
other responsibilities of the office.
outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,000,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with
demonstrated experience in providing education on other
agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary
education facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For grants for socially disadvantaged farmers, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000. This
amount is the same as the 1999 level and $7,000,000 less than
the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,668,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,805,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,668,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$3,668,000. This amount is the same as the 1999 level and
$137,000 less than the budget estimate.
The Committee provides that not less than $2,241,000 shall
be transferred to agencies funded by this act to support
congressional relations' activities at the agency level. The
table below indicates the specific amounts provided by the
Committee for each agency, as compared to the fiscal year 1999
and budget request levels.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Committee
2000 recommendation
1999 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters activities....... 957 992 957
Intergovernmental affairs..... 470 488 470
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 1,427 1,480 1,427
=========================================
Agricultural Marketing Service 176 183 176
Agricultural Research Service. 129 133 129
Animal and Plant Health 101 105 101
Inspection Service...........
Cooperative State Research, 120 125 120
Education, and Extension
Service......................
Farm Service Agency........... 355 368 355
Food and Nutrition Service.... 27O 281 27O
Food Safety and Inspection 309 321 309
Service......................
Foreign Agricultural Service.. 183 191 183
Natural Resources Conservation 148 153 148
Service......................
Risk Management Agency........ 109 116 109
Rural Business-Cooperative 52 54 52
Service......................
Rural Housing Service......... 147 149 147
Rural Utilities Service....... 142 146 142
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 2,241 2,325 2,241
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 3,668 3,805 3,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $8,138,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 9,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,138,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations
representing America's food, fiber, and environmental
interests.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $8,138,000. This amount is the same as the
1999 appropriation and $1,162,000 less than the budget request.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $65,128,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 68,246,000
Committee recommendation................................ 65,128,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act
expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities
of the Office of the Inspector General which had previously
been carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $65,128,000. This is $3,118,000
less than the budget request and the same as the 1999
appropriation.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $29,194,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 32,675,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,094,000
The Office of the General Counsel, originally known as the
Office of the Solicitor, was established in 1910 as the law
office of the Department of Agriculture and performs all of the
legal work arising from the activities of the Department. The
General Counsel represents the Department in administrative
proceedings for the promulgation of rules and regulations
having the force and effect of law and in quasi-judicial
hearings held in connection with the administration of various
programs and acts; and in proceedings before the Interstate
Commerce Commission involving freight rates and practices
relating to farm commodities, including appeals from and
decisions of the Commission to the courts. The office also
serves as general counsel for the Commodity Credit Corporation
and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal
cases arising under the programs of the Department for referral
to the Department of Justice.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $30,094,000. This amount is
$2,581,000 less than the budget request and $900,000 more than
the 1999 appropriation. Included in the Committee's
recommendation is $900,000 of the increase requested in the
budget for enhanced legal services.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $540,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,061,000
Committee recommendation................................ 540,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $540,000. This amount is $1,521,000 less than
the budget request and the same as the 1999 level.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 1999.................................... \1\ $65,757,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 55,628,000
Committee recommendation................................ 65,419,000
\1\ Of this amount, $791,000 for the Office of Energy was transferred to
the Office of the Chief Economist pursuant to the Secretary's
reorganization authority; and $2,000,000 was transferred to ``Food and
Nutrition Service, Food Program Administration'' for studies and
evaluations pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
on rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by
the general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $65,419,000. This amount is $9,791,000 more
than the budget request and $338,000 less than the 1999
appropriation.
The Committee's recommendation includes a decrease of
$791,000 reflecting the transfer in fiscal year 1999 of the
Office of Energy and New Uses functions to the Office of the
Chief Economist pursuant to the Secretary's reorganization
authority. It includes the increase of $453,000 requested in
the budget to provide economic analysis in food safety risk
management. The Committee also provides continued funding at
the fiscal year 1999 level of $12,195,000 for USDA food
assistance program studies and evaluations. Of this amount,
$2,000,000 is transferred to the Food and Nutrition Service to
conduct programmatic evaluations and analyses.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $103,964,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 100,559,000
Committee recommendation................................ 99,355,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The 2000 budget estimate includes funding for the census of
agriculture which was transferred from the Department of
Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 1997
to consolidate agricultural statistics programs. The census of
agriculture is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive
data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number
of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values,
value of land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of
farm operators, market value of agricultural production sold,
acreage of major crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and
farm irrigation practices. The 1997 Census of Agriculture was
released on February 1, 1999. The next agricultural census will
be conducted beginning in January 2003 for the calendar year
2002.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,355,000. This
amount is $4,609,000 less than the 1999 appropriation and
$1,204,000 less than the budget estimate.
The Committee's recommendation includes $16,490,000 for the
Census of Agriculture, which is the same as the budget request.
This is a decrease of $7,109,000 from the fiscal year 1999
level due to the decreased requirements of the census of
agriculture, which takes place every 5 years.
The Committee has provided an additional $2,500,000 for the
initiation of a fruit and vegetable food safety survey. This
amount represents the full amount requested for the NASS
component of the President's food safety initiative.
With the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act
and the associated requirements for chemical risk assessments,
the importance of accurate chemical usage data has become even
more critical to the agricultural industry and to those tasked
with evaluating pesticides, setting safe pesticide residue
standards, and determining exposure risks. Currently, pesticide
usage statistics are not collected for all sectors of
agriculture. Unfortunately, in the absence of accurate data on
actual chemical use, Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
scientists conducting risk assessments must use a worst-case
assumption. The Committee expects NASS, to the extent
practicable, to discontinue low-priority activities so that it
can expand pesticide use surveys. The Committee expects that
the data gathered by the NASS surveys will be used by the EPA
as its basis for risk assessments.
Agricultural Research Service
Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $785,518,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 836,868,000
Committee recommendation................................ 809,499,000
\1\ Excludes $534,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and
$4,500,000 transferred from the Office of National Drug Control Policy
for counter-narcotics research pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals, commodities, natural resources, fields of
science, and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the National Agricultural
Library which provides agricultural information and library
services through traditional library functions and modern
electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and
private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a permanent
and effective agriculture; (3) improve the nutrition and well-
being of the American people; (4) improve living in rural
America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research
Service, the Committee recommends $809,499,000. This is
$23,981,000 more than the 1999 level and $27,369,000 less than
the budget request.
Of the increases requested in the budget, the Committee
provides $10,000,000 for food safety research; $4,725,000 for
emerging diseases and exotic pests; $1,500,000 for sustainable
ecosystems; $1,100,000 for global climate change; $2,300,000
for agricultural genome; $300,000 for integrated pest
management; and $1,500,000 for human nutrition.
These additional funds are to be allocated for existing or
planned research, as follows:
Food Safety.--Manure handling and distribution: Ames, IA
($300,000), Mississippi State, MS ($500,000), Clay Center, NE
($250,000), Lincoln, NE ($250,000), Bushland, TX ($250,000),
Phoenix, AZ ($250,000); risk assessment: Athens, GA ($450,000),
West Lafayette, IN ($250,000), Clay Center, NE ($500,000),
Beltsville, MD ($500,000); preharvest antibiotic resistance:
Athens, GA ($450,000), Ames, IA ($450,000), College Station, TX
($500,000); fungal toxins: Athens, GA ($250,000); food safety
engineering: West Lafeyette, IN ($500,000); hyperspectral
imaging: Stennis Space Center, MS ($500,000); zoonotic disease
risk: Fayetteville, AR ($250,000); listeriosis/sheep scrapie/
ovine progressive pneumonia virus: Pullman, WA ($600,000);
pathogen control during slaughter/processing: Athens, GA
($500,000); pathogen control in fruits/vegetables: Beltsville,
MD ($500,000), Wyndmoor, PA ($500,000), Albany, CA ($500,000);
postharvest antimicrobial resistance: Wyndmoor, PA ($500,000),
Peoria, IL ($500,000).
Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests.--Fusarium head blight:
Madison, WI ($300,000), Raleigh, NC ($75,000), consortium of
land grant universities ($1,800,000); aflatoxin: Stoneville, MS
($500,000), Phoenix, AZ ($300,000); noxious weeds: Burns, OR
($300,000); cereal rust research: St. Paul, MN ($300,000);
emerging diseases: Ft. Pierce, FL ($300,000); reniform
nematode: Stoneville, MS ($500,000); avian pneumovirus: Athens,
GA ($250,000); poult enteritis mortality syndrome: Athens, GA
($100,000).
Sustainable ecosystems.--Eutrophication/hypoxia:
Watkinsville, GA ($250,000), University Park, PA ($250,000);
biologically-based IPM for invasive weeds and pests: Logan, UT
($250,000), Kearneysville, WV ($250,000); predict ecological
impacts: Lubbock, TX ($250,000), El Reno, OK ($250,000).
Global Climate Change.--Carbon cycle research: Mandan, ND
($300,000), Morris, MN ($300,000), Auburn, AL ($500,000).
Agricultural genome.--Plant Genetics: Columbia, MO
($300,000); National Plant Germplasm System: Columbia, MO
($300,000), Beltsville, MD ($300,000), Albany, CA ($300,000),
Ames, IA ($300,000), Pullman, WA ($300,000), Ithaca, NY
($250,000); Ft. Collins, CO ($250,000).
Integrated pest management.--IPM for fruits and vegetables:
Ft. Pierce, FL ($300,000).
Human nutrition.--$1,500,000, to be evenly distributed
among the six nutrition centers located at Grand Forks, ND;
Beltsville, MD; Davis, CA; Little Rock, AR; Houston, TX; and
Boston, MA.
The Committee recommendation includes $7,314,500 of the
savings from project terminations proposed in the budget. These
savings are to be redirected to those research areas for which
increased funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee
does not provide funding for contingencies, as requested in the
budget.
The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the
prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the
purposes identified by Congress.
In complying with the Committee's directives, ARS is
expected not to redirect support for programs from one State to
another without prior notification to and approval by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless otherwise
directed, the Agricultural Research Service shall implement
appropriations by programs, projects, commodities, and
activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity''
section of this report.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas of research are as follows:
Animal disease research.--Included in the additional funds
recommended for food safety research is an increase of $600,000
for research on listeriosis, sheep scrapie and ovine
progressive pneumonia virus (OPPV). These funds are to be
shared equally by the USDA-ARS Animal Disease Research Unit in
Pullman, WA, and the USDA-ARS Sheep Experiment Station in
Dubois, ID.
Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center.--The Committee
provides an increase of $1,000,000 to establish a consortium
for the Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems project. Through
a cooperative agreement, consortium members, consisting of West
Virginia University, Virginia Tech, and ARS, will be able to
provide critical resources to Appalachian cattle farmers to
ensure the future economic viability of these producers, to
enhance development in Appalachia, and to protect the
environment.
Apple research.--The Committee expects ARS to increase its
research toward funding alternatives to pesticides and
improving postharvest technologies for apples.
Aquaculture research.--The Committee acknowledges the
importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at various locations
throughout the country. In order to ensure that duplication
does not occur in the field of warmwater aquaculture research,
the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel
catfish research related to production systems, nutrition,
water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing
which is ongoing at the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research
Center at Stoneville, MS.
The Committee encourages all facilities to share research
results to benefit and enhance the Nation's aquaculture
industry.
The Committee is aware of the growing importance of the
U.S. aquaculture and the continuing need for research in
production efficiency, systems, nutrition, water quality,
genetics, disease, and post-harvest technology issues. In
Senate Report 104-317, accompanying the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, the Committee directed
the ARS to submit a report to the Committee which inventoried
the operations, facilities, and personnel support at each ARS
location where warmwater aquaculture research is conducted. The
Committee directs ARS to update that report and to expand it to
include all aquaculture research currently being conducted by
the agency. The report should again inventory the operations,
facilities, and personnel support at each ARS location where
aquaculture research is conducted. It should also address the
agency's current capacity and requirements for additional
resources to meet future needs and issues confronting the
Nation's aquaculture farmers, industry, and consumers; the
impact on the domestic economy and trade balance; environmental
requirements of existing and expanded growth in the industry;
food safety issues; and opportunities in rural America and
small-scale farming. This report is to be submitted to the
Committee no later than January 31, 2000.
Asian bird influenza.--With encouragement from the
Committee, ARS scientists at Athens, GA, have begun to provide
technical assistance and collaborate with other leading
virologists and ornithologists to develop and assess baseline
data on Eurasian birds as an influenza reservoir and their
migration habits between Southeast Asia and North America and
their breeding grounds in Alaska. The initial surveillance
efforts between ARS and the University of Alaska have resulted
in positive isolations of Avian influenza strains from a
collaborative effort screening wild Alaska birds. Likewise, the
ARS and University of Georgia surveillance efforts have
resulted in 33 avian influenza isolates from mallard ducks and
coots. With the upcoming addition of an ARS headquarters-
provided ABI 3700 automated gene sequencer and robotics, the
ARS laboratory in Athens now has an increased capacity to
process very large numbers of samples. The Committee provides
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for ARS
to continue to collaborate with the University of Alaska and
the University of Georgia to further develop and assess these
baseline data, specifically through increasing the number and
diversity of wild bird samples obtained and analyzed.
Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee directs the ARS to
work with the University of Vermont to develop non-chemical
controls for the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
Avian Pneumovirus.--The Committee notes the losses to
turkey producers due to the spread of avian pneumovirus and
includes in the increased funding recommended for emerging
diseases and exotic pests $250,000 for research related to this
disease.
Barley research, Pullman, WA.--The Committee recognizes the
important research conducted at the Pullman ARS unit on barley
stripe rust. Barley stripe rust is a major threat to the
Pacific Northwest barley production. The Committee provides the
fiscal year 1999 funding level for research on barley stripe
rust.
Biological control research.--The Committee has been
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been
taken by the Mid South Regional Research Center in the area of
biological controls of cotton insect pests. The economic and
environmental benefits of this research could eventually reduce
the vulnerability of crops to major insect pests and create
alternatives to traditional crop protection methods. The
Committee continues funding for this project at the fiscal year
1999 and budget request levels.
Biomedical materials in plants.--The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for ARS
cooperative research with the Biotechnology Foundation, Inc.,
to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a medium to
produce vaccines and other biomedical products for the
prevention of human and animal diseases.
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The
Committee directs the agency to continue its support of the
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation's research
on both plants and animals at the same levels as fiscal year
1999.
Brown Citrus Aphid.--The Brown Citrus Aphid transmits the
Citrus Tristeza virus. In addition to extensive damages to
Florida citrus, the virus debilitates crops in Texas,
California and Arizona. Last year, the ARS submitted a report
to the Congress outlining a comprehensive control strategy for
this critical citrus disease complex. The Committee provides
continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for highly
important research on citrus virus.
Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--The
Committee is aware of the significance of the research
currently underway relating to catfish and other food products
at the Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest
Technology and provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal
year 1999 level for research on shellfish safety and methods of
decreasing risks to consumers.
Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI.--The Committee
supports the work of the twelve-state consortium to control
fusarium head blight and includes in the increased funding
provided for emerging diseases and exotic pests an increase of
$300,000 for the Cereal Crops Research Unit [CCRU] at Madison,
WI, to address problems related to the barley industry. The
Committee expects the CCRU to continue work to improve the
barley industry's quality evaluation capacity.
Club wheat breeding.--The Committee provides continued
funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for the ARS Pacific
Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program.
Cotton genetics.--The Committee recognizes the urgency to
develop high-yielding cotton germplasm and continues support
for the cotton genetics program at the Mid South Regional
Research Center at the fiscal year 1999 level.
Cotton ginning laboratories.--The Committee continues
funding at the fiscal year 1999 levels for ginning research at
the Stoneville, MS; Mesilla Park, NM; and Lubbock, TX,
laboratories.
Cotton value-added/quality research.--U.S. agriculture's
continued economic strength depends on efficient production and
value-added technology. The Committee urges ARS to continue to
place high priority on cotton textile processing research
conducted at New Orleans, LA, to improve quality, reduce
defects, and improve easy-care products. The Committee
recommends funding at the budget request level for this
research.
Endophyte.--For the center of excellence in endophyte/grass
research operated cooperatively by the University of Missouri
and the University of Arkansas, the Committee recommends
continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 level. The purpose of
this research is to enhance the sustainability of fescue-based
beef production and to develop innovative applications of
endophyte in improving stress resistance in other forage, turf,
and grain crop species.
Fish Diseases.--The Committee notes the important work on
fish diseases and the significant accomplishments attained as a
result of the research carried out at the ARS Auburn Fish
Disease Laboratory. The Committee provides an increase of
$600,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for greatly needed
scientific and technical support and equipment essential to the
expanding workload at this laboratory.
Floriculture and nursery research.--The Committee provides
the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the ARS floriculture
(environmental horticulture) and nursery research program. The
Committee believes that this program should be conducted at the
Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center (NWNRC) in Corvallis,
Oregon. Nursery and greenhouse products rank number one in
Oregon and the NWNRC is best suited to conduct floriculture and
nursery research.
Fruit fly.--The Committee provides continued funding at the
fiscal year 1999 level of $278,200 for the University of Hawaii
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for
collaborative work on developing efficacious and nontoxic
methods to control tephritid fruit flies.
The Committee also supports continued funding by the ARS to
provide $293,000 to the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to develop and
implement a program to address control of the papaya ringspot
virus; and $293,000 to establish nematode resistance in
commercial pineapple cultivars. The Committee views the
nematode and ringspot virus activities as supportive of a
national agricultural research agenda and that of Hawaii.
Fruit research.--The Committee is aware of the important
work carried out on fruit research at Wenatchee and Yakima in
the State of Washington. The Committee expects the Department
to continue to give increased attention to the work carried out
at these two facilities. The Committee provides funding at the
budget request levels for the Yakima and Wenatchee ARS
facilities.
Grain legume research.--The Committee acknowledges the
importance of a grain legume genetics research position at
Washington State University in Pullman, WA, and continues
funding at the fiscal year 1999 level to support this position.
This research will focus on approaches to increase surface crop
residues and on methods to overcome disease and insect problems
in grain legumes.
Grain sorghum ergot.--Sorghum ergot was found in the United
States for the first time during 1997. High Plains Virus is a
new pathogen attacking corn, sorghum and wheat in the central
Great Plains. Gray leaf spot has been a serious disease of corn
during the past three years. The Committee provides the fiscal
year 1999 level of funding for the grain sorghum pathology
program at the ARS Wheat, Sorghum and Forages Research Unit in
Lincoln, NE. This is the only grain sorghum virus effort within
ARS for the study of sorghum ergot, High Plains Virus, and gray
leaf spot in the central Great Plains.
Grape research.--The Committee acknowledges the importance
of a horticulturist position specializing in grape production
at the ARS station in Prosser, WA. The Committee recognizes
that the research horticulturist is an important link to the
research efforts conducted at the Northwest Center for Small
Fruits Research at the ARS Corvallis, OR, station. Recognizing
the importance of this position and the effect research has had
on grape production in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, the
Committee recommends continued funding at the fiscal year 1999
level.
Hawaii Biological Survey.--The Committee encourages the ARS
to collaborate with the Hawaii Biological Survey at the Bishop
Museum in Hawaii on alien pest prevention and control
activities.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee provides
$936,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 level, for the
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. The Committee expects these
funds to be used to maintain the competitiveness of U.S.
sugarcane producers and to continue emphasis on supporting the
expansion of new crops and products, including those from
agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
Hops.--The Committee recognizes the outstanding increase in
production of the U.S. hops industry. The industry has taken
the lead in worldwide production, and Washington State produces
75 percent of the total U.S. crop. Included in the
recommendation is the fiscal year 1999 level of funding to
continue hops research in the Pacific Northwest.
Human nutrition research.--ARS is directed to submit a
report to the Committee no later than January 31, 2000, on its
existing capacity to conduct clinical studies in human
nutrition research, including human metabolic studies,
necessary to support research carried out at the USDA Center
for Human Nutrition located in Beltsville, MD, and the other
five USDA human nutrition centers. The report should indicate
how this work is currently funded and whether additional
resources are required to properly accomplish this activity.
Integrated farming systems.--The Committee provides
$500,000 to continue integrated farming systems [IFS] research
through the ARS Dairy Forage Center, Madison, WI. The Committee
expects the ARS to undertake an analysis of low-input farming
practices to determine the comparative advantages of such
systems as an alternative to more conventional farming systems
tied to specialized cropping, high-level inputs, and a reliance
on economies of scale.
IR-4 Minor Crop Pesticide Registration Program.--The
Committee recognizes the importance of the IR-4 project, which
produces research data for clearances for pest control products
on minor food crops and ornamental commodities. The Committee
notes that this project is especially critical at this time in
order to meet the new requirements of the Food Quality
Protection Act, and to fully implement its reduced risk pest
management strategy for minor crops.
Jointed Goatgrass.--Jointed Goatgrass infests nearly 5
million acres of winter wheat in the western United States,
costing wheat growers an estimated $145,000,000 annually.
Jointed goatgrass is impossible to control selectively with
current methods because it is genetically related to wheat and
has increased rapidly with widespread adoption of conservation
tillage systems. It reduces yields, increases dockage costs,
and reduces grain and seed value. The Committee expects the ARS
to continue funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for the
multi-disciplinary national research effort among State and
Federal scientists to develop effective control measures to
reduce the impact of jointed goatgrass on wheat production. The
research is to be coordinated with companion research funded by
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
Kenaf.--The Committee recommends continued funding at the
fiscal year 1999 level for the cooperative agreement between
ARS and Mississippi State University to further kenaf research
and product development efforts. The Committee recommends the
redirection of $100,000 of this amount toward research with
medicinal plants and $100,000 to the ARS project ``Nutritional
and Environmental Management to Improve Quality and Production
Efficiency of Poultry'' for joint activities with the
Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.
Methyl bromide.--The Committee provides the fiscal year
1999 level of funding to continue research related to a
replacement for methyl bromide. The Committee expects the ARS
to hold administrative overhead costs to a minimum and to
direct a significant portion of these funds to field testing
and to direct technology transfer to land grant institutions
involved in research projects under this program.
Minor crop pests.--The Committee provides continued funding
at the fiscal year 1999 level of $278,000 for the University of
Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to
develop environmentally safe methods to control pests and
diseases in small-scale tropical and subtropical agricultural
systems.
National Center for Agricultural Law Research and
Information.--The Committee provides continued funding at the
fiscal year 1999 level for the National Center for Agricultural
Law Research and Information at the Leflar School of Law in
Fayetteville, AR.
National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.--The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year
1999 level to the National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture for the Improvement in Aquaculture Systems
Environmental Compatibility and Economic Efficiency project.
The project will enhance the production efficiency and minimize
the environmental impact of aquaculture production systems, and
be conducted through the establishment of a consortium,
consisting of the Center and the Conservation Fund's Freshwater
Institute.
National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The Committee continues
funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for work now underway at
the National Sedimentation Laboratory, and provides an increase
of $50,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to expand its
studies on the use of acoustics to characterize soils,
determine moisture content, and monitor crop growth. The
Laboratory is expected to continue its close relationship with
the National Center for Physical Acoustics in carrying out
these research efforts.
The Committee also provides an additional $500,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 level to the National Sedimentation Laboratory
to conduct research on sources and causes of water impairment
in the Yazoo River Basin and to seek economically feasible
``Best Management Practices'' for attaining new water quality
goals, commonly referenced as Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDL's), at field, farm, watershed, and basin levels.
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center.--The Committee is
aware of the importance of gains which are being made in
catfish production through the improvements offered by the
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. The Committee continues
its support at the fiscal year 1999 funding level for the
aquaculture program at Stoneville, and provides an additional
$308,000 for the Center to conduct hill-area aquaculture
research.
Natural products.--The Committee provides an additional
$750,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the ARS to
continue its cooperative agreement with the National Center for
the Development of Natural Products for pharmaceutical research
in support of research on natural products.
New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory.--
The Committee provides an additional $300,000 from the fiscal
year 1999 level for an agronomist position at the USDA-ARS New
England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory in Orono,
ME. The work of this laboratory is of significant benefit to
potato producers in Maine, the New England region, and the
industry nationwide.
Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory.--The Northern
Grain Insects Research Laboratory in Brookings, SD, conducts
research critical to agriculture in the Northern Great Plains.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1999 level to
ensure that the Laboratory's research projects in areas such as
corn rootworm management; integrated soil, crop and pest
management strategies for sustainable production; control
tactics and decision models for integrated pest management; and
pest population ecology and behavioral mechanisms in cropping
systems continue to be fully funded.
Northern Plains Research Laboratory, Sidney, MT.--The
Committee provides an additional $750,000 from the fiscal 1999
level for a new research program at the ARS Northern Plains
Research Laboratory in Sidney, MT, to develop high value
irrigated rotation crops. This additional amount will fund
three scientists focusing on plant pathology, water and
irrigation management, and value-added/high value crops and
crop rotations.
Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center.--Nursery and
greenhouse products rank third in the Nation and No. 1 in
Oregon. As the public demands more and more plants and trees to
help clean the air, prevent water runoff and soil erosion, and
improve water quality and conservation, the nursery industry is
playing an expanding and significant environmental research
role. The Committee encourages ARS to expand its support for
the Northwest Nursery Crops Research Center's research program
(Corvallis, OR) in these environmental areas. The Committee
provides the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the ARS
Corvallis station.
Pacific Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program.--The
Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for
the ARS Pacific Northwest Club Wheat Breeding Program (OR, WA).
Pear thrips.--The Committee recognizes the value of
collaboration between ARS and the University of Vermont to
develop controls for pear thrips and provides funding at the
fiscal year 1999 level to continue this important research
program.
Plant genetics research, Columbia, MO.--Included in the
additional funding recommended for agricultural genome, the
Committee provides an increase of $300,000, as requested in the
budget, to develop software to improve the statistical
precision of mapping genes and locating quantitative trait loci
(QTLs) to produce physical maps, and to efficiently manipulate
and analyze data from microarray assays at the ARS Plant
Genetics Research Unit, Columbia, MO.
Plant introduction pathologist position.--The Committee
provides $250,000 to support the continued funding of a plant
introduction pathologist at the USDA-ARS Plant Introduction
Station at Washington State University in Pullman, WA. This
position is to be devoted to grain legumes and foliar diseases
of dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas.
Postharvest Quarantine Research.--Technical barriers by
other countries on the importance of U.S. commodities is one of
the greatest obstacles to free trade of American crops.
Recognizing the importance and relevance foreign countries
place on ARS research related to treatment protocols and pest
concerns, the Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding for quarantine research to ensure that U.S. commodities
have expanded access to overseas markets.
Potato late blight research.--The Committee is aware that
``late blight'' has become an ongoing problem in the Pacific
Northwest. The Committee urges the Agricultural Research
Service to continue its research at the Aberdeen, ID, ARS
station to identify horticulturally acceptable clones with
``late blight'' resistance in both early generation and
advanced clonal material that have a high level of resistance
for use as crossing parents. The Committee encourages the ARS
to work with the National Potato Council on how funds can best
be used for research priorities.
