- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 216
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-107
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
_______
July 17, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bennett, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1427]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 000) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for
other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1427)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2004
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ $77,403,914,000
Amount of 2003 appropriations acts to date.............. 74,724,290,000
Amount of estimates, 2004............................... 77,561,060,000
The bill as recommended to the Senate:
Over the appropriations provided in 2003............ 2,679,624,000
Under the estimates for 2004........................ 157,146,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 5
Title I--Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.................................. 9
Executive operations..................................... 12
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................. 13
Common computing environment............................. 14
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.................... 14
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights....... 16
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..... 17
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments. 17
Hazardous waste management............................... 18
Departmental administration.............................. 19
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.............................................. 20
Office of Communications................................. 20
Office of Inspector General.............................. 20
Office of the General Counsel............................ 21
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics.......................................... 21
Economic Research Service................................ 22
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 23
Agricultural Research Service............................ 23
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service................................................ 52
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs.................................... 64
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 65
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 75
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.. 79
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety............ 80
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 81
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.................................. 82
Farm Service Agency...................................... 83
Risk Management Agency................................... 87
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund.................. 89
Commodity Credit Corporation fund........................ 90
Title II--Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment................................................ 93
Natural Resources Conservation Service....................... 94
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and
Community Development...................................... 106
Rural Community Advancement Program.......................... 107
Rural Housing Service........................................ 114
Rural Business--Cooperative Service.......................... 119
Rural Utilities Service...................................... 122
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.......................................... 127
Food and Nutrition Service................................... 128
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign
Agricultural Service........................................... 141
Title VI--Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration................................. 149
Independent Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission..................... 159
Farm Credit Administration............................... 159
Title VII--General Provisions:
General Provisions........................................... 161
Program, Project, and Activity............................... 161
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 162
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 162
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 163
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 164
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Committee
2003 \1\ recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... $25,458,395,000 $26,776,681,000
Title II: Conservation programs... 1,021,263,000 973,201,000
Title III: Rural economic and 2,777,020,000 2,587,826,000
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 41,890,607,000 44,088,309,000
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,836,791,000 1,486,821,000
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,466,505,000 1,482,596,000
Title VII: General provisions..... 273,709,000 8,480,000
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 74,724,290,000 77,403,914,000
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations.
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 assistance programs; rural economic
and community development activities, and telecommunications
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].
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 allocation for fiscal year 2004.
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 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.
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.
Federal Employees Compensation Act [FECA]
The President's budget includes a legislative proposal to
allow the Department of Labor [DOL] to charge agencies for
administrative costs related to FECA benefits paid to
employees. Currently, although DOL bills agencies for FECA
benefits, it does not bill agencies for the costs of
administering these benefits.
The President's budget includes the administrative costs in
each agency's budget, as opposed to the DOL budget, where the
funds have previously been appropriated. The Committee's
recommendation, however, assumes that this proposal will not be
enacted into law, and excludes these administrative costs.
Display of Fiscal Year 2003 Spending Levels
Section 601 of Division O of Public Law 108-7, the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, imposed, with few
exceptions, a rescission of 0.65 percent of the budget
authority provided (or obligation limitation imposed) for all
discretionary accounts in Divisions A through K of that joint
resolution. Division A of Public Law 108-7 provided
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.
The 0.65 percent rescission applied to all discretionary
accounts of Division A with the exception of the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
[WIC], and for levels of budget authority provided through the
collection of user fees. Accordingly, all fiscal year 2003
spending levels displayed in this report for which the 0.65
percent rescission did apply reflect the 0.65 percent
rescission. Further adjustments to fiscal year 2003 levels are
detailed by footnotes where applicable.
In addition, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296), the President's budget proposes the
transfer of certain USDA and FDA resources to the Department of
Homeland Security in fiscal year 2003. These proposed transfers
are listed in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and Expenses:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection-- $31,472,000
Appropriated.............................
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection--User 178,647,000
Fees.....................................
Plum Island--Operations Support........... 4,305,000
Plum Island--Diagnostics performed by USDA 2,252,000
-----------------
Total, APHIS............................ 216,676,000
=================
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and Expenses:
Plum Island--Operations Support........... 5,363,000
Plum Island--Research performed by USDA... 3,785,000
-----------------
Total, ARS.............................. 9,148,000
=================
Staff Offices:
Office of the Secretary/Executive Operations.. 70,000
Departmental Administration................... 219,000
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.......... 8,624,000
Office of Communications...................... 50,000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer......... 40,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer....... 159,000
Office of General Counsel..................... 89,000
Office of the Inspector General............... 199,000
Office of Budget and Program Analysis......... 40,000
-----------------
Total, Staff Offices........................ 9,490,000
=================
Total, USDA Transfers to DHS................ 235,314,000
FDA:
Salaries and Expenses............................. 583,000
-----------------
Total Transfers to DHS.......................... 235,897,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displays in this report of the fiscal year 2003 funding
levels for these activities have been reduced to provide an
accurate presentation of USDA and FDA activities during fiscal
year 2003 in comparison to those proposed by the President for
fiscal year 2004.
Further adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 levels are
detailed by footnotes where applicable.
User Fee Legislative Proposals
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes legislative
proposals to authorize the collection and expenditure of user
fees for a number of agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. These agencies include: the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration; the Food Safety and Inspection
Service; and the Food and Drug Administration. Assumed fiscal
year 2004 revenues from these fees total $164,000,000, of which
only $5,000,000 would have no effect on current services. The
fiscal year 2004 budget assumes the collection and expenditure
of these fees, and therefore reduces the fiscal year 2004
spending for this subcommittee by an additional $159,000,000
from current levels.
Jurisdiction for the authorization of these fees in the
Senate lies with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, not the Committee on Appropriations. Further, the
U.S. Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate
in the House of Representatives and to the extent that these
proposals are held to be revenue measures (for which similar
proposals in the past have), unilateral action by the Senate in
this matter risks violation of Constitutional principles.
This Committee again admonishes the administration for
including in an annual budget request to the Appropriations
Committee legislative proposals for which this Committee has no
jurisdiction, proposals which have budgetary implications, and
which raise possible Constitutional points of order. The
Committee notes that similar proposals by this and past
administrations have not met approval by the authorizing
committees and there is no evidence to indicate that these
proposals will meet with any greater success.
The Committee included a General Provision (Section 723) in
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003
(Division A of Public Law 108-7) which requires the President
to identify reductions from his fiscal year 2004 budget
submission in the event the authorization of the proposed fees
has not been enacted prior to the convening of a committee on
conference for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations act.
Notwithstanding the delayed enactment of Public Law 108-7, the
Committee expects compliance with Section 723, and urges the
administration identify these reductions as soon as possible.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,368,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 10,068,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,046,000
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 $10,046,000. The Committee includes
$6,604,000 for cross-cutting trade negotiations and
biotechnology resources. This amount is $6,678,000 more than
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Drought Mitigation.--The Committee is concerned by the lack
of a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought
strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and
personal hardships to large sections of the nation. Long term
drought conditions in the Intermountain West, as one example,
have resulted in water supplies for agriculture falling below
50 percent of normal supply. The report of the National Drought
Commission, ``Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century'',
recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness
Act. Such an act would establish a Federal/non-Federal
partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for
implementing a national drought policy. The Committee expects
the Secretary to carry out the recommendations of the National
Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide
a response to drought-stricken areas in as prompt and
meaningful a way as possible.
Administrative Convergence.--The Secretary is expected to
seek the Committee's approval before implementing a merger or
reduction of any administrative or information technology
functions relating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA Rural Development, or any
other agency of the Department.
Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.--The Secretary,
after consultation with the Administrator of Environmental
Protection, the Administrator of General Services, and
Secretary of Commerce (acting through the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology) shall prepare
and from time to time revise guidelines for the use of
procuring agencies in complying with the requirements of Public
Law 107-171, section 9002. The Secretary shall also work to
carry out all other requirements of section 9002.
Helena, Arkansas Training Center.--In the fiscal year 2003
Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 Congressional
Record, pages S356-S410, the Secretary was requested to
investigate and report to this Committee on an opportunity to
utilize property in Helena, Arkansas, for USDA training
activities and other Department-wide functions. The Committee
has not received such a report, but expects full compliance
with congressional directives. The Secretary is requested to
proceed with an investigation into use of this property for
USDA functions and to prepare a feasibility report which will
include costs and savings to the Department for utilization of
this facility. The Committee expects a preliminary report by
December 1, 2003 and a full report on this subject no later
than March 1, 2004.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.--Section 2003 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides the
Secretary direction in the allocation of certain conservation
resources in the area of partnerships and cooperation with non-
Federal entities to help meet environmental objectives.
Legislative history clearly shows a need for attention in
connection with the Chesapeake Bay. In the context of this
authority, the Committee is aware of interests by governors,
mayors, and other non-Federal officials in seeking USDA
assistance through Section 2003 in support of the Chesapeake
Bay Working Lands Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program, for which
an application has been submitted to the Department. The
Committee urges the Secretary to take action on this
application and report to the Committee on the means by which
USDA will utilize the authorities of section 2003 toward
improved conservation of the Chesapeake Bay.
Homeland Security.--The President's budget includes a
number of requests for increases related to homeland security.
The Committee notes that as of the preparation of this report
$54,000,000 remains available from previous appropriations
specifically for homeland security needs, of which $19,000,000
is available to the Secretary. The Committee believes these
resources, in addition to funds provided in this Act, will be
sufficient for these needs.
Animal Health and Food Safety.--The Committee supports the
development of the Collaboration in Animal Health, Food Safety
and Epidemiology [CAHFSE]. This collaboration represents a high
level of coordination among the Agricultural Research Service,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service to develop a comprehensive effort to
address animal health and food safety issues, including those
attributable to antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens. It
is expected that this collaboration will yield information
regarding the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, the
development of resistance patterns, and interventions to reduce
the development and potential transfer of resistance. The
effort also will further enable USDA to identify and track
emerging diseases, whether natural or intentionally introduced,
and implement mitigation strategies. The Committee encourages
the Department to propose adequate funding levels for the
future growth and success of this program.
Plum Island Research and Diagnostic Activities.--The
President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes continuing
transfers for certain USDA activities to the Department of
Homeland Security [DHS], including $2,135,000 from APHIS for
diagnostic activities and $5,668,000 from ARS for research. The
Committee is concerned that this transfer of funding may result
in a shift in focus away from agriculture, and fully expects
the Secretary of Agriculture to seek assurances from the
Secretary of Homeland Security that these diagnostic and
research activities will firmly remain tied to agricultural
interests.
Alternative Fuels.--The continuing development of bio-based
energy products, such as E-85 capable vehicle technologies,
provides economic and environmental opportunities for producers
of agricultural products and consumers. The Secretary should
use resources of the Department toward educational and
infrastructure promotion to expand the availability of these
products in Minnesota and other States.
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.--The
Committee notes that the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) included a provision mandating
that the Department of Agriculture submit a report on
geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The
Committee is aware that the Department has failed to submit the
report within 1 year of the date of enactment. Given the
significant transportation barriers which currently exist and
the necessity for ensuring that geographically disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers can fully participate in agricultural
programs, the Department shall submit their report no later
than January 15, 2004.
Renewable Energy.--The Committee commends the Secretary for
the Department's efforts in support of biofuels and renewable
energy programs. However, the Committee is concerned that while
the Department is involved with research and development,
marketing activities, and financial assistance for the
production of these energy sources, the efforts appear to lack
effective coordination across individual agency lines. The
Committee urges the Secretary to establish an integrated
program from farm gate to fuel pump to maximize producers'
ability to take advantage of this renewable and sustainable
energy industry, and to identify an individual responsible for
the coordination and evaluation of these activities.
Economic Losses.--The Committee encourages the Secretary to
utilize the authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide assistance to compensate United States
entities that export United States beef to be processed in
Canada for re-importation to the United States that suffered
economic losses as a direct result of the BSE-related border
closing between the United States and Canada. The Committee is
aware of the need to compensate an entity for such losses in
Minnesota.
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, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security
Staff.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $8,510,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 12,264,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,707,000
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 $8,707,000. This amount is $197,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $13,670,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 14,242,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,997,000
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
$13,997,000. This amount is $327,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $7,270,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,980,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,544,000
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; and 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 $7,544,000. This amount is $274,000 more
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF
Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................................
Budget estimate, 2004................................... $1,479,000
Committee recommendation................................ 910,000
\1\ $2,643,000 was provided by the homeland security supplemental,
Public Law 107-117, under the Office of the Secretary for this activity.
The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee recommends
$910,000. This activity was funded in fiscal year 2003 under
the Office of the Secretary. This appropriation will provide
adequate funding to maintain these activities in fiscal year
2004.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $14,993,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 31,334,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,710,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,
which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer
for major Federal agencies. This office provides policy
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the
Department's information management and information technology
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and
is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. 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 $15,710,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. This amount is $717,000 more than
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not
include an increase of $2,000 for FECA administrative charges,
as requested in the budget.
The Committee has included $500,000 for the Chief
Information Officer to study the feasibility of utilizing a
non-Federal entity to provide electronic storage of data
related to USDA food safety programs and using the facility for
food safety information management.
Common Computing Environment
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $132,289,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 177,714,000
Committee recommendation................................ 119,289,000
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use
computer systems in a manner that enhances efficiency,
productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer
information sharing among agencies of the Department. The
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires USDA to maximize the value
of information technology acquisitions to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its
beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization
initiative has been working to restructure county field
offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and
replace the current, aging information systems with a modern
Common Computing Environment that optimizes information
sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $119,289,000 for the Common
Computing Environment. This amount is $13,000,000 less than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $5,496,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,902,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,496,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. 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 $5,496,000. This amount is the same as the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include an
increase of $41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as
requested in the budget.