Potato research enhancement.--The Committee acknowledges
the importance of potato research conducted at the Irrigated
Agriculture Research and Extension Center in Prosser, WA.
Recognizing the need to enable growers to optimize potato yield
and quality goals while improving environmental stewardship,
the Committee provides increased funding of $250,000 for potato
research at the Prosser, WA, station. This research will
provide the integration of irrigation, nutrient management,
pest control and crop rotation strategies into sustainable,
holistic crop production systems that optimize total potato
management practices.
Program continuations.--Including research programs
specifically mentioned herein, the Committee directs the ARS to
continue at the fiscal year 1999 level the following areas of
research: ``Immunity and Diagnostics of Diseases and Parasites
of Catfish,'' Auburn, AL; ``Rice Genetics Research,''
``Warmwater Foodfish Health Management Research,'' Stuttgart,
AR; ``Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle and Other Non-
indigenous Plant Pests in the Western USA,'' ``Ecologically
Based Management of Salt Cedar (Tamarix SP) in the Western
U.S.,'' ``In Vitro Creation and Commercialization of High
Solids Tomatoes and High Solids, Low Sugar Potatoes,''
``Technology to Enhance Soybean Oil for Food and Non Food
Uses,'' Albany, CA; ``Shallow Groundwater Management Systems
for Arid Irrigated Areas,'' Fresno, CA; ``Floriculture,''
Washington, D.C.; ``Behavioral Ecology and Management of Crop
Insect Pests with Semiochemicals,'' ``Management of Termites as
Urban Pests in the American Pacific,'' Gainsville, FL;
``Identification and Molecular Characterization of Agents
Causing Poult Enteritis-Mortality Syndrome,'' Athens, GA;
``Develop, Evaluate and Transfer Technology to Improve
Efficiency and Quality in Peanuts,'' Dawson, GA; ``Tropical
Aquaculture Feeds and Culture Technology: Development of Shrimp
Feeds,'' Hilo, Hawaii; ``Barley and Oat Germplasm Enhancement
and Small Grains Germplasm Evaluation and Maintenance,''
``Development and Use of Molecular Techniques in Oat
Enhancement,'' ``Development of Genetically Enhanced Fish and
Feeds for Aquaculture Utilizing Specialized Grains,''
``Development and Use of Molecular Techniques in Oat
Enhancement,'' Aberdeen, ID; ``Animal Health Consortium,''
``Genetic Engineering of Anaerobic Bacteria for Improved Rumen
Function,'' ``Bioprocess and Metabolic Engineering
Technologies,'' ``Biotechnology R&D; Corporation,'' ``Enhanced
Use of Plant Proteins: Identifying, Isolating and Relating
Structures to Properties,'' ``New Crops for Industrial
Products,'' ``Novel Carbohydrate-Based Materials via
Bioconversion Processes,'' ``Thermomechanical Processing of
Natural Polymers,'' Peoria, IL; ``Reduced Herbicide Inputs for
Effective Weed Management Systems to Improve Water Quality,''
``Sensors and Systems for Site-Specific Crop Management to
Improve Environmental Quality,'' ``Soybean Diseases,'' Urbana,
IL; ``Ecologically-Based Pest Management of Selected Insect
Pests of Corn,'' ``Genetic Characterization of Soybean
Germplasm,'' ``Genetics of Host Resistance to Pathogens in
Cereal Crops,'' ``Impact of Agricultural Management Practices
on Soil and Water Quality at the Field and Watershed,''
``Quantitative Genetic Analysis and Improvement of Corn
Populations,'' Ames, IA; ``Genetic Enhancement of Hard Red
Winter Wheat for Resistance to Multiple Biotic Stress,''
Manhattan, KS; ``Developing Integrated Weed Management Systems
for Efficient and Sustainable Sugarcane Production,'' ``Disease
and Insect Control Mechanisms for the Enhancement of Sugarcane
Germplasm Resistance,'' ``Improving Sugarcane Productivity by
Conventional and Molecular Approaches to Genetic Development,''
Houma, LA (New Orleans, LA, work site); ``Comparative Textural
Analysis of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables,''
``Development and Evaluation of New Remote Sensing Technologies
to Assess Food and Fiber Production,'' ``Ecologically-Based
Technologies for Controlling Ixodes Scapularis and Reducing
Lyme Disease,'' ``Enhancement of Strawberry, Blueberry, and
Other Small Fruit Crops Through Molecular Approaches and
Breeding,'' ``Improving Quality of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce
by Preventing Deterioration in Cold Storage,'' ``National
Turfgrass Evaluation Program,'' Beltsville, MD; ``Dietary
Assessments of Rural Older Persons,'' Boston, MA; ``Germplasm
Evaluation and Genetic Improvement of Oats and Wild Rice,''
``Wild Rice Breeding and Germplasm Improvement,'' St. Paul, MN;
``Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Natural Products for
Pest Control and Alternative Crops,'' Oxford, MS; ``Small Fruit
Cultural and Genetic Research in the Mid-South,'' Popularville,
MS; ``Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Kenaf as a Field
Crop in Mississippi,'' ``Catfish Genetics and Breeding
Research,'' ``Genetic-Physiological Parameters that Enhance
Fiber Quality,'' ``Improve Production Efficiency in
Aquaculture,'' Stoneville, MS; ``Farming Systems to Improve
Soil and Water Quality,'' ``Plant Genetics Research,''
Columbia, MO; ``Optimizing Reproduction Efficiency to Enhance
Profit and Sustainability of Range Beef Production,'' Miles
City, MT; ``Metabolism and Nutritional Management of Prolific
Sows During Gestation and Lactation,'' Clay Center, NE;
``Biology and Control of Virus Diseases of Sorghum,'' Lincoln,
NE; pear thrips research, Ithaca, NY; ``Control of Fungal
Pathogens of Small Grains,'' ``Evaluation of Temperate Legumes
and Warm-Season Grass Mixtures in Sustainable Production
Systems,'' ``Improved Peanut Product Quality and Bioactive
Nutrient Composition with Genetic Resources,'' Raleigh, NC;
``Development of Soybean Germplasm and Production Systems for
High Yield and Drought Prone Environments,'' Wooster, OH;
``Improving Resistance of Peanut to Biological Stress Through
Germplasm and Cultural Enhancement,'' Stillwater, OK; ``Biology
and Management of Soilborne Diseases and Beneficial Soil and
Root-Inhabiting Microorganisms,'' ``Characterization of Induced
Cytokinin Changes in Wheat,'' ``Hops Genetics and Breeding for
Improved Flavor, Agronomic Performance and Pest Resistance,''
``Partitioning of Photosynthate as Influenced by Genotype,
Mycorrhizae and Air Enriched with CO2,''
``Preservation of Clonal Genetic Resources of Temperate Fruit,
Nut, and Speciality Crops,'' ``Residue Management and Grass
Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture,'' ``Specific
Cooperative Agreements on Horticultural Crops,'' Corvallis, OR;
``New Processes for Generating Valuable Co-Products from Corn
Fiber,'' ``New Processes for Obtaining Higher Value-Added
Products from Agricultural Lipids,'' ``Value-Added Products
from Fruit and Vegetable Processing Wastes,'' Wyndmoor, PA;
``Rice Germplasm and Variety Improvement in the Southern United
States,'' Beaumont, TX; ``Harvesting and Ginning Technologies
for Stripper Cotton,'' Lubbock, TX; ``Parasite Mite Control in
Honey Bee Colonies Utilized in Honey Production and Crop
Pollination,'' Weslaco, TX; ``Arctic Plant Germplasm
Introduction and Research,'' Palmer, AK (work site of Pullman,
WA); ``Biochemical and Molecular Regulation of Preharvest
Sprouting and Grain Dormancy in Wheat,'' ``Control of Rusts and
Smuts of Wheat and Barley,'' ``Genetically Enhanced Wheat for
Quality Productivity and Resistance to Biotic and Abiotic
Stresses,'' ``Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement of Cool Season
Food Legumes,'' Pullman, WA; ``Agroforestry Systems for the
Appalachian Region,'' Beckley, WV; ``Utilization of Waste and
Byproducts from Aquaculture to Enhance Economic
Sustainability,'' Leetown, WV; ``The Role of Life Strategies of
Phytopathogenic Bacteria in the Epidemiology of Foliar
Diseases,'' Madison, WI.
Red imported fire ants.--Infestations of Red Imported Fire
Ants have been identified in 21 southern California cities, as
well as in a number of states in the Southeast and the
Southwest. Nationally, damages caused by imported fire ants to
agriculture, human health, infrastructure, farm animals and
wildlife are estimated at several billions of dollars each
year. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 above the
fiscal year 1999 level for research on effective control of
imported fire ants infestation. This research is to be carried
out at the ARS Mid South Regional Research Station in
cooperation with the National Center for Physical Acoustics.
Root diseases of wheat and barley.--The Committee provides
an additional $500,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to the
ARS Root Disease and Biological Control Research Unit located
at Washington State University in Pullman, WA, for research to
control root diseases of wheat and barley. Of the total
provided, $125,000 is to be transferred to the Oregon State
University Columbia Basin Agriculture Research Center,
Pendleton, OR; $75,000 is to be transferred to the University
of Idaho Research and Extension Center, Kimberly, ID; and
$300,000 is to remain in the ARS program at Pullman, WA.
Rural geriatric nutrition research.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the further
development of a comprehensive nutrition outreach, treatment,
and research program to assist the rural elderly population.
Geisinger Health System's Rural Geriatric Nutrition Center in
Danville, PA, is the lead organization undertaking this
initiative in collaboration with other universities.
Silverleaf whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known
as the sweetpotato whitefly, continues to cause millions of
dollars in crop damage in several States, including Hawaii. The
Committee recommends participation by all affected States in
the collaborative effort to control this pest.
Small farms.--The Committee expects the ARS to continue its
support for the South Central Family Farm Research Center at
Booneville, AR. The Committee expects no less than the 1999
level for continuation of agroforestry research in conjunction
with work at the University of Missouri.
Small fruits research, Poplarville, MS.--The Committee
recognizes the importance of the USDA Small Fruits Research
Station in Poplarville, MS, and provides an increase of
$750,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to expand the research
efforts of the station on ornamental and vegetable crops.
Small grains geneticist, Aberdeen, ID.--The Committee is
aware that the ARS is considering the elimination of the small
grains geneticist position at the USDA-ARS Aberdeen, ID,
station. The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 funding
level to continue research to improve both barley and oat
genetic stocks. This research provides direct benefits to the
U.S. barley industry, including end users who rely on improved
quality traits in malting barley.
Soil chemist, Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research
Laboratory.--The Committee continues funding for the current
soil chemist position and related research at the Northwest
Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly, Idaho.
The Committee understands that the ARS intends to replace the
retiring soil chemist at the laboratory and expects the agency
to fill this position as soon as it becomes vacant in fiscal
year 2000.
Southern Insect Management.--The Committee provides an
increase of $75,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level of funding
for a cooperative agreement with the National Center for
Physical Acoustics (NCPA) to develop methods to monitor pest
populations using advanced acoustic techniques; at least
$250,000 of the total funding is to be used to support the
existing program at the NCPA.
Soybean research.--The Committee is aware of the important
ARS-supported soybean genetics work being done and continues to
strongly support ongoing research at Ames, IA, and Stoneville,
MS, aimed at increasing the productivity and profitability of
soybean production and processing. The Committee expects ARS to
continue both of the programs at not less than the fiscal year
1999 funding levels.
Subterranean termite.--The Committee provides $141,500 for
termite research in Hawaii to devise and test control methods
that do not endanger public health and safety.
Sugarcane biotechnology research.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of furthering the science of molecular
techniques in sugarcane. By mapping useful genes, transferring
exotic genes into sugarcane germplasm, and improving selection
techniques for sugarcane cultivars, much progress can be made
to increase the efficiency and global competitiveness of the
U.S. sugar industry. To continue the strong public/private
relationship between ARS and the American Sugar Cane League and
expand biotechnology at the work site of the ARS Southern
Regional Research Center in Houma, LA, the Committee provides
the fiscal year 1999 level of funding. The Committee expects
ARS to collaborate with the American Sugar Cane League in
efforts to coordinate research with other commodity-based
biotechnology research and continue funding for this vital
research.
Sunflower research.--The Committee provides an additional
$300,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for a molecular
geneticist at the USDA's ARS Sunflower Unit at North Dakota
State University in Fargo, ND. The addition of a geneticist to
this research program will provide the resources needed to
conduct gene mapping research and develop ``markers'' for
specific breeding traits, such as disease and insect
resistance.
Temperate fruit flies.--The presence of temperate fruit
flies (cherry flies and apple maggots) in the cherry production
areas of the United States, including portions of the Pacific
Northwest and the Great Lakes Region, is frequently cited by
potential export markets such as Australia, Argentina, and
South Africa as barriers to cherry imports from the U.S. The
total value of U.S. sweet cherry exports alone in 1997 was over
$134,000,000. The Committee provides an additional $300,000 at
Yakima, WA, to develop technology for control and management of
temperate fruit flies.
Tomato spotted wilt virus.--The Committee is aware of the
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus
(TSWV) in Hawaii and encourages the agency to provide funds to
University of Hawaii scientists to transfer genetic resistance
to TSWV into University of Hawaii breeding lines for impacted
vegetables.
Tropical aquaculture research.--The Committee provides
$1,583,800 for the ``Aquaculture Productivity Research'' and
the ``Requirements and Sources of Nutrients for Marine Shrimp''
projects in Hawaii to ensure continuation of the significant
scientific and commercial contributions offered by the Oceanic
Institute and natural resource conditions found only in Hawaii.
U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.--The Committee has
continued the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the U.S.
Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE. The Committee
recommends that the funds which currently support the
``Metabolism and Nutritional Management of Prolific Sows During
Gestation and Lactation'' project proposed for termination in
the President's budget be redirected to support high priority
food safety or waste management research.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to the U.S. Pacific
Basin Agricultural Research Center to (1) support the
production and marketing of high-quality, high-value tropical
and subtropical crops; (2) integrate safe and effective pest
management practices and post-harvest treatments; and (3)
facilitate the transfer of technology developed by the Center
to end users through existing Hawaii-based educational
organizations.
Viticulture research.--With the emerging importance of the
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee
provides an increase of $250,000 from the fiscal year 1999
level to establish a viticulture research position at the
University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center and an
additional $200,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level, split
evenly, to upgrade the current USDA-ARS programs at the Center
and to provide for cooperative research agreements with
University of Idaho researchers for viticulture research.
Water quality.--The Committee acknowledges the progress
which has been made toward water quality objectives in
conjunction with the pesticide application technology research
currently conducted at the Mid South Regional Research Center.
The ARS should continue this joint research initiative and
expand it through the integrated pest management objectives
outlined in the agency's budget request.
Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee includes
an increase of $325,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for ARS
for laboratory analysis of water samples collected during
implementation of, and in accordance with, the Missouri
Watershed Research, Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
Wind Erosion Research.--The Committee continues funding at
the fiscal year 1999 level for the Wind Erosion Research Unit
(WERU) in Manhattan, KS. The Committee directs the ARS to avoid
reprogramming or routing any of the provided funds to or
through other wind erosion facilities in the ARS system during
fiscal year 2000. The Committee is also aware of a carbon
sequestration study at Kansas State University. The Committee
encourages the WERU to work in partnership with the University
on this study.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $56,437,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 44,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 53,000,000
The ARS ``Buildings and facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities,
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,000,000. This
is $8,500,000 more than the budget estimate and $3,437,000 less
than the 1999 appropriation. The Committee's specific
recommendations are indicated in the following table:
ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Committee
State and facility 1999 2000 budget recommendation
enacted estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation 500 ........... 1,400
and Western Cotton
Laboratory, Maricopa.........
California:
Western Human Nutrition 6,150 9,000 9,000
Research Center, Davis...
Western Regional Research ........... 2,600 2,600
Center, Albany...........
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin 4,500 ........... 5,500
Agricultural Research Center.
Illinois:
National Center for 8,200 1,800 1,800
Agricultural Utilization
Research, Peoria.........
USDA greenhouse complex, ........... ........... 400
Urbana...................
Iowa: National Animal Disease 2,957 ........... 3,000
Center, Ames.................
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing 1,400 ........... 100
Research Laboratory, Manhat-
tan..........................
Louisiana: Southern Regional 6,000 5,500 5,500
Research Center, New Orleans.
Maryland:
Beltsville Agricultural 2,500 13,000 13,000
Research Center,
Beltsville...............
National Agricultural 1,200 ........... ..............
Library, Beltsville......
Mississippi: Biocontrol and 200 ........... 2,000
Insect Rearing Laboratory,
Stone- ville................
Montana:
Fort Keogh laboratory, ........... ........... 530
Miles City...............
Pest quarantine and 7,300 ........... ..............
integrated pest
management facility,
Sidney...................
New Mexico: Jornada Range 6,700 ........... ..............
Research Station, Las Cruces.
New York: Plum Island Animal 3,500 8,200 3,500
Disease Center, Greenport....
Pennsylvania: Eastern Regional 3,300 4,400 4,400
Research Center, Philadelphia
Utah: Poisonous Plant 30 ........... 270
Laboratory, Logan............
West Virginia: National Center 2,000 ........... ..............
for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture, Leetown.........
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 56,437 44,500 53,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provides funds to complete planning and
design work for the Poisonous Plant Laboratory in Logan, UT;
the Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory in
Maricopa, AZ; and Phase III of the U.S. Marketing Research
Laboratory, Manhattan, KS. In addition, funding is included for
planning and design work for the Fort Keogh Laboratory, Miles
City, MT; and the USDA greenhouse complex, Urbana, IL.
Funds provided for the ARS National Animal Disease Lab,
Ames, IA, are for a major renovation of wings B and C of
Building 3 at the facility. Funds provided for the Biocontrol
and Insect Rearing Laboratory, Stoneville, MS, are for site
preparation.
In addition, the Committee provides $5,500,000 toward
construction of the office and laboratory phase of the U.S.
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The
Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative State
Research Service and Extension Service. The mission is to work
with university partners to advance research, extension, and
higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and
related environmental and human sciences to benefit people,
communities, and the Nation.
research and education activities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $481,216,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... \1\ 468,965,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ 474,377,000
\1\ Excludes activities funded under the new ``Integrated activities''
account.
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal
entree to the university system of the United States to conduct
agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887 (7
U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research Act of
1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2) (7
U.S.C. 450i); and the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.). Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture participates with State and other sources of
funding to encourage and assist the State institutions to
conduct agricultural research through the State agricultural
experiment stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
and the territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the
1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University; by
colleges of veterinary medicine; and by other eligible
institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For research and education activities of the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $474,377,000. This amount is $6,839,000 less than
the 1999 appropriation and $5,412,000 more than the budget
request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service as
compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
1999 2000 budget recommen-
appropriation dation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act....... 180,545 153,672 180,545
Cooperative forestry research 21,932 19,882 21,932
(McIntire-Stennis)............
Payments to 1890 colleges and 29,676 27,735 29,676
Tuskegee......................
Special research grants (Public
Law 89-106):
Advanced spatial 1,000 ........... 1,000
technologies (Mississippi)
Aegilops cylindricum 360 ........... 360
(Washington)..............
Aflatoxin (Illinois)....... 113 ........... 130
Agriculture-based 250 ........... 300
industrial lubricants
(Iowa)....................
Agricultural 131 ........... 131
diversification (Hawaii)..
Agricultural 250 ........... 250
diversification--Red River
Trade Corridor (Minnesota,
North Dakota).............
Agriculture water usage 300 ........... 300
(Georgia).................
Alliance for food 300 ........... 300
protection (Georgia,
Nebraska).................
Alternative crops (North 550 ........... 550
Dakota)...................
Alternative crops for arid 100 ........... 100
lands (Texas).............
Alternative marine and 308 ........... ...........
fresh water species
(Mississippi).............
Alternative salmon products 400 ........... 650
(Alaska)..................
Animal science food safety 1,521 ........... 1,521
consortium (Arkansas,
Iowa, Kansas).............
Apple fireblight (Michigan, 500 ........... 500
New York).................
Aquaculture (Louisiana).... 330 ........... 330
Aquaculture (Mississippi).. 592 ........... 592
Aquaculture (North ............. ........... 300
Carolina).................
Aquaculture (Virginia)..... 100 ........... 100
Aquaculture product and 750 ........... 750
marketing development
(West Virginia)...........
Babcock Institute 400 ........... 500
(Wisconsin)...............
Binational agricultural 400 2,000 500
research and development
fund......................
Biodiesel research 152 ........... 152
(Missouri)................
Blocking Anhydrous ............. ........... 250
methamphetamine production
(Iowa)....................
Brucellosis vaccines 150 ........... 500
(Montana).................
Center for Animal Health 113 ........... 113
and Productivity
(Pennsylvania)............
Center for Innovative Food 381 ........... ...........
Technology (Ohio).........
Center for Rural Studies 200 ........... 200
(Vermont).................
Cheseapeake Bay agroecology 150 ........... 150
(Maryland)................
Chesapeake Bay aquaculture. 385 ........... 385
Citrus tristeza............ 500 ........... 500
Competitiveness of 680 ........... 680
agricultural products
(Washington)..............
Contagious equine metritis 250 ........... ...........
(Kentucky)................
Cool season legume research 329 ........... 329
(Idaho, Washington).......
Cotton research (Texas).... 200 ........... ...........
Cranberry/blueberry 150 ........... ...........
(Massachusetts)...........
Cranberry/blueberry disease 220 ........... 220
and breeding (New Jersey).
Dairy and meat goat 63 ........... 63
research (Texas)..........
Delta rural revitalization 148 ........... 148
(Mississippi).............
Designing foods for health 250 ........... 400
(Texas)...................
Drought mitigation 200 ........... 200
(Nebraska)................
Ecosystems (Alabama)....... 500 ........... ...........
Environmental research (New 486 ........... ...........
York).....................
Environmental risk factors-- 100 ........... ...........
cancer (New York).........
Environmentally-safe ............. ........... 200
products (Vermont)........
Expanded wheat pasture 285 ........... 285
(Oklahoma)................
Farm and rural business 87 ........... ...........
finance (Illinois)........
Feed barley for rangeland 600 ........... 750
cattle (Montana)..........
Floriculture (Hawaii)...... 250 ........... 250
Food and Agriculture Policy 800 ........... 900
Institute (Iowa, Missouri)
Food irradiation (Iowa).... 200 ........... 200
Food Marketing Policy 400 ........... 400
Center (Connecticut)......
Food Processing Center 42 ........... 42
(Nebraska)................
Food quality (Alaska)...... 350 ........... ...........
Food safety................ 5,000 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Food safety (Alabama)...... 300 ........... ...........
Food Systems Research Group 225 ........... 500
(Wisconsin)...............
Forages for advancing ............. ........... 250
livestock production
(Kentucky)................
Forestry (Arkansas)........ 523 ........... ...........
Fruit and vegetable market 320 ........... 320
analysis (Arizona,
Missouri).................
Generic commodity promotion 212 ........... ...........
research and evaluation
(New York)................
Global change.............. 1,000 1,567 1,000
Global marketing support 127 ........... ...........
service (Arkansas)........
Grain sorghum (Kansas)..... 106 ........... 106
Grass seed cropping systems 423 ........... 423
for a sustainable
agriculture (Washington,
Oregon, Idaho)............
Human nutrition (Iowa)..... 473 ........... 473
Human nutrition (Louisiana) 752 ........... 752
Human nutrition (New York). 622 ........... ...........
Hydroponic tomato 200 ........... ...........
production (Ohio).........
Illinois-Missouri Alliance 1,184 ........... 1,184
for Biotechnology.........
Improved dairy management 296 ........... 296
practices (Pennsylvania)..
Improved fruit practices 445 ........... ...........
(Michigan)................
Infectious disease research 250 ........... 325
(Colorado)................
Institute for Food Science 1,250 ........... 1,250
and Engineering (Arkansas)
Integrated production 180 ........... 180
systems (Oklahoma)........
International agricultural 250 ........... 250
market structures and
institutions (Kentucky)...
International arid lands 400 ........... 400
consortium................
Iowa biotechnology 1,564 ........... 1,564
consortium................
Livestock and dairy policy 475 ........... ...........
(New York, Texas).........
Lowbush blueberry research 220 ........... 220
(Maine)...................
Maple research (Vermont)... 100 ........... 100
Meadowfoam (Oregon)........ 300 ........... 300
Michigan biotechnology 675 ........... 675
consortium................
Midwest Advanced Food 423 ........... 423
Manufacturing Alliance....
Midwest agricultural 592 ........... 592
products (Iowa)...........
Milk safety (Pennsylvania). 250 ........... 385
Minor use animal drugs (IR- 550 550 550
4)........................
Molluscan shellfish 400 ........... 400
(Oregon)..................
Multicommodity research 364 ........... 364
(Oregon)..................
Multicropping strategies 127 ........... 127
for aquaculture (Hawaii)..
National biological impact 254 254 254
assessment................
Nematode resistance genetic 127 ........... 127
engineering (New Mexico)..
New crop opportunities ............. ........... 125
(Alaska)..................
New crop opportunities ............. ........... 750
(Kentucky)................
Nonfood uses of 64 ........... 64
agricultural products
(Nebraska)................
North Dakota Trade and ............. 300 ...........
Policy Research Center....
Oil resources from desert 175 ........... 175
plants (New Mexico).......
Organic waste utilization 100 ........... 100
(New Mexico)..............
Pasture and forage research 225 ........... 225
(Utah)....................
Peach tree short life 162 ........... 162
(South Carolina)..........
Peanut allergy reduction ............. ........... 500
(Alabama).................
Pest control alternatives 106 ........... 106
(South Carolina)..........
Phytophthora root rot (New 127 ........... 127
Mexico)...................
Plant, drought, and disease 150 ........... 250
resistance gene cataloging
(New Mexico)..............
Postharvest rice straw 300 ........... ...........
(California)..............
Potato research............ 1,300 ........... 1,400
Precision agriculture 500 ........... 1,000
(Kentucky)................
Preharvest food safety 212 ........... 212
(Kansas)..................
Preservation and processing 226 ........... 226
research (Oklahoma).......
Rangeland ecosystems (New 200 ........... 200
Mexico)...................
Regional barley gene 400 ........... 500
mapping project...........
Regionalized implications 294 ........... 294
of farm programs
(Missouri, Texas).........
Rice modeling (Arkansas)... 296 ........... 296
Rural Development Centers 523 423 523
(Pennsylvania, Iowa, North
Dakota, Mississippi,
Oregon, Louisiana)........
Rural Policies Research 644 ........... 644
Institute (Nebraska,
Missouri).................
Russian wheat aphid 200 ........... 200
(Colorado)................
Seafood and aquaculture 305 ........... 305
harvesting, processing,
and marketing
(Mississippi).............
Seafood harvesting, ............. ........... 650
processing, and marketing
(Alaska)..................
Small fruit research 300 ........... 300
(Oregon, Washington,
Idaho)....................
Southwest consortium for 338 ........... 338
plant genetics and water
resources.................
Soybean cyst nematode 475 ........... 500
(Missouri)................
STEEP III--water quality in 500 ........... 500
Northwest.................
Sustainable agriculture 445 ........... ...........
(Michigan)................
Sustainable agriculture and 95 ........... 100
natural resources
(Pennsylvania)............
Sustainable agriculture 59 ........... 59
systems (Nebraska)........
Sustainable beef supply 500 ........... 750
(Montana).................
Sustainable pest management 400 ........... 500
for dryland wheat (Mon-
tana).....................
Swine waste management 500 ........... 500
(North Carolina)..........
Tillage, silviculture, 212 ........... 212
waste management
(Louisiana)...............
Tomato wilt virus (Georgia) 200 ........... 200
Tropical and subtropical... 2,724 ........... 2,724
Turkey carna virus 200 ........... ...........
(Indiana).................
Urban pests (Georgia)...... 64 ........... 64
Vidalia onions (Georgia)... 100 ........... 100
Viticulture consortium 1,000 ........... 1,200
(California, Pennsylvania,
New York)................
Water conservation (Kansas) 79 ........... 79
Water quality.............. 3,461 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Weed control (North Dakota) 423 ........... 423
Wetland plants (Louisiana). 600 ........... 600
Wheat genetic research 261 ........... 261
(Kansas)..................
Wood utilization (Alaska, 5,136 ........... 5,261
Idaho, Oregon,
Mississippi, Minnesota,
North Carolina, Maine,
Michigan, Tennessee)......
Wool (Texas, Montana, 300 ........... 300
Wyoming)..................
----------------------------------------
Total, special research 63,116 5,094 54,276
grants..................
========================================
Improved pest control:
Critical issues............ 200 467 200
Expert IPM decision support 177 260 177
system....................
Integrated pest management. 2,731 2,731 2,731
IR-4 minor crop pest 8,990 10,711 8,990
management................
Pesticide impact assessment 1,327 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Pest management 1,623 4,200 1,623
alternatives programs.....
----------------------------------------
Total, improved pest 15,048 18,369 13,721
control.................
========================================
Competitive research grants:
Plant systems.............. 41,000 69,000 41,000
Animal systems............. 29,000 49,000 29,000
Nutrition, food quality, 16,000 28,000 16,000
and health................
Natural resources and the 20,500 32,000 20,500
environment...............
Processes and new products. 8,200 14,000 8,200
Markets, trade, and policy. 4,600 8,000 4,600
----------------------------------------
Total, competitive 119,300 200,000 119,300
research grants.........
========================================
Animal health and disease (sec. 5,109 4,775 5,109
1433).........................
Critical Agricultural Materials 600 ........... 650
Act...........................
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475) 4,000 4,000 4,000
Alternative crops.............. 750 ........... 550
Sustainable agriculture........ 8,000 8,500 8,000
Capacity building grants....... 9,200 9,200 9,200
Payments to the 1994 1,552 1,500 1,552
institutions..................
Graduate fellowship grants..... 3,000 3,000 3,000
Institution challenge grants... 4,350 4,350 4,350
Multicultural scholars program. 1,000 1,000 1,000
Hispanic-serving institutions.. 2,850 3,183 2,850
Secondary agriculture education 500 ........... 500
1994 Research Program.......... ............. 667 500
Federal administration:
Agriculture development in 564 ........... 564
the American Pacific......
Agriculture waste 250 ........... 500
utilization (West
Virginia).................
Alternative fuels 218 ........... 218
characterization
laboratory (North Da-
kota).....................
Animal waste management 250 ........... 250
(Oklahoma)................
Biotechnology (Mississippi) ............. ........... 500
Center for Agricultural and 355 ........... 355
Rural Development (Iowa)..
Center for North American 87 ........... 87
Studies (Texas)...........
Cotton research (Texas).... ............. ........... 200
Data information system.... 1,000 2,000 2,000
Geographic information 844 ........... 1,000
system....................
Mariculture (North 250 ........... 250
Carolina).................
Mississippi Valley State 583 ........... 583
University................
National Center for Peanut 300 ........... 300
Competitiveness (Georgia).
Office of Extramural 310 588 310
Programs..................
Pay costs and FERS......... 1,100 1,100 1,100
Peer panels................ 350 350 350
PM-10 study (California, 873 ........... 873
Washington)...............
Shrimp aquaculture (Hawaii, 3,354 ........... 3,354
Mississippi, Arizona,
Massachusetts, South
Carolina).................
Water quality (Illinois)... ............. ........... 436
Water quality (North ............. ........... 436
Dakota)...................
----------------------------------------
Total, Federal 10,688 4,038 13,666
administration........
========================================
Total, Cooperative 481,216 468,965 474,377
State Research,
Education, and
Extension Service,
research and education
activi- ties.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under ``Integrated activities'' account.
Hatch Act.--The Committee acknowledges the beneficial
impact Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch
Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and
research involving agriculture. The Committee recommends
maintaining Hatch Act funding at the fiscal year 1999 level.
Special research grants under Public Law 89-106.--The
Committee recommends a total of $54,276,000. Specifics of
individual grant allowances are included in the table above.
Special items are discussed below.
Aquaculture (Stoneville).--Of the $592,000 provided for
this grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for
continued studies of the use of acoustics in aquaculture
research to be conducted by the National Center for Physical
Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agriculture and
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and
Extension Center in Stoneville.
Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to
ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are
utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds
are to be awarded competitively after review by the potato
industry working group.
Wood utilization research.--The Committee provides
$5,261,000 for wood utilization research and expects each
existing center to be maintained at its fiscal year 1999
funding level. An increase of $125,000 is provided from the
fiscal year 1999 level to establish a new center in Alaska.
Aquaculture centers.--The Committee provides $4,000,000,
the same as the 1999 level, to support the regional aquaculture
centers.
Competitive research grants.--The Committee supports the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI]
and continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 level of
$119,300,000.
The Committee remains determined to see that quality
research and enhanced human resources development in the
agricultural and related sciences be a nationwide commitment.
Therefore, the Committee continues its direction that 10
percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for a
USDA experimental program to stimulate competitive research
[USDA-EPSCoR].
The Committee recognizes the important contributions that
economics research makes to generating new knowledge about, and
enhancing the efficiency of, our food and agriculture system.
The Department should consider expanding its support for
economics research in the National Research Initiative.
Alternative crops.--The Committee recommends $550,000 for
alternative crop research to continue research on canola.
Sustainable agriculture.--The Committee recommends
$8,000,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the 1999
level.
Higher education.--The Committee recommends $11,200,000 for
higher education. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for
graduate fellowships; $4,350,000 for challenge grants;
$1,000,000 for multicultural scholarships; and $2,850,000 for
grants for Hispanic education partnership grants. Of the funds
appropriated for the Challenge Grants Program, the Committee
directs that funds be made available to support the continued
operation of the Food and Agricultural Education Information
System [FAEIS].
Federal administration.--The Committee provides $13,666,000
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee
recommends $1,000,000, an increase of $156,000 from the fiscal
year 1999 level, for the Geographic Information System Program.
The Committee recommends the amount provided shall be made
available for program activities of entities in the same areas
as in 1999 on a proportional basis. In addition, it is expected
that program management costs will be kept at a minimum and any
remaining funds will be distributed to the sites.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 1999.................................... ($4,600,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (4,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (4,600,000)
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (30 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal
year, and after making adjustments for the cost of
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted
income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these
funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant
institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being
based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the
adjusted income shall be distributed in equal shares to the
1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the
Committee recommends $4,600,000. This is the same as the budget
request and the 1999 level.
extension activities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $437,987,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... \1\ 401,603,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ 421,620,000
\1\ Excludes funds proposed under the ``Integrated activities'' account.
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. Legislation authorizes the Department
of Agriculture to provide, through the land-grant colleges,
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics,
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $421,620,000. This amount is $16,367,000 less
than the 1999 appropriation and $20,017,000 more than the
budget estimate.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities as compared to the
fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 Fiscal year Committee
enacted 2000 budget recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 276,548 257,753 276,548
3(c).........................
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety............... 3,000 ........... 3,000
Food and nutrition 58,695 61,043 58,695
education................
Food safety............... 7,365 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Indian reservation agents. 1,714 5,000 1,714
Pest management........... 10,783 12,269 10,783
Pesticide applicator ........... 1,500 ..............
training.................
Pesticide impact 3,214 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
assessment...............
Rural development centers. 908 908 908
Sustainable agriculture... 3,309 3,309 3,309
Water quality............. 9,561 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Youth at risk............. 9,000 10,000 9,000
Renewable Resources Extension 3,192 3,192 3,192
Act..........................
1890 colleges and Tuskegee.... 25,843 25,090 25,843
1890's facilities grants...... 8,426 12,000 12,000
Rural health and safety 2,628 ........... 2,628
education....................
Extension services at the 1994 2,060 3,500 3,060
institutions.................
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 426,246 395,564 410,680
=========================================
Federal administration and
special grants:
General administration.... 4,787 5,563 4,787
Ag in the Classroom....... 208 476 208
Beef producers improvement 197 ........... 197
(Arkansas)...............
Botanical garden ........... ........... 150
initiative (Illinois)....
Conservation technology ........... ........... 235
transfer (Wisconsin).....
Delta Teachers Academy.... 3,500 ........... 3,500
Diabetes detection 550 ........... ..............
(Washington).............
Extension specialist 99 ........... ..............
(Arkansas)...............
Extension specialist 100 ........... 119
(Mississippi)............
Income enhancement 246 ........... ..............
demonstration (Ohio).....
Integrated cow/calf 300 ........... ..............
management (Iowa)........
National Center for 195 ........... 195
Agriculture Safety (Iowa)
Pilot technology project 163 ........... ..............
(Wisconsin)..............
Pilot technology transfer 326 ........... 326
(Oklahoma and
Mississippi).............
Range improvement (New 197 ........... 197
Mexico)..................
Rural development (Alaska) ........... ........... 350
Rural development (New 280 ........... 280
Mexico)..................
Rural development 150 ........... 150
(Oklahoma)...............
Rural rehabilitation 246 ........... 246
(Georgia)................
Wood biomass as an 197 ........... ..............
alternative farm product
(New York)...............
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal 11,741 6,039 10,940
administration.......
-----------------------------------------
Total, extension 437,987 401,603 421,620
activities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under ``Integrated activities'' account.
Farm safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999 level of
$2,055,000 for the AgrAbility project being carried out in
cooperation with the National Easter Seal Society.
Pest management.--Included in the amount provided by the
Committee for pest management Smith-Lever 3(d) funds is
continued funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for potato late
blight control, including $400,000 for early disease
identification, comprehensive composting for cull disposal, and
late blight research activities in Maine.
Rural health and safety.--The Committee recommends
$2,628,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 level, for rural
health and safety education. Included in this amount is
$2,150,000 for the ongoing rural health program in Mississippi
to train health care professionals to serve in rural areas, and
$478,000 for the ongoing rural health and outreach initiative
in Louisiana.
integrated activities
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $72,844,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,541,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water
Quality, Food Safety, and Pesticide Impact Assessment Special
Research Grants and Smith Lever 3(d) programs previously shown
under Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are
proposed under this account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For integrated activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $35,541,000. This amount is $37,303,000 less than
the budget request. There was no appropriation for this account
for fiscal year 1999.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)--
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
1999 2000 budget recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Farm Initiatives........ ........... 4,000 ..............
Water Quality................. ( \1\ ) 16,204 13,000
Food Safety................... ( \1\ ) 15,000 15,000
Pesticide Impact Assessment... ( \1\ ) 4,640 4,541
Crops at Risk from FQPA ........... 3,000 ..............
Implementation...............
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program ........... 10,000 ..............
for Major Food Crop Systems..
Methyl Bromide Transition ........... 5,000 3,000
Program......................
Food Recovery and Gleaning.... ........... 15,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------
Total, Integrated ( \1\ ) 72,844 35,541
Activities.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded in fiscal year 1999 under research and education, and
extension activities.
Water quality.--The Committee expects a continuation of
funding at current levels for the Agricultural Systems for
Environmental Quality Program and the Management Systems
Evaluation Area Program. The Committee continues funding for
the Farm*A*Syst program at no less than the fiscal year 1999
level.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $618,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 641,000
Committee recommendation................................ 618,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $618,000. This is the same as the 1999 level and $23,000
less than the budget request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
salaries and expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, APHIS
Appropriations User fees \1\ appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999................................... $337,803,000 ($88,000,000) ($425,803,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\.............................. 340,445,000 (95,000,000) (435,445,000)
Committee recommendation............................... 347,445,000 (90,000,000) (437,445,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct
appropriation.
\2\ Excludes an additional $9,077,000 in collections from proposed user fees.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] was
established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972,
under the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and
other authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect
the animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and disease exclusion.--The Agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural quarantine inspection.--User fees are
collected to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine
activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction
of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and animal health monitoring.--The Agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and disease management programs.--The Agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
Agency.
Animal care.--The Agency conducts regulatory activities
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and
horses as required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection
Acts. These activities include inspection of certain
establishments which handle animals intended for research,
exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of certain horse shows.
Scientific and technical services.--The Agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals;
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered
products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of
$437,445,000. This is $11,642,000 more than the 1999
appropriation and $2,000,000 more than the budget request. The
Committee does not assume the $9,077,000 in total savings from
new user fees proposed in the budget.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1999 2000 budget Committee
enacted request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine 30,648 34,576 32,519
inspection...............
User fees \1\............. 88,000 95,000 90,000
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, agricultural 118,648 129,576 122,519
quarantine inspection..
-----------------------------------------
Cattle ticks.............. 4,627 4,627 4,627
Foot-and-mouth disease.... 3,803 3,803 3,803
Fruit fly exclusion and 22,970 25,204 22,970
detection................
Import-export inspection.. 6,815 7,166 6,815
Sanitary/Phytosanitary 7,539 8,262 7,539
Management...............
Screwworm................. 30,301 30,301 30,301
Tropical bont tick........ 407 407 407
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, pest and 195,110 209,346 198,981
disease exclusion......
=========================================
Plant and animal health
monitoring:
Animal health monitoring 63,389 67,989 64,725
and surveillance.........
Animal and plant health 5,855 6,116 5,855
regulatory enforcement...
National Animal Health ........... 1,218 ..............
Emergency Management
System...................
Pest detection............ 6,426 6,685 6,426
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, plant and 75,670 82,008 77,006
animal health
monitoring.............
=========================================
Pest and disease management
programs:
Aquaculture............... 567 567 567
Biological control........ 8,160 8,160 8,160
Boll weevil............... 16,209 3,320 17,757
Brucellosis eradication... 11,864 9,527 10,887
Emerging plant pests...... 1,410 3,510 3,510
Golden nematode........... 435 580 435
Gypsy moth................ 4,366 4,366 4,366
Imported fire ant......... 1,000 ........... ..............
Noxious weeds............. 424 2,129 424
Pink bollworm............. 1,048 1,048 1,500
Pseudorabies.............. 4,567 4,567 4,567
Scrapie................... 2,991 2,991 2,991
Tuberculosis.............. 4,920 4,920 4,920
Wildlife services 29,997 28,161 31,172
operations...............
Witchweed................. 1,506 1,506 1,506
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, pest and 89,464 75,352 92,762
disease management.....
=========================================
Animal care:
Animal welfare............ 9,175 9,690 11,175
Horse protection.......... 361 384 361
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, animal care... 9,536 10,074 11,536
=========================================
Scientific and technical
services:
Biotechnology/ 7,393 9,054 8,530
environmental protection.
Integrated systems 3,500 3,696 3,500
acquisition..............
Plant methods development 4,693 4,693 4,693
laboratories.............
Veterinary biologics...... 10,345 10,555 10,345
Veterinary diagnostics.... 15,622 16,973 15,622
Wildlife services methods 10,365 9,589 10,365
development..............
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, scientific and 51,918 54,560 53,055
technical services.....
=========================================
Contingency fund.............. 4,105 4,105 4,105
=========================================
Total, salaries and 425,803 435,445 437,445
expenses...............
=========================================
Recap:
Appropriated.............. 337,803 340,445 347,445
Agricultural quarantine 88,000 95,000 90,000
inspection user fees.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional resources from the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 direct appropriations.
Agricultural quarantine inspection [AQI].--The Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act (Public Law 104-
127) makes amounts in excess of D100/$100,000,000 in the AQI
user fee account directly available for program operations.
Amounts collected in the user fee account up to
D100/$100,000,000 are subject to appropriation. The Committee
provides $90,000,000 from the AQI user fee account. The
Department estimates that an additional $48,377,000 will be
collected and available as provided in the FAIR Act (Public Law
104-127). The Committee recommendation includes an increase of
$1,871,000 to provide additional inspectors at the U.S./
Canadian border, the U.S./Mexican border, and to increase
Hawaii predeparture staffing based on pest risk analysis.
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The Committee urges the
Department to actively seek procedural and/or treatment methods
that allow shipment of untreated fruit grown in Hawaii to cold-
weather states during winter months without jeopardizing pest
introductions to mainland agriculture.
The Committee does not provide the proposed increases for
the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, the import/
export program, or the sanitary/phytosanitary management
programs. If additional funding is needed the agency should use
contingency funds for the fruit fly exclusion and detection
program.
The Committee continues its interest in having more
efficient and less disruptive inspection of passengers and
cargo in Hawaiian airports, and directs the agency to provide
not less than the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for
sufficient staff-year equivalents of agricultural quarantine
inspectors, operating funds, and inspection equipment at
Hawaii's direct departure and interline airports. The Committee
also recognizes the need for innovative and cost-effective
approaches to pre-clearance baggage inspection at Hawaii's
direct departure and interline airports and directs the agency
to test and evaluate new inspection technologies and other
methods and hiring arrangements for conducting pre-clearance
baggage inspections at Hawaiian airports. The agency is
instructed to report to the Committee by January 31, 2000 on
progress made with these activities.
The Committee is also interested in APHIS's activities
regarding the acquisition and deployment of state-of-the-art
inspection technology and equipment at key points of entry,
such as Hawaii, for screening passengers' luggage for banned
agricultural pests and diseases coming into the United States.
The Committee is concerned that equipment and technology
purchases be commercially available and be evaluated by APHIS
to provide the greatest overall advantage in terms of cost,
capability, safety, efficiency and reliability. The agency is
further instructed to report to the Committee on these
activities and related expenditures by January 31, 2000.
Animal health monitoring and surveillance.--The Committee
provides funding at the fiscal year 1999 level for enforcement
of the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act.
The Committee recognizes the importance of the national
poultry improvement plan [NPIP] and increases funding by
$136,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level of $240,000 to
continue this program.
The Committee does not provide funding in fiscal year 2000
for the Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM).
The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the new certification
and control program for Johnes Disease as proposed in the
budget.
The Committee does not provide funding for the national
health emergency management system program.
Pest Surveillance and detection.--The Committee includes
bill language for those producers whose wheat crops were
infested by karnal bunt and government actions were taken
involving the seizure, quarantine, treatment, destruction, or
disposal of this wheat and provides for the timely compensation
of economic losses.
Biological control.--The Committee is concerned about the
introduction of alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia,
into Hawaii. These pests have caused serious threats to
pastures and watersheds. The Committee directs the agency to
work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Natural
Resources and Conservation Service to develop an integrated
approach, including environmentally-safe biological controls,
for eradicating these pests.
Boll weevil.--The Committee provides an increase of
$1,548,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the Boll Weevil
Eradication Program. The Committee urges the agency to continue
the development of the geographic information system so that
the economic and entomological efficiency of the boll weevil
eradication program can continue to improve. The technology
developed through this system will be transferred to cotton
production regions as the program expands, reducing overall
program costs. The Committee can not provide an increase to
achieve the 30 percent Federal cost share under the current
budget constraints. However, the Committee intends that the
additional funds provided be used to increase the Federal cost
share to the maximum extent possible.
The Committee recognizes that referenda have been passed by
New Mexico cotton producers in the Mesilla Valley and Luna
County to create boll weevil control districts. The Committee
encourages the agency to continue to provide monitoring and
technical assistance as needed for boll weevil detection and
eradication in New Mexico.
Brucellosis eradication.--The Committee assumes the
decreases in the proposed budget for brucellosis eradication.
However, the Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for the
State of Montana to protect the State's brucellosis-free status
and for the operation of the bison quarantine facility and the
testing of bison which have left Yellowstone National Park.
The Committee also provides an increase of $610,000 from
the 1999 fiscal year level for the Greater Yellowstone
Interagency Brucellosis Committee [GYIBC] and encourages the
coordination of Federal, state and private actions aimed at
eliminating Brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater
Yellowstone Area.
Emerging plant pests.--The Committee provides an increase
of $2,100,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to expand the
Asian longhorned beetle program in New York and Illinois.
The Committee encourages the agency to explore cooperative
efforts with the University of Vermont regarding research to
isolate a pathogenic fungi for use as a pesticide to combat the
Asian long horned beetle.
Noxious weeds.--The Committee continues the demonstration
project on kudzu at the fiscal year 1999 funding level.
The Committee encourages the agency to continue working
with the State of Texas regarding orobanche ramosa at the
fiscal year 1999 level.
The Committee does not provide the increases in support of
the Presidential Executive Order on Invasive Alien Species
proposed in the budget.
Pink bollworm.--The Committee provides an increase of
$452,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the sterile fly
release to continue the San Joaquin Valley containment program
and to initiate an eradication program in five counties in
Arizona.
Wildlife services operations.--Funding at the fiscal year
1999 level is provided to continue cattail management and
blackbird control efforts in North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Louisiana.
The Committee notes the important and unique features of
State and local cooperator activities in the implementation of
wildlife services operations and disagrees with the
Department's recommendation to impose higher cost share
requirements on cooperating entities. The Committee encourages
continued cost sharing of control activities to the maximum
extent possible in all States.
The Committee does not include the requested increase for
the agency to cooperate with the Federal Aviation
Administration and local airports to reduce wildlife strike
hazards.
The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the operation
of a State Wildlife Services office in Hawaii to provide on-
site coordination of prevention and control activities in
Hawaii and the American Pacific. The Committee also provides
$400,000 specifically for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture
to work with all agencies on a coordinated brown tree snake
prevention and detection program for Hawaii.
With the reintroduction of the wolf to the State of
Montana, the State's wildlife service operations account has
suffered financially. The Committee provides $250,000 for
coyote and wolf control programs for livestock operators in
Montana.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999
level to maintain the Wildlife Services office in Vermont and
maintains the fiscal year 1999 funding level for the Vermont
oral rabies vaccination program.
Significant progress has been made in reducing the number
of catfish eaten by fish-eating birds in the Mid-south.
However, efforts by the Department have been thwarted with the
increased number of birds migrating to areas where catfish
ponds prominently exist. The Committee provides an additional
$100,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level to reduce damages and
manage populations of fish-eating birds which prey on farm-
raised catfish in the Mid-south area.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level for the
continuation of the National Trap Testing Program.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 funding level
to support the training of wildlife biologists for the Berryman
Institute.
The Committee provides an increase of $125,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 level to expand the coyote control program for
sheep operators in West Virginia. Predators have been the
primary obstacle to sheep production in the State.
The Committee is encouraged by the agency's assistance in
the local-federal partnership aimed at reducing damages to
cropland and forests caused by beaver populations. Also, the
Committee is encouraged by the cooperative relationships for
beaver management between the Delta National Forest and the
agency. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999
level for these programs.
Grasshopper/Mormon cricket control.--The Committee
recognizes the seriousness of grasshopper population control to
the health of both rangeland and crop production in Western
States. The Committee expects the agency to use contingency
funds should a severe outbreak occur and the need arise to
manage the western grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations.
Animal welfare.--The Committee provides an increase of
$2,000,000 from the fiscal year 1999 level for the Animal Care
Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. These funds
should be used to increase the number of field inspectors and
to conduct follow-up inspections for non-compliance.
The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized
animal welfare inspection user fees as proposed in the
President's budget.
The Committee directs the agency not to increase funding
and not to expand the licensing and regulations for Animal Care
to license and regulate persons currently exempt from its
licensing and regulatory requirements who breed and raise dogs
and/or cats on their own residential property and sell these
dogs and/or cats at retail directly to persons who purchase
them for their own use and enjoyment. The Committee does not
believe that such an expansion in regulation is necessary to
protect the welfare of the animals involved, nor that APHIS has
the capacity to carry out such an expansion in regulation
without undermining the effectiveness of its regulation of
current licensees.
The Committee notes that APHIS has published regulations
implementing the Animal Welfare Act which bans tethering of
dogs, a practice common in Alaska and other locations that use
sled dogs for transportation. A recent study conducted at
Cornell University indicates that tethering, done properly, is
far superior to caging dogs which leads to aggressive behavior,
prevents socialization, and causes health problems from lack of
exercise. In light of this new information, the Committee
directs the agency to reevaluate its regulations on tethering
and report to the Committee on its conclusions no later than
March 1, 2000.
Biotechnology/environmental protection.--The Committee does
not assume collections from the biotechnology user fees
proposed in the President's budget.
The Committee provides an increase of $1,137,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 level for the National Monitoring and Residue
Analysis Laboratory (NMRAL) located in Gulfport, MS. The
Committee encourages the agency to work with NMRAL in securing
payments in a timely manner for contract work done for USDA
agencies.
Wildlife services methods development.--The Committee
provides the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for the Monell
Chemical Senses Center located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 1999
level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center, formerly known as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters'
Association, for rodent control in sugarcane and macadamia nut
crops.
In complying with the Committee's directives, APHIS is
expected not to redirect support for programs and activities
without prior notification to and approval by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless otherwise
directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service shall
implement appropriations by programs, projects, commodities,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the ``Program, project, and activity''
section of this report.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $7,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 7,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,200,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities. Due to funding constraints, the Committee
defers funding for requested construction projects.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year
1999 and budget request levels:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2000 budget Committee
1999 enacted request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and 1,000 4,000 4,000
facilities repairs,
alterations, and
preventative maintenance...
Plum Island, NY............. 3,200 3,200 3,200
NWRC, Ft. Collins, CO....... 3,500 ............ ..............
-------------------------------------------
Total, Buildings and 7,700 7,200 7,200
Facilities...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $7,200,000. This amount is $500,000 less than the 1999 level
and the same as the budget request.
Agricultural Marketing Service
marketing services
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $48,831,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 60,182,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,229,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the
Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities,
the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C.