Financial Management.--The Committee was pleased to learn
that for the first time the Department of Agriculture received
a clean audit in fiscal year 2002. This is a major
accomplishment. The Committee wishes to express support for the
effort necessary to reach this milestone, and encourages the
Department to continue to make financial management a priority.
National Finance Center.--The Committee supports the
President's e-government initiative goals to improve the
performance and reduce the cost of Federal Government
administration by using commercially available e-business best
practices for functions that are not inherently governmental.
The ongoing e-payroll/Human Resources [HR] consolidation and
integration of HR and payroll systems across the government
provides a prime example of how e-government can improve
service and efficiency that will create several hundred million
dollars of savings to Federal organizations.
The Committee has been informed that the Department of
Agriculture's National Finance Center [NFC] proposal for e-
payroll consolidation was rated the highest in the internal
competition held by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]
and the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. The Committee
recognizes that the payroll consolidation will require
significant capital investment for information technology and
infrastructure required to provide the new consolidated e-
payroll function. The Committee believes that the NFC's
demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service while
operating on a fee-for-service basis similar to commercial
industry provides a significant opportunity to utilize a
public/private partnership to provide private sector investment
and shared risk in the modernization of systems and
infrastructure creation for e-payroll at the NFC. The Committee
encourages the Department of Agriculture to work with OMB and
OPM to investigate the feasibility of creating a public/private
partnership to help leverage scarce Federal resources to
continue the modernization and development of Federal
Government-wide e-payroll functions.
Working Capital Fund
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $11,922,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944
Appropriations Act. It was created for certain central services
in the Department of Agriculture, including duplicating and
other visual information services, art and graphics, video
services, supply, centralized accounting system, centralized
automated data processing system for payroll, personnel, and
related services, voucher payments services, and ADP systems.
The National Finance Center's expenses are also funded through
this fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The President's budget does not request and the Committee
does not provide an appropriation to the Working Capital Fund.
The Committee again includes a General Provision (Section
704) which provides authority for the Secretary to transfer
unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture to the
Working Capital Fund. This authority should be sufficient to
meet fiscal year 2004 needs.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $397,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................... 808,000
Committee recommendation................................ 794,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, provides oversight of civil rights and
related functions. This includes coordination of the
administration of civil rights laws and regulations for
employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in
programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil
rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
the Committee recommends an appropriation of $794,000. This
amount is $397,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................ $15,090,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\............................... 17,550,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,445,000
\1\ Included in the Departmental Administration account.
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all Department-wide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $15,445,000. This amount is $355,000 more than
fiscal year 2003, which was included within the Departmental
Administration account. This amount includes $405,000 for pay
costs.
This appropriation is provided separately from that of
Departmental Administration to reflect the reorganization of
the civil rights functions in the Department of Agriculture.
Pursuant to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
USDA has established the position of the Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights, and has realigned the Office of Civil Rights
from Departmental Administration.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $656,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 793,000
Committee recommendation................................ 673,000
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 $673,000. This amount
is $17,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $186,878,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 199,332,000
Committee recommendation................................ 188,022,000
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.
The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to
agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to
establish commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial
real estate appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review
procedures are in place to assure that agencies have an
opportunity to contest rates they feel are incorrect.
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 1999, 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, DC, 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, DC. 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. In fiscal year 1999, USDA
began operations at the Beltsville Office Facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities
and payments for the rental of space and related services, the
Committee recommends $188,022,000. This amount is $1,144,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2003 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 budget Committee
2003 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 120,795 123,910 123,910
Building Operations............................................. 32,327 41,445 32,559
Strategic Space Plan............................................ 33,756 33,977 31,553
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 186,878 199,332 188,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $15,583,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 15,713,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,611,000
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 materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $15,611,000 for hazardous
materials management. This amount is $28,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $37,628,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 45,128,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,031,000
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, ethics, 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 and Judicial Officer.
Departmental administration also provides administrative
support to the Board of Contract Appeals. Established as an
independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates
contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as
a reimbursable activity.
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 $23,031,000. This amount is $14,597,000
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does
not include $21,000 for FECA administrative charges, as
requested in the budget.
Pursuant to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, USDA has established the position of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, and has realigned the Office of
Civil Rights from Departmental Administration. At the request
of USDA, the Committee has created a new account, the Office of
Civil Rights, to reflect this realignment which has resulted in
a reduction in the Departmental Administration account.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,781,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,186,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,825,000
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
$3,825,000. This amount is $44,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $9,031,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 10,084,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,228,000
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 $9,228,000. This amount is $197,000 more
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $73,416,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 81,895,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,781,000
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, and 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 Inspector General, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $75,781,000. This amount is
$2,365,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This
amount does not include $70,000 for FECA administrative
charges, as requested in the budget. The Committee provides an
increase of $800,000 for OIG to address violations of the
Animal Welfare Act and to coordinate with State and local law
enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $34,700,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 37,328,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,343,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $35,343,000. This amount is
$643,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This
amount does not include $6,000 for FECA administrative charges,
as requested in the budget.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $580,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 792,000
Committee recommendation................................ 596,000
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 $596,000. This amount is $16,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee is aware of a new crop fiber, Arundo donax,
that has the potential to replace hardwood fibers in many paper
grades. The Committee has been apprised of a collaborative
effort between Auburn University, Washington State University,
the University of Washington and the pulp and paper industry in
Washington and Alabama, to test the planting, producing, and
harvesting of Arundo and to conduct tests to further improve
the use of the fiber as a raw material for paper pulp. The
Committee encourages the Department to support researching
optimal growing techniques for Arundo in Eastern Washington and
expand Auburn University's research from the test plot level to
commercial sale. The Committee also encourages further tests to
improve the paper manufacturing process. The Committee
recognizes the economic potential of this crop to rural
communities and understands that the research project will
include a strong focus on demonstrating the economic viability
of this new crop.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $68,674,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 76,657,000
Committee recommendation................................ 69,902,000
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
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 $69,902,000. This amount is $1,228,000 more
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not
include $11,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested
in the budget.
The Committee encourages ERS to conduct a study on value-
added products for the wool and lamb industry to identify
potential products to be marketed by sheep producers.
The Committee is aware of concerns regarding which USDA
agency is best suited to oversee and carry out research related
to food assistance programs within the Department. The Economic
Research Service has particular capacities related to economic
analysis and modeling. The Food and Nutrition Service has
longstanding expertise in programmatic operations of food
assistance programs. Given their respective capacities and
areas of expertise, research dollars at the Department of
Agriculture are provided to both ERS and FNS. The Committee
provides $5,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level,
for studies and evaluations under this account.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $138,448,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 136,182,000
Committee recommendation................................ 128,922,000
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 Service is also responsible for administration of 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,922,000. This
amount is $9,526,000 less than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation. This amount does not include $4,000 for FECA
administrative charges, as requested in the budget. The
Committee provides $4,800,000 for Agricultural estimates, as
requested. Also included in this amount is $25,279,000 for the
Census of Agriculture, as requested.