51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-
476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511q); the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499s);
the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056); and
section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this Agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading,
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation
services, and market protection and promotion.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$51,229,000. This amount is $2,398,000 more than the 1999
appropriation and $8,953,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee understands that fiscal year 1999 funding
provided to the Agricultural Marketing Service for the
President's Food Safety Initiative for a microbiological data
program was redirected to the Pesticide Data Program and is
designated in the fiscal year 2000 budget as a fiscal year 1999
Food Safety Initiative activity. The Committee provides an
additional $2,398,000, as proposed in the budget, for the
Pesticide Data Program.
The Committee recognizes the important role of the
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) in collecting scientifically and
statistically valid pesticide residue data in food products
sampled at or near the point of consumer purchase. Enactment of
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996 has magnified
the value of the PDP, as its data and results are now essential
in the FQPA-mandated reassessment of tolerances for pesticide
residues in foods, and in the development of more accurate risk
assessments. The PDP is an effective tool in maintaining
regulatory support for critical pesticides that are necessary
to produce safe and affordable food and fiber, as well as
provide critical public health protection. This important
program benefits farmers, food processors, and consumers alike.
The Committee is aware of the recently-announced Pacific
Salmon Treaty with Canada and of the adverse impact this
agreement may have on salmon fishermen in Alaska. The Committee
expects the Agricultural Marketing Service to work with the
affected parties to develop an aggressive marketing strategy to
avoid these potential adverse consequences.
The Committee continues to recognize the importance of
organic markets for small farmers and fishermen. The Committee
expects the Secretary to construct a national organic program
that takes into consideration the needs of small farmers and
fishermen. Therefore, the Committee expects the Secretary to
consider and submit a report to the Committee on the
establishment of a progressive user fee program so that small
farmers and fishermen, handlers, and certification agents are
not excessively burdened. Furthermore, the Committee expects
that of the funding available for the National Organic Program,
necessary funds should be used to offset the initial costs of
accreditation services, a subsidy necessary due to the lack of
expertise in the Department of Agriculture in the areas of
organic accreditation and insufficient data on the industry.
The Committee is aware of proposals for the improvement of
the Montgomery, Alabama, State Farmers' Market and proposals to
provide outreach to small and medium-sized minority farmers in
the State. The Committee encourages the Department to consider
applications from the State of Alabama to fund these projects.
The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program
to promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and
civilian markets. The Committee fully supports this program and
expects the Department to give full consideration to funding
applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program.
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 1999........................................ ($60,730,000)
Budget limitation, 2000................................. (60,730,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (60,730,000)
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing tobacco, cotton, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores
Act, the U.S. Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are
designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in
the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative
expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $60,730,000.
This amount is the same as the 1999 level and the budget
request.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply
(section 32)
marketing agreements and orders
Appropriations, 1999.................................... ($10,998,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (12,443,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (12,443,000)
Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriation acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 1998-2000:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------
1999 current 2000 current
1998 actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs re- ceipts)....... $5,730,107,608 \1\ $5,701,865,817 $5,735,557,955
Less transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service.......................... -5,151,391,000 -5,048,150,000 -4,935,199,000
Commerce Department................................. -65,734,190 -66,426,288 -69,920,523
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, transfers.................................. -5,217,125,190 -5,114,576,288 -5,005,119,523
=======================================================
Budget authority........................................ 512,982,418 \1\ 587,289,529 730,438,432
Unobligated balance available, start of year............ 233,868,235 131,966,602 105,588,209
Recoveries of prior-year obligations.................... 11,455,285 .................. ................
-------------------------------------------------------
Available for obligation................................ 758,305,938 \1\ 719,256,131 836,026,641
=======================================================
Less obligations:
Commodity procurement:
Child nutrition purchases....................... 400,000,000 400,000,000 400,000,000
Emergency surplus removal....................... 194,774,097 141,800,922 115,000,000
Diversion payments.............................. ................ 54,000,000 ................
Disaster relief................................. 15,200,000 .................. ................
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, commodity procurement.................. 609,974,097 595,800,922 515,000,000
=======================================================
Administrative funds:
Commodity Purchase Service...................... 6,175,767 6,869,000 8,584,000
Marketing agreements and orders................. 10,189,472 10,998,000 12,443,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, administrative funds................... 16,365,239 17,867,000 21,027,000
=======================================================
Total, obligations............................ 626,339,336 613,667,922 536,027,000
=======================================================
Carryout................................................ 131,966,602 105,588,209 299,999,641
-------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated balance available, end of year........ 131,966,602 105,588,209 299,999,641
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $145,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $12,443,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is the same as the
budget estimate and $1,445,000 more than the 1999 level.
In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent
to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools,
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs. The
Committee expects the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to
continue to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon and
salmon nuggets and determine whether or not there is a surplus
and continued low prices in fiscal year 2000. If there is
surplus salmon and continued low prices in fiscal year 2000,
the Committee expects the Department to purchase surplus salmon
for use in the aforementioned feeding programs or for
humanitarian food aid.
payments to states and possessions
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,200,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State
marketing projects and activities, the Committee provides
$1,200,000. This amount is the same as the budget request and
the 1999 appropriation.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $26,787,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 26,448,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,287,000
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat,
and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect
meat and poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $24,287,000. This amount is $2,161,000 less
than the budget request and $2,500,000 less than the 1999
level.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation included one-time
funding of $2,500,000 for costs associated with the
reorganization of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration. The Committee's recommendation reflects the
elimination of this one-time funding increase. The Committee
does not assume the $14,787,000 in net savings from collections
from new user fees proposed in the budget.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
Limitation, 1999........................................ ($42,557,000)
Budget limitation, 2000................................. (42,557,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (42,557,000)
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a $42,557,000 limitation on
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the
same as the budget estimate and the 1999 level.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $446,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 469,000
Committee recommendation................................ 446,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $446,000. This amount
is the same as the 1999 level and $23,000 less than the budget
request.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $616,986,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 652,955,000
Committee recommendation................................ 638,404,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act; and to provide continuous in-plant
inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products
Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $638,404,000. This amount is
$21,418,000 more than the 1999 level and $14,551,000 less than
the budget request.
The Committee has provided for mandatory pay costs
associated with Federal Food Inspection Activities. The
Committee has also provided an additional $2,900,000, the full
amount requested, for the FSIS portion of the food safety
initiative.
The budget request includes increases totaling $10,769,000
for Consumer Safety Officers. These costs include conversion
and relocation of existing employees and hiring new staff. Due
to funding constraints, the Committee does not provide for the
conversion or hiring of these employees. Further, the Committee
understands that litigation has been filed against the
Department to maintain carcass-by-carcass inspection.
Therefore, the Committee has deferred action on this issue
pending resolution of the lawsuit.
The Committee expects imported meat and poultry products
entering the United States to be safe and comply with the same
requirements that the United States imposes on domestic
processors. Current law requires the Secretary to annually
certify that foreign plants exporting meat and poultry products
to the United States have inspection requirements that achieve
a level of sanitary protection equivalent to that achieved
under United States standards. The United States is a major
exporter of meat and poultry products and benefits from its
ability to demonstrate equivalence of its inspection system in
gaining access to foreign markets. Nonetheless, the Committee
directs the Secretary to aggressively review exporting plants'
sanitary measures and inspection processes to verify that they
provide U.S. consumers with a level of protection equivalent to
U.S. standards. The Committee expects the Department to submit
quarterly reports to the Committee on its activities to comply
with current law, including its evaluation of HACCP plans and
salmonella testing in foreign plants.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 budget Committee
1999 estimates request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal food inspection...................................... $514,920 $545,578 $533,895
Import/export inspection..................................... 12,097 12,566 12,108
Laboratory services.......................................... 36,060 39,856 38,492
Field automation............................................. 8,023 8,023 8,023
Grants to States............................................. 40,655 41,701 40,655
Special assistance for State programs........................ 5,231 5,231 5,231
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 616,986 652,955 638,404
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $572,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 595,000
Committee recommendation................................ 572,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economics development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency, including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $572,000. This amount is the same as the 1999
appropriation and $23,000 less than the budget request.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established by the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers
the commodity price support and production adjustment programs
financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the warehouse
examination function, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP],
and several other cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]; and farm ownership and
operating, and emergency disaster and other loan programs.
Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the
Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract participant's
prior contract-crop acreage history and payment yield as well
as total program participation, each contract participant
shares a portion of a statutorily specified, annual dollar
amount. In return, participants must comply with certain
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection,
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments,
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs,
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 act provides for
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract
commodities, extra long staple [ELS] cotton, and oilseeds for
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton,
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. However, with
respect to cotton and rice, the Secretary must allow repayment
of marketing loans at the adjusted world price. And,
specifically with respect to the cotton marketing assistance
loan, the program continues to provide for redemption at the
lower of the loan principal plus accrued storage and interest,
or the adjusted world price. The three-step competitiveness
provisions are unchanged, except that the total expenditures
under step 2 during fiscal years 1996 through 2002 cannot
exceed $701,000,000. Producers have the option of taking a loan
deficiency payment, if available, in lieu of the marketing
assistance loan. The $701,000,000 available for step 2 payments
has been fully spent.
The 1996 act also provides for a loan program for sugar for
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where
the loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature
depending on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of
sugar. The 1996 act provides for a milk price support program,
whereby the price of milk is supported through December 31,
1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The
rate of support is fixed each calendar year, starting at $10.35
per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each year to $9.90 per
hundredweight in 1999. Beginning January 1, 2000, the 1996 act
provides a recourse loan program for commercial processors of
dairy products. The 1996 act and the 1938 act provide for a
peanut loan and poundage quota program for the 1996 through
2002 crops of peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act of 1949,
as amended (1949 act), and the 1938 act provide for a price
support, quota, and allotment program for tobacco.
The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than
CCC's cost of money for that month.
The 1996 act amended the payment limitation provisions in
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 act), by
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan
gains and loan deficiency payments for all commodities that was
in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues
through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the three entity rule is
continued.
Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various
price support and related programs have been authorized in
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's.
Operations under these programs are financed through the
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the
Farm Service Agency are utilized in the administration of the
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the
Agency is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
The 1996 act created new conservation programs to address
high-priority environmental protection goals and authorizes CCC
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of
the programs financed through CCC.
Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities
are conducted pursuant to specific statutory authorizations and
directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as
Public Law 480.
Farm credit programs.--FSA reviews applications, makes and
collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance
to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs
associated with agricultural credit insurance fund [ACIF] loans
are appropriated to the ACIF program account and transferred to
FSA salaries and expenses.
Risk management.--FSA administers the noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP] which provides crop loss
protection for growers of many crops for which crop insurance
is not available.
salaries and expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, FSA,
Appropriations Transfers from salaries and
program accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999..................................... \1\ $714,499,000 ($211,265,000) \1\ ($925,764,000
)
Budget estimate, 2000.................................... 794,839,000 (211,378,000) (1,006,217,000)
Committee recommendation................................. 794,839,000 (211,265,000) (1,006,104,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $40,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 105-277 and $42,753,000
provided by Public Law 106-31.
The account ``Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,''
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency,
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the
Committee recommends $1,006,104,000. This is $80,340,000 more
than the 1999 level and $113,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee has provided direct appropriations for salaries
and expenses of the Farm Service Agency at the level proposed
by the President.
The Committee notes that seafood is not one of the
agricultural commodities which is currently eligible for the
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program even though crop
insurance is not currently available when there is a failure.
The Committee directs the Department to evaluate the
feasibility and cost of including seafood in this program and
report back to the Committee no later than March 15, 2000.
The budget identifies the availability of funds for
transfer to the proposed Support Services Bureau. The Committee
directs that available funds be used to meet increased
requirements to maintain existing staffing levels.
state mediation grants
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural
water loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands,
and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation
programs have been certified by the Farm Service Agency [FSA].
Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the
State's agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for State mediation
grants. This is the same as the amount provided in 1999 and
$2,000,000 less than the budget request.
dairy indemnity program
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $450,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 450,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends
$450,000. This is the same as the budget request and the 1999
level.
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and
emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types
of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing,
Indian tribe land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The
insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an
agreement by the Government to purchase the loan after a
specified initial period.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Farm ownership loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct
loans and $700,000 for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40
years or less.
Farm operating loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living.
Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct
loans and $700,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan
varies from 1 to 7 years.
Emergency disaster loans.--Made available in designated
areas (counties) and in contiguous counties where property
damage and/or severe production losses have occurred as a
direct result of a natural disaster. Areas may be declared by
the President or designated for emergency loan assistance by
the Secretary of Agriculture. The loan may be up to $500,000.
Credit sales of acquired property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA
loans.
Indian tribe land acquisition loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act, which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire
lands or interest in lands within the tribe's reservation or
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the
members thereof.
Boll weevil eradication loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of
$3,083,292,000. This is $74,558,000 more than the budget
request and $798,334,000 more than the 1999 level.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to 1999 and the
budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
1999 enacted 2000 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct...................................................... \1\ (85,651) (128,049) (128,049)
Guaranteed.................................................. \2\ (425,031) (431,373) (431,373)
Farm operating:
Direct...................................................... \3\ (500,000) (500,000) (500,000)
Guaranteed unsubsidized..................................... \4\ (948,276) (1,697,842) (1,697,842)
Guaranteed subsidized....................................... \5\ (200,000) (97,442) (200,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition................................... (1,000) (1,028) (1,028)
Emergency disaster.............................................. \6\ (25,000) (53,000) (25,000)
Boll weevil eradication loans................................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans......................................... \7\ (2,284,958 (3,008,734) (3,083,292)
)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $200,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes estimated $350,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-31.
\3\ Excludes estimated $233,806,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 105-277, and an estimated $185,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan
subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.
\4\ Excludes estimated $150,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 105-277.
\5\ Excludes estimated $156,704,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 105-277, and an estimated $185,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan
subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.
\6\ Excludes estimated $175,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 106-31.
\7\ Excludes estimated $540,510,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan subsidy appropriation
provided by Public Law 105-277, and an estimated $1,095,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental loan
subsidy appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.
loan subsidies and administrative expenses levels
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insured Guaranteed Transfer to
loan loan Total Appropriations FSA Total ACIF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999........... 54,465 35,238 \1\ 89,703 \2\ 10,000 209,861 \2\ 219,861
Budget estimate, 2000.......... 42,379 34,941 77,320 4,300 209,861 214,161
Committee recommendation....... 42,379 39,627 82,006 4,300 209,861 214,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $137,014,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 105-277 and
Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes estimated $4,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriation provided by Public Law 106-31.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
1999 enacted 2000 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct.................................................. \1\ 12,822 4,827 4,827
Guaranteed.............................................. \2\ 6,758 2,416 2,416
Farm operating:
Direct.................................................. \3\ 34,150 29,300 29,300
Guaranteed unsubsidized................................. \4\ 11,000 23,940 23,940
Guaranteed subsidized................................... \5\ 17,480 8,585 17,620
Indian tribe land acquisition............................... 153 21 21
Emergency disaster.......................................... \6\ 5,900 8,231 3,882
Boll weevil eradication loans............................... 1,440 ( \9\ ) ( \9\ )
-----------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................... \7\ 89,703 77,320 82,006
ACIF expenses................................................... \8\ 219,861 214,161 214,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $29,940,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\2\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $5,565,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\3\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $15,969,000 (Public Law 105-277), and $12,635,000
(Public Law 106-31).
\4\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $1,740,000 (Public Law 105-277).
\5\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $13,696,000 (Public Law 105-277) and $16,169,000
(Public Law 106-31).
\6\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $41,300,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\7\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $31,405,000 (Public Law 105-277) and $105,609,000
(Public Law 106-31).
\8\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriation of $4,000,000 (Public Law 106-31).
\9\ No cost since subsidy rate is negative.
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 70,716,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,000,000
Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR]
Act of 1996, risk management activities previously performed by
the Farm Service Agency will be performed by the new Risk
Management Agency.
Risk management includes program activities in support of
the Federal Crop Insurance Program as authorized by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act. Functional areas
of risk management are: research and development; insurance
services; and compliance, whose functions include policy
formulation and procedures and regulations development. Reviews
and evaluations are conducted for overall performance to ensure
the actuarial soundness of the insurance program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$64,000,000. This is $6,716,000 less than the budget request
and the same as the 1999 level.
The Committee is pleased that the agency is currently
conducting a test program to determine the feasibility of
including catfish within the Federal Crop Insurance Program. It
directs the agency to conduct the necessary analysis to
determine whether salmon would meet the actuarial soundness
requirement needed to conduct a similar test program. The
Committee expects the report to be completed by September 1,
1999.
Support Services Bureau
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $74,050,000
Committee recommendation................................................
Since 1993, the county-based agencies have been
implementing streamlining plans to cut red tape and co-locate
offices in the same county, with the goal of providing ``one-
stop service'' for USDA customers. The next phase involves
converging the administrative organizations of these separate
agencies. The Budget proposes the establishment of a new
Support Services Bureau (SSB) account to centrally fund the
administrative support services common to each of the county-
based agencies. This account will directly support the ongoing
Service Center Modernization initiative. The SSB will reflect
the combined costs of the agencies' administrative functions
and will allow common services such as information technology,
financial management, and human resources to be shared among
the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Rural Development (RD)
mission area, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
The SSB will be financed by a combination of direct
appropriations and transfers from the serviced agencies. The
establishment of a single account will provide an efficient
mechanism to effect the necessary fund transfers to support the
bureau.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Support Services Bureau, the Committee recommends
no appropriation. This amount is $74,000,000 less than the
budget request. No funds were requested for this account for
fiscal year 1999.
Due to funding constraints, the Committee is unable to
provide the $74,000,000 requested for the Support Services
Bureau. Under the budget proposal, administrative management
support activities for the Farm Service Agency, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development will be
consolidated under the Support Services Bureau. While the
Committee supports obtaining additional efficiencies in these
agencies and has been supportive of the Common Computing
Environment, it expects funds to be transferred to the Support
Services Bureau only to the extent that funds for these
activities exist in each respective agency and only to the
extent that the reprogramming procedures contained in this act
are followed.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed
to replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc
disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance
program.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $60 per crop per policy, or $200 for all
crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At
least catastrophic [CAT] coverage was required for producers
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and
certain other farm programs. Under the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996, producers are
offered the option of waiving their eligibility for emergency
crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT coverage to meet
program requirements. Emergency loss assistance does not
include emergency loans or payment under the Noninsured
Assistance Program [NAP]. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the
Secretary began phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through
the FSA offices, and in 1998 designated the private insurance
providers as the sole source provider of CAT coverage.
The Reform Act of 1994 also provides increased subsidies
for additional buy-up coverage levels which producers may
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for
catastrophic risk protection coverage for coverage up to 65
percent level at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or
greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount
is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for
50 percent yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected
market price.
The reform legislation included the NAP program for
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was
implemented under the Deputy Administrator for Risk Management,
under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program will remain with
the Farm Service Agency and be incorporated into the Commodity
Credit Corporation program activities.
federal crop insurance corporation fund
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $1,504,036,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 997,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 997,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $69,000,000
provided by Public Law 105-277.
\2\ The budget requests such sums as may be necessary to remain
available until expended.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs for 2000, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary, estimated to be $997,000,000. This is $507,036,000
less than the amount provided in 1999.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127 (1996 act), enacted April 4, 1996; the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (1949 act); the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (1938 act); and the Food Security Act of
1985 (1985 act).
The 1996 act requires that the following programs be
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: 7-year production
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple
[ELS] cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The
1996 act also requires a milk price support program that begins
after enactment of the act and continues through December 31,
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product
processors.
The 7-year production flexibility contracts were offered to
eligible landowners and producers on a one-time basis in 1996,
with some contracts being available in subsequent years for
eligible contract-commodity acreage in the CRP program that,
prior to 2002, is either withdrawn early or for which the
contract expires. Statutorily established fixed dollar amounts
are to be distributed annually among contract participants
according to statutory formulas. With the exception of
limitations on fruits and vegetables, contract acreage may be
planted (or not planted) to any crop, but the contract acreage
must be devoted to an approved agricultural use and contract
participants must comply with applicable land conservation and
wetland protection requirements.
Marketing assistance loans are available to producers of
ELS cotton and oilseeds. Such loans are also available to
producers of contract commodities, but only if the producers of
such commodities are contract participants. Marketing loan
provisions and loan deficiency payments are applicable to all
such commodities except ELS cotton.
The peanut loan program as provided by the 1996 act is
accompanied by the poundage quota program authorized by the
1938 act. The loan rate for quota peanuts is set at $610 per
ton for each of the crop years, 1996 through 2002. The quota
poundage floor (1.35 million tons in 1995) authorized by the
1938 act for 1995 is eliminated for the 1996 through 2002
crops. The 1996 act also amends the peanut provisions of the
1938 act pertaining to undermarketings of farm quotas and
transfers of quotas across county lines.
The 1996 act created a recourse loan program for sugar that
reverts to a nonrecourse loan program in a given fiscal year if
the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar exceeds 1.5 million
short tons (raw value) in any fiscal year, 1997-2002. The 1996
act suspends marketing allotment provisions in the 1938 act and
implements a 1-cent-per-pound penalty if cane sugar pledged as
collateral for a Corporation loan is forfeited. A similar
penalty applies to beet sugar.
The tobacco loan program authorized by the 1949 act is
supplemented by the quota and allotment programs authorized by
the 1938 act. The tobacco program provisions in both acts were
not affected by the 1996 act.
Milk prices are supported each year through the end of
calendar year 1999 at statutorily established levels through
purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The calendar
year 1996 support level was $10.35 per hundredweight for milk
containing 3.67 percent butterfat, and the rate declines
annually to $9.90 per hundredweight for calendar year 1999. A
recourse loan program for commercial processors of dairy
products begins on January 1, 2000. The recourse loan rate is
to be established for eligible dairy products at a level that
reflects a milk equivalent value of $9.90 per hundredweight of
milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat.
The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after
October 1, 1996, will be 1 percentage point higher than the
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan
interest rate will in effect be 1 percentage point higher than
CCC's cost of money for that month. Moreover, the Corporation's
use of funds for purchases of information technology equipment,
including computers, is more restricted than it was prior to
enactment of the 1996 act.
The 1996 act amends the 1985 act to establish the
Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program [ECARP],
which encompasses the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], the
Wetland Reserve Program [WRP], and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program [EQIP]. Each of these programs is funded
through the Corporation.
The CRP continues through fiscal year 2002, with up to 36.4
million acres enrolled at any one time. Except for lands that
are determined to be of high environmental value, the Secretary
is to allow participants to terminate any CRP contract entered
into prior to January 1, 1995, upon written notice, provided
the contract has been in effect for at least 5 years. The
Secretary maintains discretionary authority to conduct future
early outs and future sign-ups of lands that meet enrollment
eligibility criteria.
WRP is reauthorized through the year 2002, not to exceed
975,000 acres in total enrollment. Beginning October 1, 1996,
one-third of the land enrolled is to be in permanent easements,
one-third in 30-year easements or less, and one-third in
wetland restoration agreements with cost sharing; 75,000 acres
of land in less than permanent easements must be placed in the
program before any additional permanent easements are placed.
A new, cost-share assistance program, EQIP, is established
to assist crop and livestock producers deal with environmental
and conservation improvements on the farm. The 1996 act
authorizes program funding of $200,000,000 annually for fiscal
years 1997 through 2002. One-half of the available funds are
for addressing conservation problems associated with livestock
operations and one-half for other conservation concerns. Five-
to ten-year contracts, based on a conservation plan will be
used to implement the program.
The 1996 act also authorizes other new Corporation-funded
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option,
flood risk reduction contracts, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
The Corporation's capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by
the United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may
be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending
agencies, and from others at any one time. The Corporation
reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to
purchase at any time all notes and other obligations evidencing
loans made by such agencies and others. All bonds, notes,
debentures, and similar obligations issued by the Corporation
are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
reimbursement for net realized losses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $8,439,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 14,368,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 14,368,000,000
\1\ Amount proposed to be reimbursed through a current indefinite
appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) for net realized losses, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary,
estimated in the budget to be $14,368,000,000. This is
$5,929,000,000 more than the amount provided for 1999. The
Committee notes that the Department's most recent estimate of
the fiscal year 2000 payment required to reimburse the CCC for
net realized losses is $20,368,000,000, $6,000,000,000 higher
than the budget estimate.
Food Security Commodity Reserve
The Committee urges USAID and USDA to manage the Food
Security Commodity Reserve effectively to meet international
food aid commitments of the United States, including
supplementing Public Law 480 title II funds to meet emergency
food needs.
operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management
Limitation, 1999........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the management
of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA's hazardous waste
management appropriation. The CCC funds operations and
maintenance costs only.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Commodity Credit Corporation operations and maintenance
for hazardous waste management, the Committee provides a
limitation of $5,000,000. This amount is the same as the 1999
level and the budget request.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $693,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 721,000
Committee recommendation................................ 693,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$693,000. This amount is the same as the amount provided in
1999 and $28,000 less than the budget request.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS
combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation
Service as well as five natural resource conservation cost-
share programs previously administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this
Service, together with the agricultural conservation programs
and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been
a major factor in reducing pollution. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service works with conservation districts,
watershed groups, and the Federal and State agencies having
related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in
land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide
for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce
damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with its dams,
debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical
advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the
Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and,
through these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize
pollution than any other activity. These programs and water
sewage systems in rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the
areas of greatest damage, the rivers and harbors near our
cities.
The conservation activities of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and
objectives as set forth in the National Conservation Program
[NCP] which was prepared in response to the provisions of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public
Law 95-192). The long-term objectives of the program are
designed to maintain and improve the soil, water, and related
resources of the Nation's nonpublic lands by: reducing
excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies,
improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages,
improving range condition, and improving water quality.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $641,243,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 680,679,000
Committee recommendation................................ 656,243,000
\1\ Includes a proposed transfer of $44,423,000 from ``Watershed and
flood prevention operations''.
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation technical assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Soil surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
Snow survey and water forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Plant materials centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $656,243,000. This amount is $15,000,000 more
than the 1999 level and $24,436,000 less than the budget
estimate. The Committee does not assume the transfer of
$44,423,000 from watershed and flood prevention operations as
proposed in the budget. Also, the Committee does not provide
funding for competitive partnership grants, the Community
Federal Information Partnership (CFIP), or the Global Climate
Change Initiative, as proposed by the budget.
The budget identifies the availability of funds for
transfer to the proposed Support Services Bureau. The Committee
directs that available funds be used to meet increased
requirements to maintain existing staffing levels.
The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 level to develop partnerships between USDA and
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to enhance the
Foundation's participation in conservation programs and
strengthen their fish and wildlife conservation benefits.
The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 from the
1999 fiscal year level for the Animal Feeding Operation (AFO).
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding to continue work on the Great Lakes Basin Program for
soil and erosion sediment control.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999
level for the grazing lands conservation assistance program.
The agency is to be commended for establishing a system to
provide an accounting of funds used for this program within
conservation operations.
The Committee continues funding at the 1999 fiscal year
level for the National Water Management Center in Arkansas.
The Comittee maintains the fiscal year 1999 level for the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Committee provides $500,000 for the Sowashee Creek
Watershed, Lauderdale County, Mississippi.
The Committee is concerned about the introduction of alien
weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii that has
resulted in serious threats to pastures and watersheds. The
Committee directs the agency to continue its work with the
Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Animal Plant and
Health Inspection Service to develop an integrated approach,
including environmentally-safe biological controls, for
eradicating these pests.
The Committee continues funding at the 1999 funding level
for plant material centers and to continue the development of
warm season grasses for use in the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) and the Wildlife Habitat Initiatives Program (WHIP).
The Committee encourages the agency to allocate the 1999
level of funding to support the Federal-State partnership to
address the Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog basins.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding to continue support of agricultural development and
resource conservation in the native Hawaiian homestead
communities on the Island of Molokai. The Committee encourages
program transition from small-scale conservation projects to
those benefitting the community at large.
The Committee directs the agency to provide an increase of
$1,000,000 for the Kenai streambank restoration water project
in fiscal year 2000.
The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach
effort in order for USDA to serve small-scale Appalachian
farmers in sustaining agriculture production, while protecting
natural resources, and therefore, directs the agency to use
$660,000 for the Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program.
Sound economic grazing systems, marketing strategies, and
uniformity of production quality will ensure the
competitiveness of livestock operations and help maintain small
farm enterprises. This initiative will provide livestock
producers access to the needed one-on-one assistance.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for technical assistance
for Franklin County Lake, Mississippi.
The Committee is aware of the lack of funding for the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts in the State of Alaska. The
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 from the fiscal
year 1999 level for at least one staff position for each Soil
and Water Conservation District Office, two positions with the
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, a public
information program, and assistance to rural Alaska (off the
road/rail network).
The Committee provides an increase of $288,900 from the
fiscal year 1999 level for agroforestry efforts in conjunction
with the National Agroforestry Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.
The Committee encourages the agency to provide technical
assistance as needed for Palmer's Crossing, Choctaw Water
Quality Watershed, and the New Porter's Bayou watershed project
in Mississippi.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding to implement the recommendations identified in the
Delta Study aimed at water conservation, alternative water
supply evaluations, and environmental planning. This funding is
to be used to continue the implementation of the study in
cooperation with the local sponsor.
The Committee directs the agency to proceed with Phase I of
the Kuhn Bay Project (Point Remove), Arkansas.
The Committee recognizes that the Department has the
authority to establish national priority area pilot programs
under the guidelines of the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program [EQIP]. The Committee directs the agency to continue
adequate funding for the two national priority area pilot
projects designated in 1998.
The Committee directs the agency to continue the pilot
project in Washington, Sharkey, and Yazoo Counties, MS, to
clarify and conclusively determine the proper classification
and taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils in conjunction
with soil scientists at land-grant universities in the region.
The Committee directs the agency to be accountable for the
funds spent on behalf of the salmon recovery efforts in the
Pacific Northwest and report an itemized list to the Committee
no later than January 1, 2000.
The Committee provides the 1999 fiscal year level of
funding for the Tri-Valley watershed, an essential part of the
Central Utah Completion Act, for improvement to canals and to
provide pressurized irrigation water to Wasatch and Summit
Counties.
The Committee provides an additional $100,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 to increase the Hawaii Plant Materials
Center's capability to propagate native plants to support the
Federal cleanup of the Island of Kahoolawe, and to facilitate
the startup of native plant nurseries.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level for
composting demonstration sites of poultry litter and wood
products in West Virginia. The Committee supports the Federal,
state, and local partnerships that have been created by this
project, and the progress toward utilizing poultry litter in
value-added production.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding to address the erosion in the Loess Hills area in
western Iowa.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 funding level for Phase II of the Potomac and
Ohio River basins soil nutrient project. This information is
critical as Appalachian farmers deal with nutrient loading
issues, and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay from
eutrophication, and the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Gulf
of Mexico from depletion of life-sustaining oxygen.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding for evaluating and increasing native plant materials in
Alaska. The revegetation will be developed for commercial
producers so that it can be used to protect and restore worn
trails, eroded streambanks, and to prevent further ecological
damage.
The Committee provides $300,000 for testing emerging
alternative technology to reduce phosphorus loading into Lake
Champlain from agricultural runoff.
The Committee also provides an additional $750,000 from the
fiscal year 1999 funding level for technical assistance for the
Seward/Resurrection River watershed project, Alaska.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding for the continued development of a geographic
information system (GIS)-based model in South Carolina to
integrate commodity and conservation program data at the field
level for watershed analysis purposes.
watershed surveys and planning
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $10,368,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 11,732,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,368,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006-1009). A
separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal
year 1996 when they were combined into a single appropriation,
watershed surveys and planning.
River basin activities provide for cooperation with other
Federal, State, and local agencies in making investigations and
surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a
basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of
the investigations and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide
for the development of agricultural, rural, and upstream
watershed aspects of water and related land resources, and as a
basis for coordination of this development with downstream and
other phases of water development.
Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation
between the Federal Government and the States and their
political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning.
Watershed plans form the basis for installing works of
improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department
in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations
to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations
and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local
organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water
management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works
of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also
include estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and
operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate
information necessary to justify Federal assistance for
carrying out the plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $10,368,000. This amount is the
same as the 1999 appropriation and $1,364,000 less than the
budget request.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $99,443,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 83,423,000
Committee recommendation................................ 99,443,000
\1\ Excludes $95,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations
provided by Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Reflects a proposed transfer of $44,423,000 from ``Watershed and
flood prevention operations'' to ``Conservation operations''.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For watershed and flood prevention operations, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $99,443,000. This
amount is the same as the 1999 appropriation and $16,020,000
more than the budget request.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding for the Little Sioux project in Iowa.
The Committee encourages the agency to complete work on the
Willow-Cravens Creek Watershed project, Missouri.
The Committee urges the NRCS to proceed with the design of
Phase I of the main distribution pipeline which is dedicated to
increasing water storage capacity and improving the efficiency
of delivery systems on the islands of Hawaii and Maui to
mitigate persistent drought conditions and conserve water to
support diversified agriculture activities.
The Committee encourages the Department to assist local
landowners with the Little Red River Watershed project in
Arkansas and the Gallagher Creek Watershed and Squirrel Branch
projects in Mississippi.
The Committee encourages the Department to work with the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to restore the Lake Tahoe basin.
The Committee is increasingly concerned by the threats to
public safety posed by the aging system of flood control
structures and the hardships placed on local conservation and
flood control districts due to the Department's policy that
rehabilitation of such facilities is considered part of the
districts' operation and maintenance responsibilities. The
Committee directs the Department to provide the Committee a
detailed analysis of this problem and a strategy to provide
comprehensive rehabilitation of endangered structures.
The Committee urges the agency to proceed with the
implementation of the watershed plans for the Upper Tygart
Valley watershed, the Deckers Creek Mine Drainage and Land Mine
Treatment Watershed project, the Potomac Headwaters Land
Treatment Watershed project and the Knapps Creek Stream
Restoration Watershed project.
The Committee encourages the agency to continue assistance
for the Colusa Basin Drainage District, the Salinas Valley
Eastside Project Area, and the Chino Dairy Preserve Project,
California.
The Committee is aware of continued flooding in the Devils
Lake basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has risen
in each of the past seven years. The lake has risen nearly 25
feet since 1993. The Committee encourages the agency, with the
cooperation of the Farm Service Agency, to assist in the
locally coordinated flood response and water management
activities being developed with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. NRCS and FSA should continue to utilize
conservation programs in providing water holding and storage
areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in
watershed management.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 35,265,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,000,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work
plans for resource conservation and development projects in
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and
water conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For resource conservation and development, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000. This amount is the
same as the 1999 level and $265,000 less than the budget
estimate.
forestry incentives program
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $6,325,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 6,325,000
\1\ Excludes enacted emergency supplemental appropriations of
$10,000,000 provided by Public Law 105-277.
The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
313), as amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its
purpose is to encourage the development, management, and
protection of nonindustrial private forest lands. This program
is carried out by providing technical assistance and long-term
cost-sharing agreements with private landowners.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Forestry Incentives Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $6,325,000. This amount is the
same as the 1999 appropriation and $6,325,000 more than the
budget request.
farmland protection program
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Farmland Protection Program is authorized by section
388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (7
U.S.C. 7201). Its purpose is to protect farmland from urban
development and other nonagricultural land conversions;
preserve farmland for future generations; maintain, restore,
and enhance ecosystems; protect historical landscapes, scenic
beauty, and open space; and sustain rural economic stability
and development.
committee recommendations
For the Farmland Protection Program, the Committee
recommends no appropriation. This is $50,000,000 less than the
budget estimate. No funds were appropriated for this program
for fiscal year 1999. Direct funding is provided for the
Farmland Protection Program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation and the Committee does not believe a discretionary
appropriation is appropriate or required to augment the
authorized level for this program.
TITLE III--RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
In the 1930's and 1940's, these agencies were primarily
involved in making small loans to farmers; however, today these
agencies have a multibillion dollar assistance program
throughout all America providing loans and grants for single-
family, multifamily housing, and special housing needs, a
variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business
development programs.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $588,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 612,000
Committee recommendation................................ 588,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
committee recommendations
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$588,000. This amount is $24,000 less than the budget request
and the same as the 1999 level.
The Committee urges the Department to work closely with the
Santiam Canyon officials and other Federal agencies to ensure
implementation of an economic plan.
The Committee notes the opportunities for improved farm
income, especially among small farm operators, through
diversification of crop production and specialized marketing
strategies. An important element to this strategy is to afford
producers better access to new and direct consumer markets.
Toward this goal, the Secretary is urged to work with
interested farm groups, cooperatives, and communities in
utilizing the authorities of the Rural Economic and Community
Development Agency in the development of marketing
opportunities in urban areas and other areas where farmers may
directly market their products to consumers.
The Committee strongly supports farmers joining together in
cooperative self-help efforts to move into value-added
production and processing activities. Such cooperative
endeavors can have a positive impact on the ability of farmers
to improve their income and achieve financial stability, manage
risk, compete more effectively in a global marketplace still
characterized by subsidized foreign competition, and help
create needed jobs in communities throughout rural America. The
Committee believes the Department of Agriculture should give
increased emphasis to programs aimed at encouraging such
cooperative ventures, including strengthening funding for
Cooperative Services' programs relating to research, education,
and technical assistance for farmer cooperatives.
The Committee urges the agency to consider Rural Business
Enterprise Grant applications from within Empowerment Zone
areas, even when the beneficiary companies may exceed the
number of employees or gross annual revenue determinations
currently used by the agency to define small and emerging
businesses, particularly where the grant would allow existing
businesses to stay within the area and expand their operation.
The budget identifies the availability of funds for
transfer to the proposed Support Services Bureau. The Committee
directs that available funds be used to meet increased
requirements to maintain existing staffing levels.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $722,686,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 670,103,000
Committee recommendation................................ 718,006,000
\1\ Excludes $30,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations
provided by Public Law 106-31.
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account, funding is allocated to rural
development State directors for their priority setting on a
State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to
transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount in the account
that is allocated for the State for the fiscal year to any
other account in which amounts are allocated for the State for
the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to be
reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community
facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including certain
Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and
public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend,
or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential
services to rural residents. Such facilities include those
providing or supporting overall community development, such as
fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic
control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational
benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve
rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages of
not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue
facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the
majority of available funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the
purpose of improving, developing or financing business,
industry, and employment or improving the economic and
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings,
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital.
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less
than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed
D100/$1,500,000 annually, to public bodies and private
nonprofit community development corporations or entities.
Grants are made to identify and analyze business opportunities
that will use local rural economic and human resources; to
identify, train, and provide technical assistance to rural
entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business support
centers; to conduct economic development planning and
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive
communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as
amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
committee recommendations
For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the
Committee recommends $718,006,000. This amount is $47,903,000
more than the budget request and $4,680,000 less than the
fiscal year 1999 level.
Community facility grants.--The Committee recognizes the
need for a community facility grant for the construction of a
new facility for the St. Paul Island Health Clinic in Alaska.
The Committee encourages the Department to consider an
application for the construction of this facility.
Rural business enterprise grants.--The Committee is aware
of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] from
the following: Land Stewardship Alliance; Pembroke Farming
Cooperative, Illinois; the Grants to Broadcasting Program;
Ninth District Development Financing, Inc., Virginia; South
Carolina Cotton Museum, Bishopville, South Carolina; Premium
Pork of Montana; South Dakota Value-Added Agriculture
Development Center; West Virginia Rural Health Infrastructure
Loan Program; Rural Economic Development Through Tourism
(REDIT); Arkansas State University Entrepreneural and Trade
Center; Cut Bank Tourism Information Center; Mission Valley
Market Project; and for the small business incubator in
Northeastern Montana.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process. The Committee expects the
Department to ensure that the system by which applications for
rural business enterprise grants are considered does not
discriminate against applications which may benefit multiple
States.
The Committee has provided the fiscal year 1999 level of
funding for transportation technical assistance.
Water and waste disposal loans and grants.--The Committee
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider
applications for the following projects: the city of Social
Circle, GA; the Compton Mountain Water Project, VA; the
Shulerville/Honey Hill Water project, Berkeley, South Carolina;
the Long Park Dam in Manila, UT; Globalplex Intermodal Terminal
Wastewater and Sewer Project, LA; Valley Park Water
Association, Issaquena County, MS; and Vallecito Water Co.,
Colorado.
The Committee also includes language in the bill to make up
to $20,000,000 available for village safe water for the
development of water systems for rural and native villages in
Alaska, and $20,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems
for the colonias along the United States-Mexico border. In
addition, the Committee makes up to $7,300,000 available for
the circuit rider program.
Water and waste technical assistance training grants.--The
Committee encourages the Department to consider applications
for the following: Rural Sanitation Drainage Initiative, AK;
and for new environmental wastewater treatment technology and
centrifuge technology, HI.
The Committee encourages the Department to support a farm
labor service center pilot project to develop a program to help
with recruiting, supporting and training a farm labor pool.
The Committee encourages the Department to work with
officials of Tillamook Bay, or, to provide the needed
infrastructure to diversify the local economy.
Labor shortages are causing a crisis on Vermont family
farms, particularly in the Dairy and Orchard sectors. Farmers
are unable to recruit and retain workers in today's competitive
labor market, and generally do not have access to migrant labor
pools available to other regions. Economic and quality of life
issues associated with labor shortages are forcing more
families out of farming. The Committee directs the agency to
establish a Farm Labor Service Center pilot project to help
with recruiting, supporting and training a farm labor pool.
The Committee is aware of the out-migration in rural
counties across the country and the efforts being made through
the Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) pilot program to
address this problem with financial support for REAP zones,
especially in North Dakota, from the Department. The Committee
urges the Department to continue this support in fiscal year
2000. In addition, the Rural Development agency, which is the
lead agency for this program, is encouraged by the Committee to
use out-migration as one of the allocation criteria when
determining assistance.
Business and Industry Loan Program.--The Committee commends
the Secretary for recognizing the importance of cooperative
businesses in rural America and encourages the Secretary to
continue targeting these funds to rural and farmer cooperatives
and eligible cooperative lending institutions.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
1999 2000 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
Community facility loan subsidies: Direct............. 22,917 15,150 15,150
Community facility grants............................. 6,869 13,237 8,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, housing................................... 29,786 28,387 23,150
=====================================================
Business:
Business and industry loan subsidies: Guaranteed...... 9,673 31,100 26,435
Rural business enterprise grants...................... 38,220 35,970 37,664
Rural business opportunity grants..................... 500 5,000 500
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, business.................................. 48,393 72,070 64,599
=====================================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal loan subsidies: Direct....... 129,430 63,900 105,790
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 512,761 503,000 521,467
Solid waste management grants......................... 2,816 2,746 3,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities................................. 645,007 569,646 630,257
=====================================================
Total, loan subsidies and grants.................... 722,686 670,103 718,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Service
total appropriations level
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,269,445,000
Budget estimate, 2000..................................\1\ 1,345,735,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,310,948,000
\1\ Includes proposed fiscal year 2001 advance appropriation of
$200,000,000.
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing
direct and indirect economic benefits to individual borrowers,
families, and rural communities; (2) assure that benefits are
communicated to all program eligible customers with special
outreach efforts to target resources to underserved,
impoverished, or economically declining rural areas; (3) lower
the cost of programs while retaining the benefits by
redesigning more effective programs that work in partnership
with State and local governments and the private sector; and
(4) leverage the economic benefits through the use of low-cost
credit programs, especially guaranteed loans.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends total appropriations of
$1,310,948,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This is
$34,787,000 less than the budget request and $41,503,000 more
than the 1999 level.
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
Loan level, 1999........................................($4,251,717,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (4,575,052,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (4,594,694,000)
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural
housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative
housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor
housing insured loans are made either to a farm owner or to a
public or private nonprofit organization to provide modest
living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor.
Loan programs are limited to rural areas, which include towns,
villages, and other places of not more than 10,000 population,
which are not part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in
areas with a population in excess of 10,000, but less than
20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan
statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for
low- and moderate-income borrowers.
Committee Recommendations
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, compared to the 1999 levels and
the 2000 budget request:
RURAL HOUSING SERVICE LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
1999 2000 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Low-income family housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... \1\ (965,313) (1,100,000) (1,100,000)
Unsubsidized guaranteed.............................. (3,000,000) (3,200,000) (3,200,000)
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ \2\ (25,001) (32,396) (32,396)
Farm labor (sec. 514).................................... (20,000) (25,001) (25,001)
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ (114,321) (100,000) (114,321)
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................ \3\ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
Credit sales of acquired property........................ (16,930) (7,503) (12,824)
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... (5,152) (5,152) (5,152)
Self-help housing land development fund.................. (5,000) (5,000) (5,000)
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF.......................................... (4,251,717) (4,575,052) (4,594,694)
==================================================
Grants and payments:
Mutual and self-help housing............................. 26,000 30,000 26,000
Rental assistance........................................ 583,397 \5\ 440,000 640,000
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]................... \4\ 41,000 54,000 41,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing grants and pay- ments.......... 650,397 \5\ 524,000 707,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RHS loans and grants.......................... (4,902,114) (4,899,052) (5,301,694)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes estimated $10,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public
Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes estimated $1,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public
Law 106-31.
\3\ USDA changed the subsidy rate from 2.32 to 3.10 when interim regulations were published. The new rules will
provide $74,839,000 in loans.
\4\ Excludes estimated $1,000,000 increase funded by emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public
Law 106-31.
\5\ Excludes proposed fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations $200,000,000.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Direct loan Guaranteed loan expenses,
subsidy subsidy including transfer
from RHIF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999................................ 192,265 5,020 (360,785)
Budget estimate, 2000............................... 155,877 20,000 (383,879)
Committee recommendation............................ 162,185 20,000 (360,785)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2000, as well
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 1999 levels and the
2000 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
1999 level 2000 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... \1\ 114,100 93,830 93,830
Unsubsidized guaranteed.............................. 2,700 19,520 19,520
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ \2\ 8,808 9,900 9,900
Farm labor (sec. 514).................................... 10,406 11,308 11,308
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ 55,160 39,680 45,363
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................ 2,320 480 480
Site loans............................................... 17 4 4
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 3,492 874 1,499
Self-help housing land development fund.................. 282 281 281
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. \3\ 197,285 175,877 182,185
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 60,978 61,979 60,978
(Transfer from RHIF)......................................... (360,785) (383,879) (360,785)
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RHS administrative expenses..................... (421,763) (445,858) (421,763)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $1,182,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Excludes $352,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
\3\ Excludes $2,534,000 emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $583,397,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 440,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 640,000,000
\1\ Excludes a proposed advance appropriation of $200,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001.
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
established a rural rental assistance program to be
administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by low-income
families to extend expiring contracts or provide full amounts
authority to existing contracts; any remaining authority will
be used for projects receiving new construction commitments
under sections 514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families
with certain limitations.
committee recommendations
For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $640,000,000. This amount is
$200,000,000 more than the budget request and $56,603,000 more
than the 1999 level.
The Committee does not recommend an advance appropriation
of $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 to meet fiscal year 1999
contract obligations, as proposed in the budget.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,000,000
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote
the development of mutual or self-help programs under which
groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by
mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of
construction supervisors who will work with families in the
construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of
the organizations providing the self-help assistance.
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This is the same as the 1999 level and is
$4,000,000 less than the budget request.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $41,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 54,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,000,000
This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant
programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides
greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant
needs.
Rural housing for domestic farm labor.--Financial
assistance in the form of grants is authorized to public or
private nonprofit organizations or other eligible organizations
for low-rent housing and related facilities for domestic farm
labor.
Under section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Rural
Housing Service is authorized to share with States or other
political subdivisions, public or private nonprofit
organizations, or nonprofit organizations of farm workers, the
cost of providing low-rent housing, basic household
furnishings, and related facilities to be used by domestic farm
laborers. Such housing may be for year-round or seasonal
occupancy and consist of family units, apartments, or
dormitory-type units, constructed in an economical manner, and
not of elaborate or extravagant design or materials. Grant
assistance may not exceed 90 percent of the total development
cost. Applicants furnish as much of the development cost as
they can afford by using their own resources, by borrowing
either directly from private sources, or by obtaining an
insured loan under section 514 of the Housing Act. The
applicant must agree to charge rentals which do not exceed
amounts approved by the Secretary, maintain the housing at all
times in a safe and sanitary condition, and give occupancy
preference to domestic farm laborers.
The obligations incurred by the applicant as a condition of
the grant continue for 50 years from the date of the grant
unless sooner terminated by the Rural Housing Service. Grant
obligations are secured by a mortgage of the housing or other
security. In the event of default, the Rural Housing Service
has the option to require repayment of the grant.
Very low-income housing repair grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $5,000, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and technical assistance grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, 524,
and 533. The assistance is directed to very low-income families
in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the
population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent
or more of the population resides in substandard housing. In
fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented
under this authority. This program provides low-income
individuals and families education and counseling on obtaining
and/or maintaining occupancy of adequate housing and supervised
credit assistance to become successful homeowners.
Compensation for construction defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural housing preservation grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and
very low-income people.
The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the
delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the
expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible
applicants will compete on a State-by-State basis for grants
funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-
downs, or grants to finance home repair. The program will be
administered by local grantees.
Committee Recommendations
For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the
Committee recommends $41,000,000. This is $13,000,000 less than
the budget request and the same as the 1999 level.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the 1999 levels and the budget
request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
1999 level 2000 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic farm labor grants...................................... 11,365 15,000 11,365
Very low-income housing repair grants........................... 21,768 30,000 21,768
Rural housing preservation grants............................... 7,867 9,000 7,867
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 41,000 54,000 41,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RHS
Appropriation Transfer from salaries and
loan accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... 60,978 (360,785) (421,763)
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... 61,979 (383,879) (445,858)
Committee recommendation.................................. 60,978 (360,785) (421,763)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Housing Service including reviewing
applications, making and collecting loans, and providing
technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist
in extending other Federal programs to people in rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts for the
rural housing insurance fund and rural community facility
loans. Appropriations to the ``Salaries and expenses'' account
will be for costs associated with grant programs.
Committee Recommendations
For salaries and expenses of the Rural Housing Service,
including transfers from other accounts, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $421,763,000. This is
$24,095,000 less than the budget request and the same as the
fiscal year 1999 level.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $52,860,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 63,201,000
Committee recommendation................................ 54,585,000
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
Committee Recommendations
For the Rural Business-Cooperative Service loans and
grants, the Committee recommends a program level of
$58,756,000. This is $7,544,000 less than the fiscal year 1999
level and $17,739,000 less than the budget request.
The following table presents the Committee's recommended
levels for loans and grants administered by the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service, as compared to the 1999 levels and the
budget request:
RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE GRANTS AND LOANS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
1999 level 2000 request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural development loan fund. (33,000) (52,495) (38,256)
Rural economic development (15,000) (15,000) (15,000)
loans......................
-------------------------------------------
Total, RBS loans...... (48,000) (67,495) (53,256)
===========================================
Rural cooperative 3,300 9,000 5,500
development grants.........
===========================================
Total, RBS loans and \1\ (51,300) (76,495) (58,756)
grants...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional $15,000,000 for EZ/EC activities.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
Loan level, 1999........................................ ($33,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (52,495,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (38,256,000)
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small
investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural
businesses, community development corporations, private
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the
purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities,
and employment opportunities and diversification of the economy
in rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2000, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Committee Recommendations
For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the
Committee recommends a total level of $38,256,000. This is
$14,239,000 less than the budget request and $5,256,000 more
than the 1999 level.
The following table presents the Committee's
recommendations for direct loan subsidy and administrative
expenses, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget
request levels:
ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Direct loan expenses
subsidy transfer to
RBCS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................. $16,615,000 ($3,482,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................. 22,799,000 (3,337,000)
Committee recommendation.............. 16,615,000 (3,337,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
1999 level 2000 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level................................... (15,000) (15,000) (15,000)
Direct loan subsidy.................................... \1\ 3,783 \1\ 3,453 \1\ 3,453
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936, by establishing a new section 313. This section of the
Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion
of credits payment program and created the rural economic
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized
under the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero
interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies,
startup costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose of
fostering rural economic development.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy
appropriation for rural economic development loans of
$3,453,000. This amount is the same as the budget request and
$330,000 less than the 1999 level. As proposed in the budget,
the $3,453,000 provided is derived by transfer from interest on
the cushion of credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,300,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,500,000
\1\ Reflects a transfer of $2,000,000 from salaries and expenses to fund
cooperative research agreements.
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-Federal sources. Grants are competitive and
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Committee Recommendations
The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for rural cooperative
development grants. This is $2,200,000 more than the 1999 level
and $3,500,000 less than the budget request. The Committee does
not provide a transfer of $2,000,000 from salaries and expenses
to fund cooperative research agreements, as proposed in the
budget.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
consider the following applications for cooperative development
grants: Malt Montana, Inc.; Multi-state regional cooperative
development centers; Dawson County economic development, MT;
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives; and eastern shore
economic development, VA.
Of the funds provided for rural cooperative development
grants, $1,500,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for
the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RBS,
Appropriation Transfer from salaries and
loan accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... 25,680 (3,482) (29,162)
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... 24,612 (3,337) (27,949)
Committee recommendation.................................. 25,680 (3,337) (29,017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans, and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends $29,017,000 for salaries and
expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. This is
$145,000 less than the 1999 level and $1,068,000 more than the
budget request.