The Committee encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs and
Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter
reporting.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,036,779,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 987,303,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,045,533,000
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 the
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 Abraham Lincoln 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
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (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 $1,045,533,000. This is
$8,754,000 more than the 2003 level. This amount does not
include $244,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested
in the budget.
The Committee recommendation includes $14,078,000 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.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing research
activities. The remaining increase in appropriations from the
fiscal year 2004 level is to be applied to pay and related cost
increases to prevent the further erosion of the agency's
capacity to maintain a viable research program at all research
locations.
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 this 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 has included statutory language to return to
Colorado State University land which was conveyed to the
Agricultural Research Service on February 1, 1966. This land is
no longer being used by ARS.
The Committee's recommendations with respect to specific
areas of research are as follows:
Aerial Application Research.--Aerial application is a
necessary crop protection tool in farming and permits large
areas to be covered rapidly, thus ensuring timely and effective
applications of large farming areas. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 funding level for expanded ARS aerial
application research at the College Station, TX, research
station.
Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics.--The Committee provides
an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to
continue work on the Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant
Species at the National Center for Genome Resources in New
Mexico, as authorized in Section 227 of the Agriculture Risk
Protection Act (Public Law 106-224).
Agricultural Law, Drake University.--The Committee provides
an increase of $20,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for
support of a national center focusing on State and local food
and agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des
Moines, Iowa, is highly qualified to serve as the location of
the center.
Air Quality Research.--Agricultural operations produce a
variety of particulates and gases that influence air quality.
Agriculture, through wind erosion, tillage and harvest
operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal
operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause
pulmonary problems to humans. While extensive regulatory
measures have severely impacted agricultural production
efficiencies, continuing urban expansion into high production
regions have exacerbated the need for producers to further
modify effective production practices to reduce harmful
emissions.
The Committee recognizes that expanded research is needed
to quantify these emissions, determine emission factors, and to
develop management practices for producers to address this
problem. The Committee provides ARS an increase of $1,000,000
over the fiscal year 2003 funding levels for collaborative
research with Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory
[SDL] to develop and evaluate sensors, protocols, and
statistical procedures that accurately measure particulates and
gaseous emissions from agriculture operations.
Alternative Crops and Value-Added Products.--The Committee
is aware that alternative crops and value-added products
provide potential opportunities to enhance profitability. Niche
marketing of agriculture products displaying ``identity-
preserved'' traits have received premiums in the marketplace.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for
alternative and value-added products.
Animal Vaccines.--The U.S. food animal economy continues to
be threatened by infectious diseases that can devastate the
cattle, swine, and poultry industries. Increased research to
investigate the adverse impacts of diseases on cattle, swine,
and poultry are critically needed to avoid potential economic
disasters, such as the spread of food and mouth disease. The
Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for
collaborative research between ARS and the Universities of
Connecticut and Missouri to develop more effective animal
vaccines.
Animal Waste Treatment.--The Committee understands the need
for additional research to find new and economical treatments
to eliminate animal wastes. The ARS research station at
Florence, SC, is investigating alternative treatments and
techniques to respond to this major problem in swine
production. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 over
fiscal year 2003 for this research.
Appalachian Fruit Research Station.--The Committee
recognizes the importance of the fruit research program carried
out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville,
WV, and provides an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year
2003 level for essential staffing to support the station's
ongoing research to identify new alternatives for chemical
control of insects, and to develop disease-resistant trees.
Appalachian Horticulture Research.--Ornamental
horticulture, floriculture and nursery crops, collectively
constitute the third most important crop in the United States,
surpassed only by corn and soybeans, with an average estimated
value of more than $11,000,000,000 a year. Tennessee has a
vibrant nursery industry and a growing floriculture industry.
The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year
2003 for ARS collaborative research with the University of
Tennessee and Tennessee State University, including efforts to
develop resistant genes in dogwoods and other woody
ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and techniques to
enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the marketplace.
Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems.--The Committee is
aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-raised
beef research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian
Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The
research partnership, which includes West Virginia University,
Virginia Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle
farmers. The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from
the fiscal year 2003 level for this research, which will ensure
the economic viability of these farmers and conserve and
protect the region's environment.
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee provides an increase
of $150,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to develop grain-
based products for use in fish feeds, human food, and
industrial products from novel cultivars of barley and oats in
cooperation with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture
Experiment Station in Hagerman, ID.
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.
Arid Lands Research.--The challenges for agricultural
production and natural resource management in the desert
Southwest and adjoining border regions are immense.
Technologies for arid land agriculture are needed for the
remediation of arid and semi-arid rangelands, sustainable
agriculture production for growers of irrigated cotton and
selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed lands. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for expanded
research in rangeland resource management, irrigated farming
technology, and environmental horticulture at the Jornada
Experimental Range Station at Las Cruces, NM.
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR.--The
Committee notes the importance of optimizing the nutrition and
health of children from conception through adolescence. The
Center is leading major research efforts to understand the
relationship between chronic disease and diet, genetics, and
lifestyle. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level
for expanded investigations on these issues.
Biological Control Research.--The Committee has been
impressed by results of the various approaches which have been
taken by the Jamie Whitten Delta States 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 2003 level.
Biomass Crop Production.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2003 level for increased cooperative research
between ARS and South Dakota State University to further
investigate the applicability of using a method of fiber
extrusion to dry and process wet distiller grains from ethanol
production into high value feed for cattle, as well as
conversion to increased ethanol production.
Biomedical Materials in Plants.--Increased research is
needed to carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a
medium to produce vaccines and other biomedical products for
the prevention of many human and animal diseases. The Committee
provides an increase of $425,000 from the fiscal year 2003
level for expanded ARS cooperative research with the
Biotechnology Foundation.
Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.--
Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and
mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for
adding precision to breeding of improved plants and animals,
and identifying gene products through proteomics technology.
Other technological advancements can be achieved in the
livestock industry through the development of imaging at the
molecular level using light, heat, and/or fluorescing
signatures. These biotechnology efforts generate huge volumes
of data, which must be managed, transmitted electronically, and
analyzed. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level to
ARS at Stoneville, MS, to support cooperative research in
genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of biophotonics for
the imaging of animal physiological processes at the cellular
level.
Broiler Production in the Mid South.--Reduced broiler
production costs are essential for the industry to increase net
profit and remain competitive internationally. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS
Poultry Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station at Mississippi State. This
cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of
mycoplasma disease with vaccines, and overall health, vigor,
and growth of the birds through improved housing environmental
controls. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level
for cooperative research on reducing ammonia levels in poultry
litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing
mortality in broiler flocks.
Canada Thistle.--The Committee recognizes the importance of
controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious,
invasive weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested
acreage in North Dakota. The Committee provides an increase of
$300,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry out research experiments
to examine the population genetics and biology of Canada
thistle and to combat this weed in North Dakota and surrounding
States. The research is to be conducted at the ARS research
facility at Fargo, ND.