The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations
of the cooperative services office in Hilo, HI, to address the
increasing demand for cooperatives by the expanding diversified
agriculture sector in Hawaii.
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION CORPORATION
REVOLVING FUND
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,500,000
The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Act of 1990, subtitle G of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, was established to develop
and produce marketable products other than food, feed, or
traditional forest or fiber products. It assists in
researching, developing, commercializing, and marketing new
nonfood, nonfeed uses for traditional and new agricultural
commodities.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,500,000 to
the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation Revolving Fund. This is the same as the fiscal year
1999 level and $6,500,000 less than the budget request.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
Loan level, 1999........................................($1,561,500,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (1,070,000,000)
Committee allowance..................................... (1,561,500,000)
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
committee recommendations
The following table reflects the Committee's recommended
loan levels for the ``Rural electrification and
telecommunications loans program'' account, as compared to the
fiscal year 1999 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Committee
2000 recommendation
1999 level request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Direct loans:
Electric 5 percent... (71,500) (50,000) (71,500)
Telecommunications 5 (75,000) (50,000) (75,000)
percent.............
------------------------------------------
Subtotal........... (146,500) (100,000) (146,500)
==========================================
Treasury rate: (300,000) (300,000) (300,000)
Telecommunications..........
Muni-rate: Electric.......... (295,000) (250,000) (295,000)
FFB loans:
Electric, regular........ (700,000) (300,000) (700,000)
Telecommunications....... (120,000) (120,000) (120,000)
------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... (1,415,000) (970,000) (1,415,000)
==========================================
Total, loan (1,561,500) (1,070,000) (1,561,500)
authorizations........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends budget authority to support an
estimated $1,561,500,000 program level for electric loans,
$491,500,000 more than the budget request and the same as the
fiscal year 1999 level.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. An appropriation to this account will be used
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2000, as well
as for administrative expenses.
committee recommendations
The following table presents the Committee's recommendation
for the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared
to the 1999 level and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
1999 level 2000 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Direct loans:
Electric 5 percent................................... 9,325 450 643
Telecommunications 5 percent......................... 7,342 560 840
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 16,667 1,010 1,483
--------------------------------------------------
Treasury rate: Telecommunications............................ 810 2,370 2,370
Muni-rate: Electric.......................................... 25,842 9,175 10,826
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 43,319 12,555 14,679
==================================================
RETLP administrative expenses................................ 29,982 31,046 29,982
==================================================
Total, ``Rural electrification and telecommunications 73,301 43,601 44,661
loans program'' account...............................
(Loan authorization)......................................... (1,561,500) (1,070,000) (1,561,500)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
Loan level, 1999........................................ ($157,509,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (175,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (157,509,000)
The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin
privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the class A
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired.
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the
Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated in 2000, as well as for administrative
expenses.
committee recommendations
The following table presents the Committee's
recommendations for the direct loan subsidy and administrative
expenses, as compared to the 1999 and budget request levels:
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................... $4,174,000 $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............... 3,290,000 3,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............ 2,961,000 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the ``Rural
Telephone Bank liquidation'' account.
DISTANCE LEARNING AND telemedicine program
loans and grants
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
1999 level 2000 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorization........................................... (150,000) (200,000) (200,000)
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 180 700 700
Grants....................................................... 12,500 20,000 12,500
--------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 12,680 20,700 13,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program is
authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
This program provides incentives to improve the quality of
phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
Committee Recommendations
For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the
Committee recommends $13,200,000. This is $520,000 more than
the 1999 level and $7,500,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
give consideration to the following applications for grants and
loans: the National Center for American Indian and Alaska
Native Mental Health Research Center multistate digital/
distance learning project; a distance learning link between the
Bennington school system and rural schools in Southern Vermont;
the continuing education model distance learning program made
up of a consortium of Kansas State University and community
colleges in Colby, Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal, KS;
Hundley-Whaley Research Center, Missouri; Northern California
Telemedicine Network; 1994 land grant institutions; and the
Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network, a multiagency
statewide telemedicine initiative to provide health care
services to remote communities on a cost-effective basis by
saving unnecessary air transportation costs to urban and
regional health care providers.
The Committee also is aware of the need for the distance
learning and telemedicine link program of the Maui Community
College, the community hospital system, and the nutrition
education activities of the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. The Committee
encourages the Department to fund a demonstration project to
build upon existing resources and to further the use of
advanced telecommunications by rural communities.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RUS,
Appropriation Transfers from salaries and
loan accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... $33,000,000 ($32,982,000) ($65,982,000)
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... 34,107,000 (34,046,000) (68,153,000)
Committee recommendation.................................. 33,000,000 (32,982,000) (65,982,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, including reviewing
applications, making and collecting loans, and providing
technical assistance and guidance to borrowers, and to assist
in extending other Federal programs to people in rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts for the
agricultural credit insurance fund and the rural housing
insurance fund. Appropriations to the ``Salaries and expenses''
account will be for costs associated with grant programs.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends $65,982,000, including transfers
of funds, for salaries and expenses of the Rural Utilities
Service. This is the same as the 1999 level and $2,171,000 less
than the budget request.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $554,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 576,000
Committee recommendation................................ 554,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $554,000. This amount is the same as the 1999
level and $22,000 less than the budget request.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Food assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child nutrition programs.--The national school lunch and
school breakfast, summer food service, and child and adult care
food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches
and breakfasts to children attending schools of high school
grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care
centers, and to children in other institutions in order to
improve the health and well-being of the Nation's children, and
broaden the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through
the special milk program, assistance is provided to the States
for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child
care institutions which institute or expand milk service in
order to increase the consumption of fluid milk by children.
Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and
transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income by providing
supplemental foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be
done through health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food
stores, or other approved methods which a cooperating State
health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided
by direct appropriation.
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program.--This program
provides (WIC and WIC-eligible) participants with coupons to
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and
vegetables, from farmers markets. The program is designed to
accomplish two major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or
WIC-eligible participants; and (2) increase the awareness and
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
Food Stamp Program.--This program seeks to improve
nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance
is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a
better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability,
usually by furnishing benefits in the form of food stamps. The
program also includes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. The
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35)
authorizes a block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto
Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in
establishing a food assistance program that is specifically
tailored to the needs of its low-income households.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase
commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Funds
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] and
the Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), by
an amendment to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act.
Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting
administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding for
use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters. Commodities, or cash in lieu of commodities, are
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly. Funds
for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Food Program Administration.--Most salaries and Federal
operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded
from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and
revisions to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the
focal point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion
and education policy to improve the health of all Americans. As
of September 30, 1998, there were 1,557 full-time permanent and
107 part-time and temporary employees in the agency. FNS's
headquarters staff, which is located in Alexandria VA, totals
539, and 1,025 FNS employees are located in the field. There
are 7 regional offices employing 820 employees, and the balance
of the agency is located in 6 food stamp compliance offices, 1
computer support center in Minneapolis, MN, 1 administrative
review office, and 70 field offices. Funds for this program are
provided by direct appropriation.
child nutrition programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... 4,128,747 5,048,150 9,176,897
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... \1\ 4,635,768 4,929,268 9,565,036
Committee recommendation.................................. \2\ 4,624,829 4,935,199 9,560,028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $15,000,000 in discretionary funding.
\2\ Includes $13,000,000 in discretionary funding.
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the National
School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States administering the programs
and directly administers the program in the States which choose
not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional training and
surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under current
law, most of these payments are made on the basis of
reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches
and breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement
rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer
Price Index for food away from home.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child
nutrition provisions. These include:
Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].--Reauthorizes the
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--Permanently
authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age
18 in after-school programs, and provides funds for
demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children
and family day care homes in low-income areas. Beginning on
July 1, 1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the
Homeless Summer Food Service Program will be transferred into
the CACFP.
National School Lunch Program [NSLP].--(1) Significantly
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
A description of child nutrition programs follows:
1. Cash payments to States.--The programs are operated
under an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the
Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to
State agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and
other institutions. Sponsors make application to the State
agencies, and if approved, are reimbursed on a per-meal basis
in accordance with the terms of their agreements and rates
prescribed by law. The reimbursement rates are adjusted
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for
food away from home.
(a) School Lunch Program.--Assistance is provided to
the States for the service of lunches to all school
children, regardless of family income. States must
match some of the Federal cash grant. In fiscal year
2000, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance
for serving an estimated 4.6 billion school lunches
including 1.9 billion for children from upper-income
families and 2.7 billion for children from lower and
low-income families. An estimated 27.4 million children
are expected to participate in the program daily during
the school year.
(b) Special assistance for free and reduced-price
lunches.--Additional assistance is provided to the
States for serving lunches free or at a reduced price
to needy children. In fiscal year 2000, under current
law, the program will provide assistance for about 4.6
billion lunches, of which 2.3 billion will be served
free of charge and 0.4 billion at reduced price. About
16 million needy children will participate in the
program on an average schoolday during the year.
(c) School Breakfast Program.--Federal reimbursement
to the States is based on the number of breakfasts
served free, at a reduced price, or at the general rate
for those served to nonneedy children. Certain schools
are designated in severe need because, in the second
preceding year, they served at least 40 percent of
their lunches at free or reduced prices and because the
regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to
cover cost, receive higher rates of reimbursement in
both the free and reduced-price categories. In fiscal
year 2000, the program will serve an estimated 1.3
billion breakfasts to a daily average of 7.8 million
children.
A pilot project is authorized to study the effects of
providing free breakfast to all students without regard
to family income.
(d) State administrative expenses.--The funds may be
used for State employee salaries, benefits, support
services, and office equipment. Public Law 95-627 made
the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5
percent of certain Federal payments in the second
previous year. In fiscal year 2000, $120,104,000 will
be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State
administrative expenses and to improve the management
of various nutrition programs.
(e) Summer Food Service Program.--Meals served free
to children in low-income neighborhoods during the
summer months are supported on a performance basis by
Federal cash subsidies to State agencies. Funds are
also provided for related State and local
administrative expenses. During the summer of 2000,
approximately 155.3 million meals will be served.
(f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Preschool
children receive year-round food assistance in
nonprofit child care centers and family and group day
care homes under this program. Public Law 97-35 permits
profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation
under title XX of the Social Security Act to
participate in the program if 25 percent of the
children served are title XX participants. Certain
adult day care centers are also eligible for
participation in this program, providing subsidized
meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or older.
The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses State
agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches,
suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related
State audit expenses. In fiscal year 2000,
approximately 1.8 billion meals will be served.
2. Commodity procurement.--Commodities are purchased for
distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer
food service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for
all school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers
served is mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to
reflect changes in the producer price index for food used in
schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these
funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32
funds.
3. Nutrition studies and education.--
(a) Nutrition education and training [NET].--This
program provides funds to State agencies for the
development of comprehensive nutrition education and
information programs for children participating in or
eligible for school lunch and related child nutrition
programs.
(b) National Food Service Management Institute
[NFSMI].--The National Food Service Management
Institute provides instruction for educators and school
food service personnel in nutrition and food service
management.
4. Special milk.--In fiscal year 2000, approximately 131.4
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program.
These include about 123.8 million half-pints served to children
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During
fiscal year 2000, the average full cost reimbursement for milk
served to needy children is expected to be 17.2 cents for each
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be
reimbursed at 13.1 cents for each half-pint.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $4,624,829,000, plus transfers from section
32 of $4,935,199,000, for a total program of $9,560,028,000.
This amount is $383,131,000 more than the 1999 level and
$5,008,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 1999 estimate 2000 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program............................................ 5,435,480 5,480,010 5,480,010
School Breakfast Program........................................ 1,351,580 1,421,789 1,421,789
State administrative expenses................................... 114,858 120,104 120,104
Summer Food Service Program..................................... 288,906 314,946 314,946
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................... 1,630,286 1,769,766 1,769,766
Special Milk Program............................................ 17,445 17,551 17,551
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support......... 322,042 406,499 406,499
Nutrition studies and surveys................................... .............. 3,000 ..............
Coordinated review system....................................... 4,300 4,363 4,363
Team nutrition.................................................. 10,000 10,008 10,000
Food safety education........................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000
Nutrition education and training................................ .............. 2,000 ..............
School breakfast demonstration project.......................... .............. 13,000 13,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendation includes $10,000,000 for
team nutrition. Included in this amount is a minimum of
$4,100,000 for food service training and technical assistance,
of which $1,900,000 is for technical assistance materials,
$475,000 is for print and electronic food service resource
systems, and $800,000 is for cooperative agreements with the
National Food Service Management Institute for food service;
and $4,000,000 for food service training grants to States. The
Committee encourages the agency to consider grant applications
for local initiatives for nutrition education, such as the
``Common Roots'' program. The Committee expects FNS to utilize
the Food Service Management Institute to carry out the food
safety education program.
The Committee urges the Secretary to develop a better
strategy to encourage participation in after-school centers by
adolescents and older children through programs available under
the authorities of the Child Nutrition Act. The Committee is
concerned that members of the qualifying age group who lack
proper after-school supervision will be more prone to
participate in undesirable activities. The use of nutritional
programs should be considered an appropriate tool to attract
adolescents to a more risk-free environment which should help
improve academic performance and reduce the incidence of
juvenile crime. In addition, the Secretary is directed to
provide information to the Committee relating to the
effectiveness of such a program and provide views on the
advisability of expanding the availability of free or reduced
meals under this authority to children over the age of 12.
The Committee has provided $13,000,000 for the school
breakfast demonstration project. The Committee directs the
Department to have a rigorous study which tests the claims made
that major educational and behavioral improvements occur when
school breakfasts are provided. The study should also be
designed to consider the effects of changes in educational
policies versus changes in the school breakfast program. The
Committee encourages the agency to use the resources of the
National School Food Service Management Institute and the
Institute for Research on Poverty in the evaluation of the
pilot program.
The Committee directs the agency to prepare and submit a
report to the Committee no later than January 1, 2000, that
describes a comprehensive, integrated approach to nutrition
education as a complement to the various nutrition assistance
programs. Such a report should highlight the aspects of current
programs such as Team Nutrition, the Nutrition Education and
Training (NET) and other school-based nutrition programs to be
included in an integrated program. The report should also
identify gaps in current programs and approaches as well as
potential funding sources and solutions. This report is to be
developed in close consultation with other government agencies
such as the Department of Education, Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other
organizations, including the American Dietetic Association, the
Society for Nutrition Education, the National Association of
State NET Coordinators, and the American School Food Service
Association.
The Committee urges the Department to provide technical
assistance and guidance to those states not maximizing the
number of children served under the Child and Adult Care Food
Program in their jurisdiction. These states should be
encouraged to follow the example of those states that pool a
limited amount of Title XX with Child Care Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) funds to meet the technical requirement of the
current law.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
[wic]
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $3,924,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 4,105,495,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 4,038,107,000
\1\ Includes up to $15,000,000 for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program.
\2\ Excludes funding for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program which
the budget proposes to fund under the ``Commodity Assistance Program''
account.
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.5
million participants at an average food cost of $33.42 per
person per month in fiscal year 2000.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998 Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through
2003 and adds several provisions to the program. For example,
the act requires that an individual seeking certification or
recertification in the program must provide documentation of
family income. In addition, the act permits State agencies to
award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder offering
the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State agency
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
weighted average retail price for different brands of formula
in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
Public Law 105-336 also includes many provisions to improve
retailer integrity and help to prevent fraud, waste and abuse
in the program.
The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] is also
funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to
accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC (or
WIC-eligible) participants by providing them with coupons to
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and
vegetables, from farmers markets; and (2) to increase the
awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
Although directly related to the WIC Program, about one-half of
the current FMNP operations are administered by State
departments of agriculture rather than the State WIC agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $4,038,107,000. This amount is $114,107,000
more than the 1999 appropriation and $67,388,000 less than the
budget request.
The WIC Program continues to be a high priority of this
Committee. The appropriation recommended by the Committee,
together with anticipated carryover funds, will provide
sufficient funding to maintain a 7.4 million average monthly
WIC participation level in fiscal year 2000.
The Committee makes available up to $15,000,000, the same
as the fiscal year 1999 level, to carry out the WIC Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program.
The Committee commends state and local WIC agencies for
their commitment to promoting the overall health and
nutritional well-being of the nation's low-income,
nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children. Recognizing
that for many participants, WIC may be the only consistent
point of contact with public and private health services, the
Committee supports and encourages state and local agency
efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participant
referral to other health care services. Among the issues WIC
agencies face in accomplishing these goals is the lack of
reimbursement for additional services, including screening and
assessment services, for other Federal agency services and
programs. As an example, the National Association of WIC
Directors estimates that screening, assessment and referral
services performed at the level requested of WIC by the
National Immunization Program (NIP) could cost the WIC program
over $84,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 with reimbursement for
those services from NIP at less than $8,000,000. This
jeopardizes WIC agencies' ability to deliver the core mission
of WIC program services--quality nutrition education and
counseling, breast-feeding promotion and support, and related
health care services. The Committee includes language in the
bill to preserve WIC funding for authorized WIC services. The
Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to work with
other Federal departments and agencies to ensure that, except
for education and referral purposes, WIC funds are not used to
pay the administrative expenses or to coordinate operations or
activities of other Federal agency services or programs unless
fully reimbursed by those agencies.
food stamp program
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEFAP
Expenses Amount in Puerto Rico commodity Total
reserve purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................... \1\ 19,909,1 100,000 1,236,000 90,000 \1\ 21,335,1
06 06
Budget estimate, 2000..................... 20,109,444 1,000,000 1,268,000 100,000 \2\ 27,284,4
44
Committee recommendation.................. 20,098,744 100,000 1,268,000 97,000 21,563,744
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes additional funding of $500,000 appropriated by Public Law 105-379 for a study of a national data
base for Federal means-tested public assistance programs, and includes the rescission of $1,250,000,000 of the
funds appropriated, pursuant to Public Law 106-31.
\2\ Reflects an additional $7,000,000 for discretionary spending and an advance fiscal year 2001 appropriation
of $4,800,000.
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power.
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible
without food stamp assistance. The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
193, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year
2002.
The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Participating households receive food stamps, the value of
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of
the stamps is paid by the Federal Government and is called the
benefit cost. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition
Service periodically revises household stamp allotments to
reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan. The last
revision was made on October 1, 1998.
State social service agencies assume responsibility for
certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps through
suitable outlets. Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps
as payment for food purchases and forward them to commercial
banks for cash or credit. The stamps flow through the banking
system to the Federal Reserve Bank for redemption out of a
special account maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department. The
major alternative to the paper food stamp system is electronic
benefit transfer [EBT].
By the end of fiscal year 1998, 35 States and the District
of Columbia had operating EBT systems. They are Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and
Wyoming. Twenty-eight of these systems are statewide. All other
States are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT
systems.
Nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives
the commonwealth broad flexibility to establish a food
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs
of its low-income households. However, the commonwealth must
submit its annual plan of operation to the Secretary for
approval. The FAIR Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127, enacted
November 5, 1996, reauthorizes appropriations through fiscal
year 2002. In addition to the provision of direct benefits to
the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to fund up to 50
percent of the cost of administering the program. The grant may
also be used to fund projects to improve agriculture and food
distribution in Puerto Rico.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
Effective October 1, 1997, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) added section 27 to the Food Stamp Act which provides that
$100,000,000 of food stamp funds be used to purchase
commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Administrative costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis. Under the Hunger Prevention Act of
1988, a State agency is held liable if its error rate of
overissuances exceeds the lowest achieved national error rate
average plus 1 percent. Liabilities are based on the level of
State issuance and the extent to which the State's error rate
exceeds a tolerance level. State agencies which reduce quality
control error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum
match of 60 percent of their administrative expenses. Also,
State agencies are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of
administering the program on Indian reservations.
State administration also includes State antifraud
activities.--Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief
Act of 1993, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50
percent of the costs of their food stamp fraud investigations
and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills,
training, or experience that will increase their ability to
obtain regular employment. In fiscal year 1987, the Department
of Agriculture implemented a new grant program to States to
assist them in providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends
$21,563,774,000. This is $228,638,000 more than the 1999
appropriated level and $5,720,700,000 less than the budget
request. Of the amount provided, $100,000,000 is made available
as a contingency reserve, $900,000,000 less than the
contingency reserve level proposed in the budget and the same
as the 1999 level. The Committee does not include in its
recommendation discretionary funding for outreach activities or
an advance fiscal year 2001 appropriation, as proposed in the
budget.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $131,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 155,215,000
Committee recommendation................................ 131,000,000
\1\ Includes $20,000,000 in funding for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition
Program.
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food
Assistance Program. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the
President proposes to merge the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition
Program into this program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97-98, this program
provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age 6,
and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who have
low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition,
the program operates commodity distribution projects directed
at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
In fiscal year 2000 approximately 129,100 women, infants,
and young children and 282,800 elderly are authorized to
receive food packages each month. The foods are provided by the
Department of Agriculture for distribution through State
agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant
formula, rice cereal, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter or dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The 1996 FAIR Act, Public Law 104-127, reauthorizes the
program through fiscal year 2002.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Title II of
Public Law 98-8, enacted March 3, 1983, authorized and
appropriated funds for the costs of intrastate storage and
transportation of CCC-donated commodities. Under the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-193), the Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was
absorbed into TEFAP by amending section 201A of the Emergency
Food Assistance Act. While commodities will not be purchased
specifically for soup kitchens and food banks, they will be
eligible to receive commodities through TEFAP.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
In fiscal year 1998, $108,800,000 worth of surplus
commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals.
Donations will continue in fiscal year 1999. Precise levels
depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and
requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 2000,
$45,000,000 will be used to help State and local authorities
with the storage and distribution costs of providing surplus
commodities to needy individuals. Although the $45,000,000 was
allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds,
each State is authorized to redirect funding for the purchase
of additional commodities.
The 1996 FAIR Act reauthorizes administrative funding
through fiscal year 2002 and allows these funds to be used for
local repackaging and further processing of commodities high in
nutrient content. The law requires CCC bonus commodities to be
distributed through TEFAP, and reauthorizes funding for the
purchase of TEFAP commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $131,000,000. This amount is the
same as the 1999 appropriation and $24,215,000 less than the
budget request.
The Committee continues to encourage the Department to
distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among
the States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities
of each State and the State's preference to receive commodity
allocations through each of the three programs funded under
this account.
FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $141,081,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 151,081,000
Committee recommendation................................ 141,081,000
Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--Commodity support for
the Nutrition Program for the Elderly is authorized by titles
III and VI of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The foods
provided are used in preparing meals which are served in senior
citizen centers and similar settings or delivered to the
homebound elderly. These meals are the focal point of the
nutrition projects for the elderly which have the dual
objective of promoting better health and reducing the isolation
of old age.
Currently, commodities or cash in lieu of commodities are
distributed through State agencies to the local meal sites at a
specific rate per meal. The estimated rate for 1999 is 55.40
cents per meal. Some States elect to take all of their subsidy
in cash and some States choose to receive a combination of cash
and commodities. The commodities made available to the
Nutrition Program for the Elderly are generally the same as
those provided to schools under the child nutrition programs.
Pacific Island assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the food donations programs for selected groups, the
Committee recommends $141,081,000. This amount is the same as
the 1999 appropriation and $10,000,000 less than the budget
request. Of the amount recommended by the Committee, $1,081,000
is for food distribution payments to the Pacific Islands and
$140,000,000 is for the elderly feeding program.
food program administration
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $108,561,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 119,841,000
Committee recommendation................................ 111,561,000
\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $2,000,000 from the Economic
Research Service for studies and evaluations pursuant to Public Law 105-
277.
The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs;
Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], including the Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program; Food Stamp Program; nutrition
assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program,
including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the
Emergency Food Assistance Program; and the Food Donations
Programs, including the Nutrition Program for the Elderly and
Pacific Island Assistance.
The major objective of Food Program Administration is to
efficiently and effectively carry out the food assistance
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Food Program Administration, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $111,561,000. This amount is $8,280,000
less than the budget request and $3,000,000 more than the 1999
level. The Committee's recommendation includes $3,000,000 of
the increase requested in the budget for program and financial
integrity advancement. The need to strengthen review and
oversight of food and nutrition programs and of the State
agencies carrying out these programs is clear given the recent
findings of the General Accounting Office and USDA's Office of
the Inspector General.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from
Appropriations loan accounts Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... 136,203 (4,266) (140,469)
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... \1\ 137,768 (4,506) \1\ (142,274)
Committee recommendation.................................. 136,203 (4,266) (140,469)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposes legislation to fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program
($27,500,000) from Commodity Credit Corporation funds.
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence
and reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with
information on world agricultural production and trade that
they can use to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S.
agricultural products. This is accomplished through a
continuous program of reporting by 64 posts located throughout
the world covering some 130 countries.
The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural
information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and
demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current
situation and to forecast the export potential for specific
U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about
commodities are combined with attache reports and subjected to
analysis through advanced econometric techniques to generate
these estimates.
In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques
for identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of
events which may affect the condition and expected production
of foreign crops of economic importance to the United States.
The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided
analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and
related data.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 71 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with
market development cooperators, trade associations, State
departments of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales
teams to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS
sponsors overseas trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural
products, provides information about foreign importers, and
performs a wide range of market development activities.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program,
a joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association
partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture
export expansion. Through 1998, nonprofit private trade and
producer associations have generated an estimated
$1,288,000,000 in contributions to more than match the
$764,000,000 contributed by FAS to finance overseas market
promotion activities under the Cooperator Program. In addition,
GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the
recent progress of American agriculture in the world
marketplace.
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to
establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 17
such offices are in operation at key foreign trading centers to
assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing
officials in trade promotion.
The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the
Department's formulation of trade policies and programs with
the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S.
agricultural products. It monitors international compliance
with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies
restrictive tariff and trade practices which act as barriers to
the import of U.S. agricultural commodities, then supports
negotiations to remove them. It acts to counter and eliminate
unfair trade practices by other countries that hinder U.S.
agricultural exports to third markets.
FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of
International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote
U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing
countries as parts of a complementary global agricultural
system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all
people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies
and U.S. agricultural perspectives in its programs of
international agricultural cooperation and development, and in
its work with foreign countries, international organizations,
U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the U.S.
Government, and the U.S. private sector.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
committee recommendations
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $136,203,000. This is the same
as the 1999 appropriation and $1,565,000 less than the budget
request.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 1999
levels for the Cochran Fellowship Program and for the Foreign
Market Development Cooperator Program.
The Committee includes language in the bill, as requested
in the budget, to allow up to $2,000,000 of the amount
appropriated to the FAS to remain available until expended
solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in
international currency exchange rates, subject to
documentation.
The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-
authorized levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP)
in order to ensure U.S. producers have fair access to foreign
markets.
The Committee recognizes the benefits of providing for new
participants in the Foreign Market Development and other
Foreign Agricultural Service export programs. This ensures, to
the full extent possible, that producers in every state, and
that all types and forms of the commodity, are fairly
represented. The Committee commends FAS for its recent efforts
to ensure such fair representation for all types of rice and
for all U.S. rice producers.
The Committee is aware of efforts underway by the Foreign
Agricultural Service to develop emerging markets in areas
including the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia. The Committee encourages the agency to consider a
request of the University of Wisconsin-River Falls to
participate in this program.
public law 480
public law 480 title i program account
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... \1\ 203,475 \1\ 176,596 \1\ 1,850
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... 138,324 114,062 1,938
Committee recommendation.................................. 142,840 117,786 1,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes credit level of $762,665,263, subsidy of $637,620,285, and administrative expenses of $2,000,000
associated with food assistance to Russia funded through the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans
obligated in 2000 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the act authorizes financing of
sales to developing countries for local currencies and for
dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local currency
may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides
for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars
on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to
5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and
supporting agricultural development and research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms
or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and
countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment
to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their
agricultural economies.
committee recommendations
For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends a
program level of $159,089,000. This amount is $60,635,000 less
than the 1999 level and $8,765,000 more than the budget
request. Along with estimated title I carryover balances, the
budget authority recommended by the Committee for Public Law
480 title I loan subsidy and ocean freight differential costs
will, at a minimum, maintain the $219,724,000 funded fiscal
year 1999 title I program level in fiscal year 2000. The
corresponding loan levels, subsidies, and administrative
expenses are reflected in the table above.
The Committee is concerned that carryover balances in the
Public Law 480 program (titles I and II) may exceed reasonable
levels and expects the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to
the Committee by December 1, 1999, an explanation as to why
these balances have grown in recent years and the action being
taken to fully utilize Public Law 480 resources.
public law 480 grants account (title i ocean freight differential,
title ii and title iii)
Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $878,249,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 799,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 803,249,000
\1\ Excludes $88,057,501 associated with food assistance to Russia
funded through the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation, and $149,200,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations
provided by Public Law 106-31.
Ocean freight differential costs in connection with
commodity sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table shows the Committee's recommendations
for the Public Law 480 grant account:
PUBLIC LAW 480 GRANT ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
1999 enacted 2000 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I ocean freight differential.............................. \1\ 16,249 12,000 16,249
Title II commodities supplied in connection with dispositions \2\ 837,000 787,000 787,000
abroad.........................................................
Title III commodities supplied in connection with dispositions 25,000 .............. ..............
abroad.........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... \1\ \2\ 799,000 803,249
878,249
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $88,057,501 associated with food assistance to Russia funded through the transfer of funds from the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
\2\ Excludes $149,200,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations provided by Public Law 106-31.
Public Law 480, title II.--The new budget authority
recommended by the Committee for title II, together with
anticipated carryover balances, will allow, at a minimum, the
fiscal year 1999 title II program level of $837,000,000 to be
maintained in fiscal year 2000.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
[FAIR Act], Public Law 104-127, requires that a minimum of
2.025 million metric tons of commodities be provided each
fiscal year under title II authority, of which 1.55 million
metric tons--three-fourths of the total minimum tonnage--is
designated for development programs that address chronic hunger
and its root causes in areas with inadequate food security.
The Committee expects USAID's administration of Public Law
480 title II to encourage private voluntary organizations
[PVO's], cooperatives, and the World Food Program [WFP] to
generate a sufficient volume of proposals to allocate roughly
three-fourths of the total title II tonnage funded for fiscal
year 2000 for these PVO's, cooperatives, and the WFP for
developmental food security programs.
The Committee recognizes the authority of USAID to waive
this minimum when this volume of commodities cannot be used
effectively and for certain emergencies, but believes this
waiver should be used rarely, and only when emergency needs can
be weighed against concrete proposals for a fully funded
longer-term development program.
The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal
year 2000 to continue the fiscal year 1999 level for the orphan
feeding program in Haiti.
The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the
people of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith
Council, the Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to
collect and distribute food and other assistance to people
living in the Russian Far East. The Committee urges the
Administration to work with these entities to take advantage of
their volunteer efforts in feeding people in the Russian Far
East, particularly abandoned children living in orphanages and
hospitals.
Public Law 480, title III.--As proposed in the budget, the
Committee provides no new funding for title III grants.
Authority is provided to transfer funds to title III should a
transfer be deemed appropriate.
commodity credit corporation export loans program account
(export credit programs, gsm-102 and gsm-103)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................................... 4,721,000 \1\ 437,355 3,820
Budget estimate, 2000..................................... 4,506,000 \1\ 439,590 4,085
Committee recommendation.................................. 4,506,000 \1\ 439,590 3,820
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees.
In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program
(GSM-103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority as
required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is
similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), but
provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold
on credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10
years. The program also provides for adjusting the maximum
amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the
payment guarantee and permits freight costs to be covered for
breeding animals financed under the GSM-102 and GSM-103
programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The mission of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is to
ensure that: (1) food is safe, pure, and wholesome; (2)
cosmetics are unadulterated; (3) human and animal drugs,
biological products, and therapeutic devices are safe and
effective; and (4) radiological products and use procedures do
not result in unnecessary exposure to radiation.
Under the foods program, FDA sets food standards; evaluates
food additives and packaging for potential health hazards;
conducts research to reduce food-borne disease, to determine
specific health impacts of hazardous substances in food and to
develop methods for detecting them in foods; maintains
surveillance over foods through plant inspections, laboratory
analyses, and legal action where necessary; and ensures fair
and informative labeling and nutrient information.
The drugs program includes the premarket review of human
and animal drugs and biological products in order to ensure
their safety and efficacy; research to improve the agency's
base of scientific knowledge; and the postmarketing monitoring
of drug experience. FDA conducts manufacturer inspections and
sample examinations to ensure industry compliance. Included
under this program activity is the similar regulation of animal
drugs and feeds, as well as a program to assure the safety of
animal-derived human foods.
The devices and radiological products program conducts
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of medical devices
to assure their safety and efficacy, and sets standards for the
manufacture and use of radiological products to protect the
public from unnecessary exposure to radiation. FDA monitors
experience with medical devices, and conducts inspections of
manufacturing plants and tests of radiological products to
ensure compliance with regulations and standards; conducts
research to improve the agency's base of scientific knowledge;
and conducts education programs to promote safe and effective
use of devices and radiological products.
For these three major product-oriented programs, the agency
utilizes a wide variety of scientific skills to deal with the
many types of products regulated and the many scientific
decisions FDA must make. These skills range from field
investigators, all of whom must have education in the physical
or biological sciences, to chemists, microbiologists,
engineers, medical officers, and scientists from many other
disciplines. Similarly, FDA utilizes a variety of laboratory
facilities, both to test products for safety and to conduct the
research necessary to evaluate health hazards and to develop
the means to detect product hazards and prevent them.
In addition, the National Center for Toxicological Research
in Jefferson, AR, serves as a specialized resource for FDA's
other program elements. This facility conducts research to
improve the base of scientific knowledge and applied science
which the agency uses in conducting its regulatory and consumer
protection missions.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Appropriation Prescription clinics Total
drug user fees inspection fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................... 970,867 132,273 14,385 1,117,525
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............... 1,109,950 145,434 14,817 1,270,201
Committee recommendation................ 1,035,538 145,434 14,817 1,195,789
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget assumes that an additional $17,000,000 in collections will be available to FDA for
fiscal year 2000 from proposed new user fees, and an additional $13,400,000 will be available for anti-
bioterrorism activities by transfer from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund.
committee recommendations
For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,035,538,000. This amount is $64,672,000
more than the 1999 level and $74,412,000 less than the budget
request. The Committee also recommends $145,434,000 in
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections, and
$14,817,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee
collections, as assumed in the President's budget. These
amounts are $13,161,000 and $432,000 above the 1999 levels,
respectively. The Committee includes bill language which
prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any
program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. The
Committee continues its view that legislative proposals to
establish new user fees should be submitted for consideration
by the appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress and
not assumed in the appropriations request until enacted into
law.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 1999 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
1999 enacted 2000 request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field
activities:
Foods................... 231,580 265,955 \1\ \2\ 264,84
5
-------------------------------------------
Center for Food 98,536 116,011 \1\ \2\ 117,44
Safety and Applied 0
Nutrition [CFSAN]..
Field activities.... 133,044 149,944 \2\ 147,405
Food safety (144,976) (169,576) (165,276)
initiatives)...
===========================================
Seafood Inspection ............ 3,000 ..............
Program................
===========================================
Human drugs............. 200,305 214,007 \2\ 206,273
-------------------------------------------
Center for Drug 128,464 139,493 \2\ 133,799
Evaluation and
Research [CDER]....
Orphan product 11,542 11,115 11,542
grants.............
Field activities.... 60,299 63,399 \2\ 60,932
===========================================
Biologics............... 96,279 107,429 \2\ 101,407
-------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics 78,535 85,485 \2\ 83,556
Evaluation and
Research [CBER]....
Field activities.... 17,744 21,944 \2\ 17,851
===========================================
Animal drugs............ 41,973 52,473 \1\ 48,221
-------------------------------------------
Center for 29,375 36,375 \1\ \2\ 35,595
Veterinary Medicine
[CVM]..............
Field activities.... 12,598 16,098 \2\ 12,626
Food safety (4,100) (7,700) \1\ \2\ (8,400
initiatives)... )
===========================================
Medical and radiological 145,736 164,411 \2\ 154,271
devices................
-------------------------------------------
Center for Devices 106,561 114,736 \2\ 114,211
and Radiological
Health [CDRH].....
Field activities.... 39,175 49,675 \2\ 40,060
===========================================
National Center for 31,579 33,679 \2\ 34,436
Toxicological Research
[NCTR].................
(Food safety (500) (1,000) (900)
initiatives).......
===========================================
Tobacco................. 34,000 68,000 34,000
===========================================
Other activities............ 80,694 80,604 \2\ 71,693
-------------------------------------------
Office of the 11,710 11,620 \2\ 9,527
Commissioner...........
Office of Policy........ 2,867 2,867 ( \2\ )
Office of External 15,061 15,061 ( \2\ )
Affairs................
Office of Operations.... 3,559 3,559 ( \2\ )
Office of Management and 38,964 38,964 \2\ 30,923
Systems................
Office of Senior ............ ............ \2\ 10,265
Associate Commissioner.
Office of International ............ ............ \2\ 4,914
and Constituent
Relations..............
Office of Policy, ............ ............ \2\ 8,544
Legislation, and
Planning...............
Central services........ 8,533 8,533 \2\ 7,520
(Food safety (8,759) (8,759) (8,759)
initiatives).......
===========================================
Rent and related activities. 25,855 25,855 25,855
Rental payments to GSA...... 82,866 94,537 94,537
===========================================
Total, FDA salaries 970,867 \3\ 1,109,95 \1\ \2\ 1,035,
and expenses, new 0 538
budget authority.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes approved fiscal year 1999 food safety reprogramming.
\2\ Reflects impact of proposed reorganization of the Commissioner's
office and related activities..
\3\ Excludes proposed $13,400,000 transfer from Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund for anti-bioterrorism activities.
Food safety.--An increase of $25,000,000 from the fiscal
year 1999 level of $158,335,000 is recommended by the Committee
for FDA food safety activities.
Included in the amount provided for food safety, the
Committee continues the fiscal year 1999 funding level of
$250,000 for a cooperative research program related to
molluscan shellfish and further expects the agency to continue
its education program on the consumption of raw shellfish.
With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public
health, the Committee believes that collaborative research in
food safety should continue among government, academia, and
private industry. The national model for that collaboration has
been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST)
in Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to
maintain at least $2,000,000 as the annual base level of
funding for the National Center. The Committee encourages the
FDA to consider a reprogramming of funds to provide up to an
additional $1,000,000, subject to the procedures for the
reprogramming of funds contained in this act.
Premarket application review.--The Committee provides an
increase of $28,000,000 in budget authority from the fiscal
year 1999 level for FDA premarket application review. This is
the same amount requested in the budget for these activities
through a combination of new budget authority and collections
from proposed new user fees.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act now includes a mission
statement that requires the agency to promote the public health
by ``promptly and efficiently'' reviewing clinical research and
taking action on the marketing of regulated products in ``a
timely manner''. This mission statement reinforces the core
statutory obligation of the agency to review drugs and devices
within statutory time frames and to ensure speedy access by
patients to new products. FDA has indicated that new blood
products, animal drugs, medical devices, and food additives all
suffer from lengthy review times, short of meeting statutory
performance requirements. At the same time, new products are
increasing annually.
As proposed in the budget, the $28,000,000 increase in new
budget authority for premarket application review is to be
allocated as follows: $11,400,000 for foods (+51 FTEs);
$2,400,000 for human drugs (+13 FTEs); $4,000,000 for biologics
(+16 FTEs); $1,600,000 for animal drugs (+14 FTEs); $7,000,000
for devices (+45 FTEs); and $1,600,000 for the National Center
for Toxicological Research (+2 FTEs).
The Committee understands the base appropriations and
staffing levels for premarket review to be as follows:
$16,310,000 and 134 FTEs for foods; $162,813,000 and 1,261 FTEs
for human drugs; $57,263,000 and 410 FTEs for biologics;
$11,546,000 and 115 FTEs for animal drugs; $48,500,000 and 477
FTEs for medical devices.
Included in the $11,400,000 increase provided for premarket
application review for the foods program is an additional
$5,400,000 for the the direct additive process and $6,000,000
for FDA to fully implement the food contact substances program,
as authorized by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
Included in the increase provided for human drugs premarket
application review, the Committee provides an increase of
$1,900,000, as proposed by the President, for the Office of
Generic Drugs. As proposed in the budget, these funds are to be
used to increase staffing levels of the Office of Generic Drugs
by not less than 11 full-time equivalent positions above the
fiscal year 1999 level.
The aquaculture drug industry has done an excellent job
within the past six years of conducting studies and assembling
packages in support of New Animal Drug Applications, but the
growth of the industry has exceeded FDA's capability to review
aquaculture drug submissions in a timely manner. Within the
increase provided to the Center for Veterinary Medicine to pre-
market application review, the Committee expects at least
$200,000 and two new full-time equivalent positions to be
provided above the 1999 level for the timely review of
aquaculture drug submissions.
The Committee believes that Americans should have timely
access to medical technology. While review times for medical
devices have improved over the past few years, FDA still falls
short of meeting the statutory requirements. Even using the
definition of ``first'' action taken, FDA reports that only 51
percent of PMAs and 64 percent of 510(k)s received action
within the required time frames. The additional resources
appropriated for device premarket application review are to be
used by FDA to improve the timeliness of its medical device
review process to begin to meet statutory performance
requirements.
Clinical Pharmacology Program.--The Committee continues to
provide $700,000, the fiscal year 1999 level of funding, for
clinical pharmacology grants awarded on a competitive basis.
Rent payments.--The Committee recommends $94,537,000 for
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration
[GSA], the same level as proposed in the budget and $11,671,000
more than the 1999 level.
Tobacco funding.--The Committee shares the administration's
goal to protect the lives and health of the Nation's youth by
reducing tobacco use by children and adolescents. Funding is
continued at the fiscal year 1999 level of $34,000,000.
The Committee emphasizes that its action is in no way to be
construed as concurring or disagreeing with any court ruling
regarding FDA's authority to implement its tobacco rule or the
proposed tobacco settlement.
The Committee believes that tobacco retailers are entitled
to timely notification from FDA to violations of the tobacco
rule. The Committee understands that FDA has made progress in
this area, and that approximately 90 percent of the notices for
first violations of the tobacco rule are mailed by FDA within
two weeks of the date of the compliance check. The Committee
expects FDA to remain committed to ensuring timely notification
to tobacco retailers and expects a report on the additional
progress it has made in this area to be submitted to the
Committee no later than November 1, 1999. The agency should
include in that report the time it is taking to notify
retailers of first and subsequent violations from the date of
the compliance check; the information being provided to
retailers regarding the violation which occurred; and whether
notices of violations are being mailed to corporate
headquarters upon request.
The Committee requires that the FDA evaluate the
feasibility of equipping retailers of tobacco products with the
technology to verify a tobacco purchaser's age through the use
of an automated identification verification system capable of
``reading'' a magnetic stripe or bar code on a driver's license
in which the name and age of the licensee is encoded. FDA is to
submit to the Committee, within 180 days of the enactment of
this act, a report regarding the efficacy of reducing illegal
tobacco sales to minors and the effect of compliance, through
the use of automated identification systems that can read a
magnetic stripe or bar code found on driver's licenses. This
report, at a minimum, should include information indicating:
the rate of compliance with minimum age sales and purchase
requirements relating to tobacco in areas using the automated
identification system as compared to areas not using such a
system; whether such a system would work in all states; the
ways by which to circumvent such systems and reduce their
effectiveness; and the cost of imposing such a requirement on
retailers and the states. Moreover, the report should identify
the privacy issues, if any, which would be created if the
automated identification verification system were to retain a
tobacco purchaser's name and date of birth.
Blood and blood product safety.--The Committee encourages
the FDA to continue its efforts to enhance the safety of blood
and blood products through enforcement of good manufacturing
practices and to work with medical and consumer representatives
of the National Hemophilia Foundation and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention at the initiation of any
investigation of possible contamination of blood and blood
products. The Committee understands that screening of blood and
blood products could be improved through the use of polymerase
chain reaction techniques to detect known infectious disease
and urges the FDA to develop industry guidance for this
effective screening tool. The Committee also encourages FDA to
move forward with its plans to require manufacturer tracking of
blood-derived products to ensure prompt patient notification in
adverse event situations.
Ginseng imports.--The Committee is aware of potential
problems related to imports of ginseng and urges the agency to
take swift action in the event any such products are determined
to be adulterated in order to eliminate any public concerns
that could inadvertently have a negative impact on domestic
producers.
Bottled water.--The Committee directs the FDA to publish by
March 2000 the final study of the feasibility of appropriate
methods of informing consumers of the contents of bottled
water, a study mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $11,350,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 31,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,350,000
In addition to Washington area laboratories which are in
six separate locations, there are 20 laboratories at other
locations around the country, including regular field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Continued
repairs, modifications, and improvements to FDA headquarters
and field facilities must be made to preserve the properties,
ensure employee safety, meet changing program requirements, and
permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date.
committee recommendations
For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and
facilities, the Committee recommends $8,350,000. This amount is
$3,000,000 less than the 1999 appropriation and $23,400,000
less than the budget request. Due to funding constraints, the
Committee defers funding for new construction projects
requested in the budget.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Management Service
payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,565,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-233)
authorized such sums as necessary to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Treasury for payment to the Farm Credit System
Financial Assistance Corporation [FAC]. Treasury payments
annually reimburse the Corporation for interest expenses on
debt issued by the Corporation, which is authorized to be
issued through 1992. Treasury is authorized to pay all or part
of FAC interest for the first 10 years on each 15-year debt
issuance. Debt proceeds are used to provide assistance to
financially troubled Farm Credit System lending institutions.
Under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, the Farm Credit
System's share of interest assessment for FAC debt would
increase if the System's retained earnings exceeded 5 percent
of its assets. For 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Treasury portion
of interest assessments was estimated at 9, 7, and 2 percent,
respectively.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends no appropriation for interest
expenses incurred by the Farm Credit System Financial
Assistance Corporation. This is the same as the budget request
and $2,565,000 less than the 1999 level.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Appropriations, 1999.................................... \1\ $61,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 67,655,000
Committee recommendation................................ 61,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency funding of $356,000 transferred from the
Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses account for Year
2000 (Y2K) compliance pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 act brought under Federal
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services,
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the
economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by
encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and
protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade
practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the
markets better to serve their designated functions of providing
a price discovery mechanism and providing price risk insurance.
In properly serving these functions, the futures and commodity
options markets contribute toward better production and
financial planning, more efficient distribution and
consumption, and more economical marketing.
Programs in support of the overall mission include market
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services.
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional
offices located in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.
committee recommendations
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee
recommends $61,000,000. The amount provided is the same as the
1999 appropriation and $6,655,000 less than the budget request.
Due to fiscal constraints, the Committee is unable to
provide the full amount requested for the Commission.
The Committee directs the Commission to provide a study to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the impact
of current daily trading limits and the relationship of those
limits to the volatility of milk prices as compared to other
commodities such as corn, soybeans, and wheat.
Farm Credit Administration
revolving fund for administrative expenses
Limitations, 1999....................................... ($35,800,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends no limitation on administrative
expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. This is the same as
the budget request. A limitation of $35,800,000 was placed on
FCA administrative expenses for fiscal year 1999.
The Committee is aware of the Farm Credit Administration's
proposed rule to allow direct lending institutions to serve
farmers throughout the country without obtaining the permission
of the institution that has been chartered to serve in the
specific territory. The Committee is concerned that this rule
may have an unintended adverse impact on certain farm credit
lending institutions and the farmers they serve. The Committee
believes that the FCA should reevaluate the proposed rule to
ensure that any institution's ability to serve farmers is not
adversely affected.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections 701-711, 713-726, and 730-738 of the general
provisions are essentially the same as those included in the
fiscal year 1999 and previous years' appropriations acts.
In addition, the Committee recommends the following
provisions:
Section 712 to make appropriations for the Rural Housing
Insurance Fund Program Account for fiscal years 1994 through
fiscal year 1999 available until expended to cover obligations
made in each of those years, respectively.
Section 727 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel to enroll more than 180,000 acres in the Wetlands
Reserve Program during fiscal year 2000.
Section 728 to limit funds provided by the Food Stamp Act
for commodity purchases for The Emergency Food Assistance
Program to $97,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
Section 729 to prohibit the use of funds provided by the
act from being used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel to carry out the transfer or obligation of fiscal
year 2000 funds under the provisions of section 401 of Public
Law 105-185 in excess of $50,000,000.
Section 739 to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture, from
declaring as excess or surplus lands and facilities owned by
the federal government and administered by the Secretary at
Fort Reno, Oklahoma, or from transferring or conveying such
lands or facilities, without the specific authorization of the
Congress.
Section 740 to give the Chief of the Natural Resources and
Conservation Service 102-A authority for closeout costs.
Section 741 to give the Secretary of Agriculture authority
to establish a pilot program with the State of Hawaii for the
inspection of mail.
Section 742 to provide guaranteed lines of credit,
including working capital loans, for health care facilities to
address Year 2000 computer conversion issues.
Section 743 to provide timely compensation to producers
whose wheat crops were contaminated by karnal bunt.
Section 744 to provide $3,000,000 for Bill Emerson and
Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional
Hunger Center.
Section 745 provides $250,000 for the program authorized
under Section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 solely for use in the State of New
Hampshire. The Committee is aware of the availability of
matching funds for use in Chester, New Hampshire, for Dolloff
Farms and expects these funds to be used for this purpose.
Section 746 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
reduce the Department of Labor's approval time for processing
farmer's applications for legal H-2A workers.
Section 747 to provide for successorship relating to
certain bargaining units and exclusive representatives.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2000, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2000, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2000 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2000 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2000:
Dairy indemnity program; and
Nutrition program for the elderly.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported en bloc, S. 1233, an original Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill, 2000, and S. 1234, an original
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations bill, 2000, each subject to amendment and each
subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--IMMIGRATION
* * * * * * *
Part II--Admission Qualifications for Aliens; Travel Control of
Citizens and Aliens
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1188. Admission of temporary H-2A workers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Special rules for consideration of applications
The following rules shall apply in the case of the filing
and consideration of an application for a labor certification
under this section:
(1) Deadline for filing applications
The Secretary of Labor may not require that the
application be filed more than [60 days] 45 days before
the first date the employer requires the labor or
services of the H-2A worker.
* * * * * * *
(3) Issuance of certification
(a) The Secretary of Labor shall make, not later
than [20 days] 30 days before the date such labor or
services are first required to be performed, the
certification described in subsection (a)(1) of this
section if--
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 1999 Budget estimate Committee -------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 1999
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary.................................. 2,836 2,942 2,836 ................. -106
Emergency grants to assist low-income immigrant and (20,000) ................. ................. (-20,000) .................
seasonal workers emergency appropriations (Public Law
106-31).................................................
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist...................................... 5,620 6,622 6,411 +791 -211
National Appeals Division............................ 11,718 12,699 11,718 ................. -981
Office of Budget and Program Analysis................ 6,120 6,583 6,583 +463 .................
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 5,551 7,998 5,551 ................. -2,447
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)........ (46,168) ................. ................. (-46,168) .................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 4,283 6,288 5,283 +1,000 -1,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations........................ 79,460 40,190 35,546 -43,914 -4,644
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..... 613 636 613 ................. -23
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments. 137,184 166,364 145,364 +8,180 -21,000
Payments to GSA...................................... (108,057) (115,542) (115,542) (+7,485) .................
Building operations and maintenance.................. (24,127) (24,822) (24,822) (+695) .................
Repairs, renovations, and construction............... (5,000) (26,000) (5,000) ................. (-21,000)
Hazardous waste management............................... 15,700 22,700 15,700 ................. -7,000
Departmental administration.............................. 32,168 36,117 34,738 +2,570 -1,379
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers.............. 3,000 10,000 3,000 ................. -7,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 3,668 3,805 3,668 ................. -137
Relations...............................................
Office of Communications................................. 8,138 9,300 8,138 ................. -1,162
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 65,128 68,246 65,128 ................. -3,118
Office of the General Counsel............................ 29,194 32,675 30,094 +900 -2,581
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and 540 2,061 540 ................. -1,521
Economics...............................................
Economic Research Service................................ 65,757 55,628 65,419 -338 +9,791
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 103,964 100,559 99,355 -4,609 -1,204
Census of Agriculture................................ (23,599) (16,490) (16,490) (-7,109) .................
Agricultural Research Service............................ 785,518 836,868 809,499 +23,981 -27,369
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31)..... (23,000) ................. ................. (-23,000) .................
Rescission of emergency appropriations........... (-22,466) ................. ................. (+22,466) .................
Buildings and facilities............................. 56,437 44,500 53,000 -3,437 +8,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service............... 841,955 881,368 862,499 +20,544 -18,869
Emergency Appropriations....................... (23,000) ................. ................. (-23,000) .................
Rescission of Emergency Appropriations......... (-22,466) ................. ................. (+22,466) .................
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service:
Research and education activities.................... 481,216 468,965 474,377 -6,839 +5,412
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.......... (4,600) (4,600) (4,600) ................. .................