Catfish Health.--Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and
parasites threaten the economic viability of the Nation's
billion dollar catfish industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S.
channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the
industry to outbreaks of diseases and parasites. Research
urgently is needed to identify disease vectors, modes of
transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling catfish
diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A
thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors
on disease will lead to improved management practices for
conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the comprehensive
catfish health research program based at the Stoneville, MS,
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. This Center is
strategically located in the mid-delta, proximal to the vast
majority of the U.S. commercial catfish farming acreage and
already has a critical mass of scientists, facilities, and
instrumentation addressing the disease issue. Ongoing research
in genomics and breeding can be expanded to select for fish
with disease and parasite resistance, but additional
scientists, including a parasitologist and virologist, are
required for a comprehensive disease and parasite genetic
resistance research program.
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 continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level
for research on shellfish safety and methods of decreasing
risks to consumers.
Central Great Plains Research Station.--This is the only
ARS station conducting research aimed at solving dryland
production problems in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to
the Central Great Plains Research Station at Akron, CO, for
research on extensive crop rotation strategies. Increased
research will focus on biological diversity to reduce weed,
disease, and insects inherent in single crop rotation and
utilize a complete systems approach to quantify comparative
yield benefits under various rotation schemes.
Cereal Disease Research.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2003 level to support the core group of scientists
currently performing research at the Cereal Disease Research
Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Children's Nutrition Research Center.--The Children's
Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, TX, has helped define the role of nutrition in
children's health, growth, and development; contributed to
nutritional guidelines used by physicians, parents, and others
responsible for the care and feeding of children, and is unique
in it's ability to address a broad array of children's
nutritional issues. The Committee provides an increase of
$500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for increased
investigation of the nutritional needs of pregnant and nursing
women, and children from conception to adolescence, at the
Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].--In order to reduce
livestock losses and to improve efficiency of production, it is
important to eradicate transmissable spongiform
encephalopathies [TSE] in domestic animals. Scrapie of sheep
and goats, bovine spongiform encephalopathies [BSE] and chronic
wasting disease [CWD] of deer and elk are classes of TSE's of
ruminant animals and are fatal diseases that can affect both
animals and humans. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2003 funding level to the Animal Disease Laboratory, Pullman,
WA, and the National Animal Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for
urgent research on CWD.
Cacao Germplasm.--The Committee is aware of the climatic
differences encountered in maintaining cacao germplasm at the
ARS facility in Florida and is also aware of the sharp increase
in commercial planting of cacao in Hawaii. The Committee
recommends that ARS consider moving its cacao germplasm
collection to the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center to
take advantage of the more compatible cacao growing conditions
at this location and to provide the applied research support
needed by Hawaii's emerging chocolate industry.
Coffee and Cocoa.--The disease resistance and alternative
crop research program for coffee and cocoa has important
economic benefits and implications for foreign policy goals in
South Central America and West Africa. As a globally marketable
cash crop, cocoa can provide an alternative, environmentally
beneficial choice for small farmers and an incentive to Andean
farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide
stable long-term economic benefit. Cocoa is produced primarily
by small farmers in the tropics of South Central America and
West Africa that is also under severe disease pressure which
threatens the stability of world supply of cocoa and the
economies of other cocoa-producing nations. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to fully realize
the research potential of coffee and cocoa as alternatives to
illegal crops.
Corn Germplasm.--Corn is a key resource in Iowa and
throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses,
livestock feed and export. It is important to broaden the
germplasm base of corn hybrids grown by American farmers to
establish genetic diversity and stability in corn production.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the ARS
Corn Germplasm Research Laboratory at Ames, Iowa for research
to increase the productivity and genetic diversity of maize
grown in the United States.
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin.--Contamination of corn by
aflatoxin limits corn production in the southern United States.
Understanding the corn genome and where the genes for
resistance are located on the genome will accelerate the plant
breeding process leading to resistant corn lines. The Committee
recognizes the progress already made in the discovery and
transfer of aflatoxin-resistant corn germplasm to commercial
seed companies as a result of the cooperation between the
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and
the ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Unit at Mississippi
State. The Committee has provided the fiscal year 2003 funding
level for ARS at Mississippi State to continue this cooperative
research on the development of corn plants resistant to
aflatoxin.
Cotton Genetics Research.--Global competition in the
textile industry has caused domestic textile manufacturers to
adopt more efficient cotton farm spinning technologies. These
new technologies require higher fiber strength to operate
resistance to nematodes and insect pests that annually inflict
significant losses to the cotton industry. There is a need to
broaden the genetic base of cotton germplasm with fiber
properties that will meet today's more efficient yarn spinning
machines, as well as cotton varieties with improved host
resistance to insects and pathogens. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 level for cotton genetics research.
Cotton Genomics, Breeding, Variety Development, and Pest
Resistance.--The Committee recognizes the progress that has
been made through the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at
Stoneville, MS, in the research, development, and transfer of
improved cotton germplasm to the cotton industry. This
cooperative research must be accelerated to incorporate new
genetic material into agronomically-acceptable varieties and to
transfer reniform nematode and other pest resistance into
improved cotton lines. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2003 funding level to enhance the public cotton breeding
program conducted by ARS at Stoneville, MS.
Cotton Ginning Laboratory.--The Committee continues funding
at the fiscal year 2003 level for ARS cotton ginning research.
Dairy Forage Research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the
U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee
provides an increase of $1,400,000 from the fiscal year 2003
level for expanded dairy forage research at the center.
Delta Nutrition.--The Committee provides $300,000 for
nutrition activities through a cooperative agreement with the
Southern University Center for Food Nutrition and Health
Promotion in Louisiana. This funding will advance research to
assess the human health and nutrition status of underserved
rural communities.
Ecology of Tamarix.--Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody
invasive plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming
large amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like
willow and cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem
in Nevada, California, Colorado, Texas, and other Western
States. The Committee is aware of the ARS biocontrol field
trials on China beetles to eradicate tamarix and provides an
increase of $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to accelerate
research on tamarix control using China beetles and other
biocontrols, and to expand research on cheat grass at the ARS
research station in Reno, NV.
Fish Disease Research.--The development of safe and
effective vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is
essential to the growth of the catfish industry. There are
currently only a number of approved therapeutic compounds
available for farmers to heal diseases of fish. Vaccinations,
successful in other animals, appear to be the best means of
preventing diseases. The Committee provides an increase of
$100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the ARS
Fish Disease and Parasitic Research Laboratory at Auburn, AL,
for increased research on the development of commercially
approved vaccines for catfish.
Floriculture and Nursery Research.--Nursery and greenhouse
products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public
demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent
water runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation
and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and
significant role in enhancing environmental quality. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for floriculture
and nursery research aimed at reducing chemical use, improved
post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease and pest
resistant flowers and plants, control of root diseases,
robotics research, and control of run-off from greenhouse and
nursery operations.