Extension activities................................. 437,987 401,603 421,620 -16,367 +20,017
Integrated activities................................ ................. 72,844 35,541 +35,541 -37,303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 919,203 943,412 931,538 +12,335 -11,874
Extension Service.................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 618 641 618 ................. -23
Regulatory Programs.....................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses................................ 425,803 435,445 437,445 +11,642 +2,000
AQI user fees........................................ (88,000) (95,000) (90,000) (+2,000) (-5,000)
Buildings and facilities............................. 7,700 7,200 7,200 -500 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.. 433,503 442,645 444,645 +11,142 +2,000
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services................................... 48,831 60,182 51,229 +2,398 -8,953
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31)..... (145,000) ................. ................. (-145,000) .................
Standardization user fees........................ (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) ................. .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees (60,730) (60,730) (60,730) ................. .................
collected)..........................................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply 10,998 12,443 12,443 +1,445 .................
(transfer from section 32)..........................
Payments to states and possessions................... 1,200 1,200 1,200 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service.............. 61,029 73,825 64,872 +3,843 -8,953
Emergency appropriations....................... (145,000) ................. ................. (-145,000) .................
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses................................ 26,787 26,448 24,287 -2,500 -2,161
Limitation on inspection and weighing services....... (42,557) (42,557) (42,557) ................. .................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............ 446 469 446 ................. -23
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 616,986 652,955 638,404 +21,418 -14,551
Lab accreditation fees \1\........................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................. .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing....... 3,447,877 3,572,986 3,477,448 +29,571 -95,538
Emergency appropriations....................... (188,000) ................. ................. (-188,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 572 595 572 ................. -23
Agricultural Services...................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses................................ 714,499 794,839 794,839 +80,340 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31)..... (42,753) ................. ................. (-42,753) .................
(Transfer from export loans)......................... (589) (672) (589) ................. (-83)
(Transfer from Public Law 480)....................... (815) (845) (815) ................. (-30)
(Transfer from ACIF)................................. (209,861) (209,861) (209,861) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts.......... (211,265) (211,378) (211,265) ................. (-113)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, salaries and expenses....................... (968,517) (1,006,217) (1,006,104) (+37,587) (-113)
Emergency Appropriations....................... (42,753) ................. ................. (-42,753) .................
State mediation grants............................... 2,000 4,000 2,000 ................. -2,000
Dairy indemnity program.............................. 450 450 450 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency...................... 716,949 799,289 797,289 +80,340 -2,000
Emergency appropriations....................... (42,753) ................. ................. (-42,753) .................
==============================================================================================
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct................................... (85,651) (128,049) (128,049) (+42,398) .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (200,000) ................. ................. (-200,000) .................
106-31)...............................
Guaranteed............................... (425,031) (431,373) (431,373) (+6,342) .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (350,000) ................. ................. (-350,000) .................
106-31)...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... (510,682) (559,422) (559,422) (+48,740) .................
Emergency appropriations....... (550,000) ................. ................. (-550,000) .................
Farm operating loans:
Direct................................... (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) ................. .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (185,000) ................. ................. (-185,000) .................
106-31)...............................
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................. (948,276) (1,697,842) (1,697,842) (+749,566) .................
Guaranteed subsidized.................... (200,000) (97,442) (200,000) ................. (+102,558)
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (185,000) ................. ................. (-185,000) .................
106-31)...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... (1,648,276) (2,295,284) (2,397,842) (+749,566) (+102,558)
Emergency appropriations....... (370,000) ................. ................. (-370,000) .................
Indian tribe land acquisition loans.......... (1,000) (1,028) (1,028) (+28) .................
Emergency disaster loans..................... (25,000) (53,000) (25,000) ................. (-28,000)
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (175,000) ................. ................. (-175,000) .................
31).....................................
Boll weevil eradication loans................ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations................. (2,284,958) (3,008,734) (3,083,292) (+798,334) (+74,558)
Emergency appropriations............... (175,000) ................. ................. (-175,000) .................
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct................................... 12,822 4,827 4,827 -7,995 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (29,940) ................. ................. (-29,940) .................
106-31)...............................
Guaranteed............................... 6,758 2,416 2,416 -4,342 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (5,565) ................. ................. (-5,565) .................
106-31)...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... 19,580 7,243 7,243 -12,337 .................
Emergency Appropriations....... (35,505) ................. ................. (-35,505) .................
Farm operating loans:
Direct................................... 34,150 29,300 29,300 -4,850 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (12,635) ................. ................. (-12,635) .................
106-31)...............................
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................. 11,000 23,940 23,940 +12,940 .................
Guaranteed subsidized.................... 17,480 8,585 17,620 +140 +9,035
Emergency appropriations (Public Law (16,169) ................. ................. (-16,169) .................
106-31)...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... 62,630 61,825 70,860 +8,230 +9,035
Emergency Appropriations....... (28,804) ................. ................. (-28,804) .................
Indian tribe land acquisition................ 153 21 21 -132 .................
Emergency disaster loans..................... 5,900 8,231 3,882 -2,018 -4,349
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (41,300) ................. ................. (-41,300) .................
31).....................................
Boll weevil loans subsidy.................... 1,440 ................. ................. -1,440 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies...................... 89,703 77,320 82,006 -7,697 +4,686
Emergency Appropriations............... (105,609) ................. ................. (-105,609) .................
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)....... 209,861 209,861 209,861 ................. .................
Administrative expenses...................... 10,000 4,300 4,300 -5,700 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (4,000) ................. ................. (-4,000) .................
31).....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses....................... 219,861 214,161 214,161 -5,700 .................
Emergency Appropriations............... (4,000) ................. ................. (-4,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.. 309,564 291,481 296,167 -13,397 +4,686
Emergency Appropriations............... (109,609) ................. ................. (-109,609) .................
(Loan authorization)................... (2,284,958) (3,008,734) (3,083,292) (+798,334) (+74,558)
Emergency conservation program (28,000) ................. ................. (-28,000) .................
emergency appropriations (Public Law
106-31)...............................
==============================================================================================
Total, Farm Service Agency................. 1,026,513 1,090,770 1,093,456 +66,943 +2,686
Emergency Appropriations............... (180,362) ................. ................. (-180,362) .................
==============================================================================================
Risk Management Agency................................... 64,000 70,716 64,000 ................. -6,716
Support Services Bureau.................................. ................. 74,050 ................. ................. -74,050
==============================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs.................... 1,091,085 1,236,131 1,158,028 +66,943 -78,103
Emergency appropriations....................... 180,362 ................. ................. -180,362 .................
==============================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal crop 1,504,036 997,000 997,000 -507,036 .................
insurance corporation fund..............................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses................ 8,439,000 14,368,000 14,368,000 +5,929,000 .................
Operations and maintenance for hazardous waste (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................. .................
management (limitation on administrative expenses)..
Livestock Indemnity program (emergency appropriations (3,000) ................. ................. (-3,000) .................
Public Law 106-31)..................................
Livestock disaster assistance fund (emergency (70,000) ................. ................. (-70,000) .................
appropriations Public Law 106-31)...................
Section 11 conservation technical assistance (28,000) ................. ................. (-28,000) .................
(emergency appropriations Public Law 106-31)........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations.............................. 9,943,036 15,365,000 15,365,000 +5,421,964 .................
Emergency appropriations..................... (101,000) ................. ................. (-101,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs............ 14,481,998 20,174,117 20,000,476 +5,518,478 -173,641
Appropriations........................... (14,435,830) (20,174,117) (20,000,476) (+5,564,646) (-173,641)
Emergency appropriations................. (469,362) ................. ................. (-469,362) .................
Rescission of Emergency Appropriations... (-22,466) ................. ................. (+22,466) .................
(By transfer)................................ (211,265) (211,378) (211,265) ................. (-113)
(Loan authorization)......................... (2,284,958) (3,008,734) (3,083,292) (+798,334) (+74,558)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)...... (108,287) (108,287) (108,287) ................. .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 693 721 693 ................. -28
Environment.............................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations.............................. 641,243 680,679 656,243 +15,000 -24,436
(By transfer).................................... ................. (44,423) ................. ................. (-44,423)
Watershed surveys and planning....................... 10,368 11,732 10,368 ................. -1,364
Watershed and flood prevention operations............ 99,443 83,423 99,443 ................. +16,020
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31)..... (95,000) ................. ................. (-95,000) .................
Resource conservation and development................ 35,000 35,265 35,000 ................. -265
Forestry incentives program.......................... 6,325 ................. 6,325 ................. +6,325
Debt for nature...................................... ................. 5,000 ................. ................. -5,000
Farmland protection program.......................... ................. 50,000 ................. ................. -50,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service...... 792,379 866,099 807,379 +15,000 -58,720
Emergency appropriations....................... (95,000) ................. ................. (-95,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title II, Conservation Programs............. 793,072 866,820 808,072 +15,000 -58,748
Emergency appropriations................... (95,000) ................. ................. (-95,000) .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 588 612 588 ................. -24
Rural community advancement program.................. 722,686 670,103 718,006 -4,680 +47,903
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31)..... (30,000) ................. ................. (-30,000) .................
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family (sec. 502)..................... (965,313) (1,100,000) (1,100,000) (+134,687) .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (10,000) ................. ................. (-10,000) .................
31).....................................
Unsubsidized guaranteed.................. (3,000,000) (3,200,000) (3,200,000) (+200,000) .................
Housing repair (sec. 504).................... (25,001) (32,396) (32,396) (+7,395) .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (1,000) ................. ................. (-1,000) .................
31).....................................
Farm labor (sec. 514)........................ (20,000) (25,001) (25,001) (+5,001) .................
Rental housing (sec. 515).................... (114,321) (100,000) (114,321) ................. (+14,321)
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................. .................
Site loans (sec. 524)........................ (5,152) (5,152) (5,152) ................. .................
Credit sales of acquired property............ (16,930) (7,503) (12,824) (-4,106) (+5,321)
Self-help housing land development fund...... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations................. (4,251,717) (4,575,052) (4,594,694) (+342,977) (+19,642)
Emergency appropriations............... (11,000) ................. ................. (-11,000) .................
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502)..................... 114,100 93,830 93,830 -20,270 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (1,182) ................. ................. (-1,182) .................
31).....................................
Unsubsidized guaranteed.................. 2,700 19,520 19,520 +16,820 .................
Housing repair (sec. 504).................... 8,808 9,900 9,900 +1,092 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106- (352) ................. ................. (-352) .................
31).....................................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)... 2,320 480 480 -1,840 .................
Farm labor (sec. 514)........................ 10,406 11,308 11,308 +902 .................
Rental housing (sec. 515).................... 55,160 39,680 45,363 -9,797 +5,683
Site loans (sec. 524)........................ 17 4 4 -13 .................
Credit sales of acquired property............ 3,492 874 1,499 -1,993 +625
Self-help housing land development fund...... 282 281 281 -1 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies...................... 197,285 175,877 182,185 -15,100 +6,308
Emergency appropriations............... (1,534) ................. ................. (-1,534) .................
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RHS)... 360,785 383,879 360,785 ................. -23,094
Rental assistance program:
(Sec. 521)................................... 577,497 434,100 634,100 +56,603 +200,000
(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)).......................... 5,900 5,900 5,900 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 583,397 440,000 640,000 +56,603 +200,000
Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001...... ................. 200,000 ................. ................. -200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program........... 583,397 640,000 640,000 +56,603 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund........ 1,141,467 1,199,756 1,182,970 +41,503 -16,786
Emergency appropriations............... (1,534) ................. ................. (-1,534) .................
(Loan authorization)................... (4,251,717) (4,575,052) (4,594,694) (+342,977) (+19,642)
(Emergency appropriations)............. (11,000) ................. ................. (-11,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Mutual and self-help housing grants.................. 26,000 30,000 26,000 ................. -4,000
Rural housing assistance grants...................... 41,000 54,000 41,000 ................. -13,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31)..... (1,000) ................. ................. (-1,000) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and payments.................. 67,000 84,000 67,000 ................. -17,000
Emergency appropriations................... (1,000) ................. ................. (-1,000) .................
RHS expenses:
Salaries and expenses............................ 60,978 61,979 60,978 ................. -1,001
(Transfer from RHIF)............................. (360,785) (383,879) (360,785) ................. (-23,094)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RHS expenses............................ (421,763) (445,858) (421,763) ................. (-24,095)
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service................... 1,269,445 1,345,735 1,310,948 +41,503 -34,787
Emergency appropriations................... 2,534 ................. ................. -2,534 .................
(Loan authorization)....................... (4,251,717) (4,575,052) (4,594,694) (+342,977) (+19,642)
Emergency appropriations................... (11,000) ................. ................. (-11,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization)............................. (33,000) (52,495) (38,256) (+5,256) (-14,239)
Loan subsidy..................................... 16,615 22,799 16,615 ................. -6,184
Administrative expenses (transfer to RBCS)....... 3,482 3,337 3,337 -145 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund............. 20,097 26,136 19,952 -145 -6,184
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization)............................. (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) ................. .................
Direct subsidy................................... 3,783 3,453 3,453 -330 .................
Rural cooperative development grants................. 3,300 9,000 5,500 +2,200 -3,500
RBCS expenses:
Salaries and expenses............................ 25,680 24,612 25,680 ................. +1,068
(Transfer from RDLFP)............................ (3,482) (3,337) (3,337) (-145) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RBCS expenses........................... (29,162) (27,949) (29,017) (-145) (+1,068)
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service...... 52,860 63,201 54,585 +1,725 -8,616
(By transfer).............................. (3,482) (3,337) (3,337) (-145) .................
(Loan authorization)....................... (48,000) (67,495) (53,256) (+5,256) (-14,239)
==============================================================================================
Alternative Agricultural Research and 3,500 10,000 3,500 ................. -6,500
Commercialization Revolving Fund...................
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans
Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct loans:
Electric 5%.............................. (71,500) (50,000) (71,500) ................. (+21,500)
Telecommunications 5%.................... (75,000) (50,000) (75,000) ................. (+25,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... (146,500) (100,000) (146,500) ................. (+46,500)
Treasury rates: Telecommunications........... (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) ................. .................
Muni-rate: Electric.......................... (295,000) (250,000) (295,000) ................. (+45,000)
FFB loans:
Electric, regular........................ (700,000) (300,000) (700,000) ................. (+400,000)
Telecommunications....................... (120,000) (120,000) (120,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... (820,000) (420,000) (820,000) ................. (+400,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations............. (1,561,500) (1,070,000) (1,561,500) ................. (+491,500)
Loan subsidies:
Direct loans:
Electric 5%.............................. 9,325 450 643 -8,682 +193
Telecommunications 5%.................... 7,342 560 840 -6,502 +280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................... 16,667 1,010 1,483 -15,184 +473
Treasury rates: Telecommunications........... 810 2,370 2,370 +1,560 .................
Muni-rate: Electric.......................... 25,842 9,175 10,826 -15,016 +1,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies...................... 43,319 12,555 14,679 -28,640 +2,124
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RUS).. 29,982 31,046 29,982 ................. -1,064
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Electrification and 73,301 43,601 44,661 -28,640 +1,060
Telecommunications Loans Program Account......
(Loan authorization)....................... (1,561,500) (1,070,000) (1,561,500) ................. (+491,500)
==============================================================================================
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:
(Loan authorization)............................. (157,509) (175,000) (157,509) ................. (-17,491)
Direct loan subsidy.............................. 4,174 3,290 2,961 -1,213 -329
RTP administrative expenses (transfer to RUS).... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 7,174 6,290 5,961 -1,213 -329
Distance learning and telemedicine program:
(Loan authorization)............................. (150,000) (200,000) (200,000) (+50,000) .................
Direct loan subsidy.............................. 180 700 700 +520 .................
Grants........................................... 12,500 20,000 12,500 ................. -7,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 12,680 20,700 13,200 +520 -7,500
RUS expenses:
Salaries and expenses............................ 33,000 34,107 33,000 ................. -1,107
(Transfer from RETLP)............................ (29,982) (31,046) (29,982) ................. (-1,064)
(Transfer from RTP).............................. (3,000) (3,000) (3,000) ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RUS expenses............................ (65,982) (68,153) (65,982) ................. (-2,171)
==============================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service................. 126,155 104,698 96,822 -29,333 -7,876
(By transfer).............................. (32,982) (34,046) (32,982) ................. (-1,064)
(Loan authorization)....................... (1,869,009) (1,445,000) (1,919,009) (+50,000) (+474,009)
==============================================================================================
Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community 2,175,234 2,194,349 2,184,449 +9,215 -9,900
Development Programs..........................
Appropriations......................... (2,175,234) (1,994,349) (2,184,449) (+9,215) (+190,100)
Emergency appropriations............... (32,534) ................. ................. (-32,534) .................
Advance appropriations................. ................. (200,000) ................. ................. (-200,000)
(By transfer).............................. (397,249) (421,262) (397,104) (-145) (-24,158)
(Loan authorization)....................... (6,168,726) (6,087,547) (6,566,959) (+398,233) (+479,412)
(Emergency appropriations)................. (11,000) ................. ................. (-11,000) .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 554 576 554 ................. -22
Consumer Services.......................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs............................. 4,128,747 4,620,768 4,611,829 +483,082 -8,939
Transfer from section 32......................... 5,048,150 4,929,268 4,935,199 -112,951 +5,931
Discretionary spending........................... ................. 15,000 13,000 +13,000 -2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs................ 9,176,897 9,565,036 9,560,028 +383,131 -5,008
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, 3,924,000 4,105,495 4,038,107 +114,107 -67,388
infants, and children (WIC).........................
Food stamp program:
Expenses......................................... 21,159,106 20,109,444 20,098,744 -1,060,362 -10,700
Reserve.......................................... 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 ................. -900,000
Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico............. 1,236,000 1,268,000 1,268,000 +32,000 .................
Discretionary spending........................... ................. 7,000 ................. ................. -7,000
The emergency food assistance program............ 90,000 100,000 97,000 +7,000 -3,000
Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001.......... ................. 4,800,000 ................. ................. -4,800,000
Rescission (Public Law 106-31)................... -1,250,000 ................. ................. +1,250,000 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program...................... 21,335,106 27,284,444 21,563,744 +228,638 -5,720,700
Appropriations............................. (21,335,106) (27,284,444) (21,563,744) (+228,638) (-5,720,700)
Rescissions................................ (-1,250,000) ................. ................. (+1,250,000) .................
Commodity assistance program......................... 131,000 155,215 131,000 ................. -24,215
Food donations programs:
Needy family program............................. 1,081 1,081 1,081 ................. .................
Elderly feeding program.......................... 140,000 150,000 140,000 ................. -10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food donations programs................. 141,081 151,081 141,081 ................. -10,000
Food program administration.......................... 108,561 119,841 111,561 +3,000 -8,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service.................. 34,816,645 41,381,112 35,545,521 +728,876 -5,835,591
==============================================================================================
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs............ 34,817,199 41,381,688 35,546,075 +728,876 -5,835,613
Appropriations................................. (36,067,199) (36,581,688) (35,546,075) (-521,124) (-1,035,613)
Rescissions.................................... (-1,250,000) ................. ................. (+1,250,000) .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager:
Direct appropriation................................. 136,203 137,768 136,203 ................. -1,565
(Transfer from export loans)......................... (3,231) (3,413) (3,231) ................. (-182)
(Transfer from Public Law 480)....................... (1,035) (1,093) (1,035) ................. (-58)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program level........................... (140,469) (142,274) (140,469) ................. (-1,805)
==============================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
Title I--Credit sales:
Program level.................................... (219,724) (150,324) (159,089) (-60,635) (+8,765)
Direct loans................................. (203,475) (138,324) (142,840) (-60,635) (+4,516)
Ocean freight differential................... 16,249 12,000 16,249 ................. +4,249
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level.................................... (837,000) (787,000) (787,000) (-50,000) .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31). (149,200) ................. ................. (-149,200) .................
Appropriation.................................... 837,000 787,000 787,000 -50,000 .................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 106-31). (149,200) ................. ................. (-149,200) .................
Title III--Commodity grants:
Program level.................................... (25,000) ................. ................. (-25,000) .................
Appropriation.................................... 25,000 ................. ................. -25,000 .................
Loan subsidies....................................... 176,596 114,062 117,786 -58,810 +3,724
Salaries and expenses:
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).......... 1,035 1,093 1,035 ................. -58
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)............ 815 845 815 ................. -30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 1,850 1,938 1,850 ................. -88
==============================================================================================
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level.............................. (1,081,724) (937,324) (946,089) (-135,635) (+8,765)
(Emergency appropriations)............. (149,200) ................. ................. (-149,200) .................
Appropriation.............................. 1,056,695 915,000 922,885 -133,810 +7,885
(Emergency appropriations)............. (149,200) ................. ................. (-149,200) .................
==============================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative
expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS).......... 3,231 3,413 3,231 ................. -182
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)............ 589 672 589 ................. -83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account........ 3,820 4,085 3,820 ................. -265
==============================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related 1,196,718 1,056,853 1,062,908 -133,810 +6,055
Programs......................................
Appropriations............................. (1,196,718) (1,056,853) (1,062,908) (-133,810) (+6,055)
Emergency appropriations................... (149,200) ................. ................. (-149,200) .................
(By transfer).............................. (4,266) (4,506) (4,266) ................. (-240)
==============================================================================================
TITLE VI--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation.............. 970,867 1,109,950 1,035,538 +64,671 -74,412
Prescription Drug User Fee Act....................... (132,273) (145,434) (145,434) (+13,161) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... (1,103,140) (1,255,384) (1,180,972) (+77,832) (-74,412)
Limitation on payments to GSA........................ (82,866) (100,180) (100,180) (+17,314) .................
Buildings and facilities................................. 11,350 31,750 8,350 -3,000 -23,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug Administration................ 982,217 1,141,700 1,043,888 +61,671 -97,812
==============================================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Management Service: Payments to the Farm Credit 2,565 ................. ................. -2,565 .................
System Financial Assistance Corporation.................
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission..................... 61,000 67,655 61,000 ................. -6,655
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............ (356) ................. ................. (-356) .................
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative (35,800) ................. ................. (-35,800) .................
expenses)...............................................
==============================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 1,046,138 1,209,355 1,104,888 +58,750 -104,467
Administration....................................
==============================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Hunger fellowships....................................... ................. ................. 3,000 +3,000 +3,000
Sec. 388 Fair Act--NH.................................... ................. ................. 250 +250 +250
==============================================================================================
Total, title VII, General provisions............... ................. ................. 3,250 +3,250 +3,250
==============================================================================================
TITLE XI--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS (PUBLIC LAW 105-277)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary (cotton warehouse) (emergency (5,000) ................. ................. (-5,000) .................
appropriations).........................................
Pilot livestock price reporting study (emergency (250) ................. ................. (-250) .................
appropriations).........................................
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Federal crop insurance corporation fund:
Purchase requirement (emergency appropriations)...... (66,000) ................. ................. (-66,000) .................
Raisins (emergency appropriations)................... (3,000) ................. ................. (-3,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Commodity Credit Corporation
Natural disasters (emergency appropriations)............. (1,500,000) ................. ................. (-1,500,000) .................
Multi-year losses (emergency appropriations)............. (875,000) ................. ................. (-875,000) .................
Livestock disaster assistance fund (emergency (200,000) ................. ................. (-200,000) .................
appropriations).........................................
Market loss (emergency appropriations)................... (3,057,000) ................. ................. (-3,057,000) .................
Economic loss (Alaska) (emergency appropriations)........ (50,000) ................. ................. (-50,000) .................
Honey (emergency appropriations)......................... (1,000) ................. ................. (-1,000) .................
Mohair fiber (emergency appropriations).................. (27,000) ................. ................. (-27,000) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Credit Corporation................ (5,779,000) ................. ................. (-5,779,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager
Food for progress (emergency appropriations)............. (25,000) ................. ................. (-25,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title XI, emergency appropriations.......... (5,809,250) ................. ................. (-5,809,250) .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE XIII--EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS (PUBLIC LAW 105-277)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency
Salaries and expenses (emergency appropriations)......... (40,000) ................. ................. (-40,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm operating loans:
Direct....................................... (233,806) ................. ................. (-233,806) .................
Guaranteed unsubsidized...................... (150,000) ................. ................. (-150,000) .................
Guaranteed subsidized........................ (156,704) ................. ................. (-156,704) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations................. (540,510) ................. ................. (-540,510) .................
Loan subsidies:
Farm operating loans (emergency appropriations):
Direct....................................... (15,969) ................. ................. (-15,969) .................
Guaranteed unsubsidized...................... (1,740) ................. ................. (-1,740) .................
Guaranteed subsidized........................ (13,696) ................. ................. (-13,696) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.. 31,405 ................. ................. -31,405 .................
(Loan authorization)................... (540,510) ................. ................. (-540,510) .................
==============================================================================================
Total, Farm Service Agency................. 71,405 ................. ................. -71,405 .................
==============================================================================================
Commodity Credit Corporation
Dairy production disaster assistance program (emergency (3,000) ................. ................. (-3,000) .................
appropriations).........................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Forestry incentives program (emergency appropriations)... (10,000) ................. ................. (-10,000) .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title XIII, emergency appropriations........ (84,405) ................. ................. (-84,405) .................
==============================================================================================
Grand total:
New budget (obligational) authority............ 54,510,359 66,883,182 60,710,118 +6,199,759 -6,173,064
Appropriations............................. (55,713,835) (61,883,182) (60,710,118) (+4,996,283) (-1,173,064)
Emergency appropriations................... (6,639,751) ................. ................. (-6,639,751) .................
Advance appropriations..................... ................. (5,000,000) ................. ................. (-5,000,000)
Rescissions................................ (-1,250,000) ................. ................. (+1,250,000) .................
Rescission of Emergency Appropriations..... (-22,466) ................. ................. (+22,466) .................
(By transfer).................................. (612,780) (681,569) (612,635) (-145) (-68,934)
(Loan authorization)........................... (8,453,684) (9,096,281) (9,650,251) (+1,196,567) (+553,970)
Emergency appropriations................... (1,795,710) ................. ................. (-1,795,710) .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses)........ (144,087) (108,287) (108,287) (-35,800) .................
==============================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs........................... 14,481,998 20,174,117 20,000,476 +5,518,478 -173,641
Title II--Conservation programs.......................... 793,072 866,820 808,072 +15,000 -58,748
Title III--Rural economic and community development 2,175,234 2,194,349 2,184,449 +9,215 -9,900
programs................................................
Title IV--Domestic food programs......................... 34,817,199 41,381,688 35,546,075 +728,876 -5,835,613
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs......... 1,196,718 1,056,853 1,062,908 -133,810 +6,055
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug 1,046,138 1,209,355 1,104,888 +58,750 -104,467
Administration..........................................
Title VII--General provisions............................ ................. ................. 3,250 +3,250 +3,250
Title XI--Emergency Appropriations (Public Law 105-277).. (5,809,250) ................. ................. (-5,809,250) .................
Title XIII--Emergency Appropriations (Public Law 105-277) (84,405) ................. ................. (-84,405) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, new budget (obligational) authority......... 54,510,359 66,883,182 60,710,118 +6,199,759 -6,173,064
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.