Food Safety and Engineering.--The Committee provides an
additional $100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for
increased collaborative research with Purdue University in the
area of food safety and engineering.
Forage and Range Research.--The Committee recognizes the
important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and
Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program
seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants,
reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect
revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and
provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee provides
an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for
additional research required to develop range and pasture plant
varieties.
Forage-Livestock Systems.--The Committee provides an
increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to
ARS to continue a cooperative project with the University of
Kentucky on tall fescue breeding and improvement efforts to
develop an enhanced national forage base.
Formosan Subterranean Termite.--The management of this
termite is essential to Louisiana economic well-being. This
termite has infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most
severe infestations occurring in the New Orleans and Lake
Charles areas. This insect has caused millions of dollars worth
of damage with an astonishing $300,000,000 impact in New
Orleans alone. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000
from the fiscal year 2003 level to the Southern Regional
Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for expanded research
efforts focusing on improved termite detection systems,
evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials,
and enhancement of bait technology.
The Committee also recognizes the University of
Mississippi's ongoing research and development efforts to
assist USDA entomologists who are focused on the reduction of
Formosan subterranean termites. The National Center for
Physical Acoustics at the University of Mississippi plays a
unique role in development and application of acoustic
detection methods for accurately locating Formosan termites in
structures of the French Quarter in New Orleans. Accurate
detection is an important aspect in control of these insects.
The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level
for continued research and development in the use of insect
acoustics.
Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory.--The
Committee recognizes the threat to long-term sustainability of
the Northern Great Plains range livestock industry from
infestations of noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and spotted
knapweed. The objective of the Fort Keogh, MT, station is to
develop low-input rangeland management strategies that impede
or control the spread of noxious weeds into native rangelands
and planted pastures. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2003 level.
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about the serious costs that the Glassy-winged
sharpshooter [GWSS] and Pierce's disease [PD] inflict on U.S.
vineyards. Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly new
shipping requirements to inspect and treat plants and crops to
curb the spread of GWSS-PD. The Committee provides an increase
of $450,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS Parlier,
CA, laboratory to continue its research efforts and
collaborations to control and eradicate this devastating
carrier and disease.
Grain Marketing and Research Center.--The Committee is
aware that ARS has co-located the research programs of the Wind
Erosion Research Unit and the Grain Marketing Research Center
[GMPRC] at the GMPRC location in Manhattan, Kansas. This co-
location of facilities results in inadequate research space for
these individual programs. The Committee expects ARS to conduct
a feasibility study detailing costs and plans for meeting the
additional facility space requirements created by this co-
location. The Committee expects ARS to provide a report to the
Committee on this study no later than March 1, 2004.
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory.--Research is needed
to study rural health problems related to diet in the Northern
Great Plains. Particular emphasis will be given to the diets of
Native Americans and the rural elderly. The Committee provides
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for this program to be
carried out by the ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center in
cooperation with the University of North Dakota School of
Medicine and Health Sciences.
Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction Research.--With the
consumption of grapefruit juice dramatically declining, there
is a need to examine and attain more precise data on the effect
of grapefruit juice on the absorption rates of certain
medications. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level
to the ARS Citrus Research Laboratory at Winterhaven, FL, for
research to identify and characterize the components of
grapefruit juice responsible for enzyme suppression, understand
the dosage affected, and determine the rate of consumption for
safety and efficacy.
Grape Genetics.--The Committee is aware that grapes are the
sixth largest crop in the United States and one of the most
important cash crops worldwide. The United States is the fourth
largest producer of wine, responsible for about 10 percent of
all world wine. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000
in fiscal year 2004 for the grape genetics research program at
the ARS facility in Geneva, New York.
Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recognizes
the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide
that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American
consumer. There is a great need for expanded fundamental and
applied research to improve production technology of Great
Lakes species such as whitefish, lake trout, yellow perch
walleye, and northern pike. The Committee provides an increase
of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 for a cooperative program with
the Great Lakes Aquaculture Center to support this research and
an increase of $300,000 for a cooperative agreement with the
University of Wisconsin for Northern Wisconsin Aquaculture
research.
Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.--
Arkansas leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as
well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation's baitfish and
other food fishes. The Committee understands that this Center
plays a significant role in meeting the needs of the U.S.
aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving
yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for
increased research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped
bass.
Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the Hawaii Agriculture
Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of U.S.
sugarcane producers and to continue to support the expansion of
new crops and products, including those from agroforestry, to
complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.
Hides and Leather Research.--The USDA's only hides and
leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional
Research Center in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the
hides and leather industry with cost-effective and
environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S.
producers' competitiveness in world markets. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this research.
Hops Research.--The Committee is aware of the importance of
research to the hops industry in the Pacific Northwest. Hops
are grown commercially in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for research on
powdery mildew that has caused widespread devastation to the
hops production in the Northwest. This increase will be carried
out at the ARS research station at Corvallis, OR.
Horticulture Research.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits
Research Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation
catalyzed and now undergirds the Gulf Coast blueberry and other
small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded into the
development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental industries and
can revitalize small farms in the south. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the
cooperative research and development efforts on ornamentals,
vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.
Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging [HNRCA].--The
HNRCA at Tufts University is one of six USDA research centers
that study the effects of human nutrition on health. The
program at HNRCA requires additional resources to maintain
existing scientists and staff as well as to offset inflation
and spiraling energy costs. The Committee provides an increase
of $250,000 to ARS from the fiscal year 2003 level to meet
these resource needs.
Integrated Farming Systems.--The Committee understands that
Integrated Farming Systems represents the agriculture operation
in its entirety, including finances, natural resources and off-
farm environmental impacts. The National Soil Tilth Laboratory
in Ames, IA, conducts this research with special emphasis on
nutrient management. The Committee continues the fiscal year
2003 level.
IPM Strategies for Northern Climate.--Insect pests, plant
pathogens, and weed pests are serious threats to Alaska's
economic viability. The Committee recognizes the importance of
agricultural research to enhance productivity and profitability
of Alaska's farming industry, including the preservation and
management of its valuable natural resources utilizing IPM
strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003
funding level for expanded research to develop IPM application
approaches suitable to northern latitudes that support viable
crop and nursery production systems and the sustainability of
natural resources.
Invasive Species.--The Committee understands the serious
impact that invasive species have on production agriculture.
Invasive species are second only to loss of habitat in causing
negative impacts on environmental areas and loss of biological
diversity. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level
for this biological control program.
Johne's Disease (Bovine Paratuberculosis).--Johne's is a
contagious disease that causes chronic wasting or debilitating
enteritis and eventual death in cattle, sheep, goats, deer and
other wild and domestic ruminants. Infected animals
intermittently shed the microorganisms into milk and feces.
Infection is difficult to diagnose because of the fastidious,
slow growth of the microorganisms and the poor reliability of
the sero-diagnostic tools. Additional research is needed to
develop improved diagnostics and vaccines, and better
understanding of the pathogenicity of the organism. The
Committee continues the funding level available in fiscal year
2003 for research to control this devastating disease affecting
this Nation's beef and dairy industries.
Karnal Bunt.--The Committee is aware of the significant
threat karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S.
wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance
and control methods, the Committee continues the fiscal year
2003 level for research in this area. The Committee expects ARS
to work with Kansas State University to establish a consortium
in Manhattan, KS, that will work with other land grant
universities in this research area.
Livestock Genome Sequencing.--The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2003 level for the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center
at Clay Center, NE, for expanded genomics research to identify
the genes that influence disease resistance, reproduction,
nutrition, and other economically important traits in
livestock. This research is to be performed in collaboration
with the University of Illinois.
Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus.--The Committee
acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-
associated virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting
small ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003
funding level for research on the development of vaccines
critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small
ruminants at the ARS laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation
with the ARS sheep, station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State
University.
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.--The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 level for ARS to initiate
collaborative research with the Michael Fields Agricultural
Institute. This research will develop high-quality corn in
Wisconsin and other Mid-Western States for increased
nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable farming
systems. Collaborative research will be directed at corn
breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and
information dissemination.
Microbial Genomics.--The Committee recognizes the
importance and significance of the joint microbial genomics
initiative between the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at
Pullman, WA, and the ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX,
and continues the fiscal year 2003 level of funding.
Monkeypox Research.--The Committee is concerned about the
recent outbreak of Monkeypox in the Midwest and the potential
devastation posed by this disease to the United States.
Homeowners continue to acquire more exotic pets including
snakes, frogs, turtles, etc., that cause over 90,000 illnesses
to Americans annually. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,000,000 for an interagency effort led by ARS to examine the
presence of animal related diseases and pathogen transmissions
between animals and humans. The Committee directs that the
Agency work directly with the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Centers for Disease Control, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Animal Health Laboratory at
Madison, WI, to develop and improve diagnostics and control
efforts in regard to this disease.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.--The
Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the
State of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon
cultivation. Other important aquaculture species in Maine
include shellfish and trout. Research on marine finfish is
vitally important to Maine's aquaculture program. Finfish,
including haddock, halibut, and cod, are primary candidates for
future diversity of Maine's aquaculture industry. The Committee
provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003
funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at
the Franklin, Maine, research location.
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant.--The
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant at Edwardsville,
IL, was constructed to avail researchers and commercial
producers with a state-of-the-art facility to develop more
efficient production of ethanol. The plant will operate on a
time-share basis to Federal and State agencies, universities,
and commercial producers. The plant has the near-term potential
to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of corn
conversion for ethanol production. The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2003 level to fund ARS research at the pilot plant.
The research will utilize both wet milled and dry milled
projects and will focus on processing efficiencies that can be
adapted commercially in the near term.
National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Health and dietary
information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of
Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical
to the Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food
policies and programs including food safety, food labeling,
child nutrition, food assistance and dietary guidance. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the combined
national nutrition monitoring program.
National Sclerotinia Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of controlling this disease which affects
sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and lentils.
The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this
research initiative which is centered at the ARS research
station at Fargo, ND.
National Sedimentation Laboratory.--The National Center for
Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, in cooperation with
the Agriculture Research Service at Oxford, MS, has developed a
series of mathematical models to assess and mitigate upland
soil erosion, stream bank failure, and the transport and impact
of sediment on stream morphology and ecology. These models have
been recognized nationally and internationally as being at the
forefront of research on understanding sediment transport
processes. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year
2003 level to ARS at Oxford for expanding cooperative research
with the Center and accelerating the transfer of the modeling
technology to Federal and State agencies responsible for
mitigating soil erosion and sediment transport in streams.
National Soil Erosion Laboratory.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 level for salaries and related research
expenses for a water quality researcher stationed at the USDA-
ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory at West Lafayette,
Indiana.
Natural Products.--The Committee provides an increase of
$500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for the ARS to
continue and accelerate its cooperative research with the
National Center for Natural Products Research to discover and
develop natural product chemicals for use in agriculture.
Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.--Diverse
economic and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture
in the Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research
Laboratory in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production
agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory
is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as
new cropping systems and innovative crop rotations that
minimize use of chemicals and tillage. The Committee provides
an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for
support of two additional scientist positions required by the
laboratory to assemble a team of scientists to address the
diverse economic and environmental problems in the Northern
Plains.
Northern Great Plains Ecosystem.--The Committee is aware of
the research and outreach programs conducted by the ARS
Biological Control and Soil Conservation Laboratory at Sidney,
Montana. A major focus of research at the station is targeted
to biocontrol of invasive and noxious weeds and enhancing the
long-term sustainability of range, irrigated and dryland
agriculture. Invasive weeds alter ecosystem structure and
function, reduces biodiversity, displaces native plants and
requires widespread use of herbicides. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 level to strengthen this program.
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.--The
Committee understands the importance of expanding research on
irrigated cropping practices, crop rotation, water use, and
integrated pest management of weeds in irrigated and dryland
crops in the Northern Plains. This research will improve
production and crop quality, and will increase long-term
economic returns to growers. The Committee provides an increase
of $900,000 for fiscal year 2004 for this research at the
Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.
Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest.--Invasive and
noxious weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the
United States by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be
the primary land types invaded by these species. The Committee
supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and
tree species carried out by ARS at the Jornada Experimental
Range in Las Cruces and continues the fiscal year 2003 funding
level for this research.
Ogallala Aquifer.--Surface water in the Central High Plains
region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which
underlies this area, has provided water for the development of
a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the
Ogallala Aquifer is a finite resource. The Committee provides
the Agricultural Research Service an increase of $950,000 from
the fiscal year 2003 level for research into the complex nature
of water availability, potential uses, and costs which will
help determine future water policy in this region. This
research is to be based in Texas but coordinated with other
affected States, including Kansas.
Organic Research.--The Committee supports ARS activities at
appropriate locations to enhance research related to organic
agriculture.
Ornamental and Horticulture Research.--The Committee
recognizes the collaborative research program between ARS and
the University of Vermont [UVM]. Research currently underway at
UVM includes Pear thrips and the Asian Long-horned Beetle. UVM
research is critical to the protection of the ornamental and
horticulture industries throughout New England. The Committee
provides an increase of $150,000 for Pear thrips research from
the fiscal year 2003 level.
Papaya Ringspot Virus.--The Committee provides the fiscal
year 2003 level to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine control
of the papaya ringspot virus and to expand the techniques and
knowledge obtained from this program to other diseases and
pests; and to coordinate a program to induce nematode
resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease
resistance in commercial pineapple varieties and to seek funds
from the private sector to complement Federal funds. The
Committee views the nematode and ringspot virus activities as
supportive of a national agricultural research agency and that
of Hawaii.
Phytoestrogens Research.--The Committee is aware of the
increased consumption of soy products and controversies
surrounding the health claims from those products.
Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block
estrogen, remain a priority issue for USDA researchers.
Research studies have suggested that phytoestrogens have a
range of human health benefits that can prevent certain
diseases. However, extensive studies on their long-term
benefits and side effects are lacking. The Committee provides
an increase of $400,000 for this research from the fiscal year
2003 level. Current research is carried out at the Southern
Regional Research Center in New Orleans in collaboration with
other universities. The Committee directs $200,000 of these
resources be used in collaboration with the University of
Toledo to fingerprint and isolate novel products in stressed
and unstressed soy.
Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center.--The
Committee recognizes the challenges of water availability,
invasive weeds, fire cycles, and conservation in the Western
United States. To meet these needs, the Committee supports the
establishment of a plant genetic diversity and gene discovery
center at the ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory in
collaboration with the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station.
The center will access plant genetic relationships and identify
native plant species through DNA technologies to help
conservation efforts in genetic diversity and support wild
lands rehabilitation efforts after fire, mining, and invasive
weed control activities. The Committee provides an increase of
$750,000 in fiscal year 2004 for this program.
Poisonous Plant Research.--The USDA Poisonous Plant
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on
the effects of poisonous plants on livestock in support of the
Nation's livestock industry. The Committee is aware of the
important investigations carried out by this laboratory and the
significant contributions it has made in agricultural plant and
animal sciences. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,200,000 in fiscal year 2004 to ensure scientific staffing
and to strengthen ongoing poisonous plant research programs.
Potato Production.--The Committee recognizes the important
contributions made by the USDA-ARS research units at Prosser
and Wapato, Washington, but encourages closer cooperation
between the units in conducting research and solving problems
in potato production.
Potato Research.--The Committee is concerned that funding
levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS' ability to
address some aspects of potato variety research. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 level to meet research staffing
needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research laboratory.
The Committee expects that the potato research funds
appropriated to the ARS Research Unit in Wapato, Washington, be
used for actual potato research, and recommends that ARS
allocate a proportionate amount of these funds for potato
entomology research, rather than only staff and indirect costs.
Potato Storage.--The Committee recognizes the need for
expanded investigations on potato storage and provides an
increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 for this work.
Research will be conducted at the ARS Madison, WI, laboratory
on plant physiology, fumigation, and cultural practices to help
growers reduce pesticide inputs.
Precision Agriculture Research.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 level for the Mandan Northern Great Plains
Research Laboratory for a precision agriculture research
project and global climate change research. The precision
agriculture research should be conducted in cooperation with
the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium and DigitalGlobe. In
addition, the Committee has restored the funding provided last
year for the Hettinger Extension Service Southwest Feeders
Program. ARS researchers can contribute significantly to the
knowledge base UMAC can transfer to producers.
Program Continuations.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following
areas of research in fiscal year 2004 at the same funding level
provided in fiscal year 2003: Acoustic Technology, Oxford, MS;
Aerial Application Research, College Station, TX; Aflatoxin in
Cotton, Phoenix, AZ; Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics, Ames,
IA; Agricultural Law, Drake University, NAL; Agroforestry
Research, Booneville, AR; Alternative Crops and Value Added
Products, Stoneville, MS; Animal Vaccines; Animal Welfare
Information Center, NAL; Appalachian Fruit Research Station,
Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Pasture Based Beef Systems,
Beaver, WV; Aquaculture Initiative for Mid-Atlantic Highlands,
Leetown, WV; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; Arctic
Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Arid Lands Research, Las Cruces, NM;
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR; Asian
Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Barley Food Health Benefits,
Beltsville, MD; Bee Research, Logan, UT; Bee Research, Weslaco,
TX; Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program;
Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, Ames, IA;
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD; Biomedical Materials in
Plants, Beltsville, MD; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control
of Nematodes, Beltsville, MD; Biotechnology Research and
Development Corp, Peoria, IL; Biotechnology Research to Improve
Crops and Livestock, Stoneville, MS; Bovine Genetics,
Beltsville, MD; Broiler Production in the Mid-South,
Mississippi State, MS; Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL; Catfish
Health, Stoneville, MS; Central Great Plains Research Station,
Akron, CO; Cereal Crops Research, Madison, WI; Cereal Crops,
Northern Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal Disease Research, St. Paul,
MN; Coffee and Cocoa Research, Miami, FL; Beltsville, MD; Corn
Germplasm, Mississippi State, MS; Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA;
Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, MS; Cotton
Genetics Research, Florence, SC; Cotton Genomics, Breeding, and
Variety Development, Stoneville, MS; Cotton Genomics, Breeding,
Variety Development and Pest Resistance, Stoneville, MS; Cotton
Ginning Research, Las Cruces, NM; Dairy Forage, Madison, WI;
Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Delta Nutrition Intervention
Initiative. Little Rock, AR; Diet and Immune Function, Little
Rock, AR; Dryland Production, Akron, CO; Ecology of Tamarix,
Reno, NV; Floriculture and Nursery Crops; Food Safety and
Engineering, Wyndmoor, PA; Food Safety for Listeria and E.coli;
Forage and Range Research, Logan, UT; Forage-Livestock Systems,
Lexington, KY; Formosan Subterranean Termites, New Orleans, LA;
Foundry Sand By-Products, Beltsville, MD; Ft. Keogh Livestock
and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT; Grain Legume
Plant Pathologist Position, Pullman, WA; Grain Research,
Manhattan, KS; Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory, Grand
Forks, ND; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY; Grapefruit Juice/Drug
Interaction; Winter Haven, FL; Great Basins Rangeland, Boise,
ID; Reno, NV; Burns, OR; Greenhouse Hydroponics Research,
Wooster, OH; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center,
Stuttgart, AR; Harvesting Research for Sugarcane, Houma, LA;
Hides and Leather Research, Wyndmoor, PA; Honey Bee Research,
Baton Rouge, LA; Hops Research, Corvallis, OR; Horticulture
Research, Poplaraville, MS; Human Nutrition Research Center on
Aging, Boston, MA; Improved Animal Waste Management, Florence,
SC; Improved Crop Production Practices, Auburn, AL; Improved
Forage Livestock Production, Lexington, KY; Integrated Farming
Systems, Ames, IA; Integrated Farming Systems/Dairy Forage,
Madison, WI; IPM for Northern Climate Crops, Fairbanks, AK;
Irrigated Cropping Systems in the Mid-South, Stoneville, MS;
Johne's Disease, Ames, IA; Beltsville, MD; Jornada Experimental
Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM; Karnal Bunt, Manhattan,
KS; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME; Livestock and Range
Research, Miles City, MT; Livestock Genome Mapping, Clay
Center, NE; Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus, Pullman, WA;
Medicinal Botanical Production and Processing, Beaver, WV;
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Madison, WI; Microbial
Genomics, Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA; Minor Use Pesticide [IR-
4]; National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture,
Leetown, WV; National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture--Aquaculture Systems--Freshwater Institute,
Leetown, WV; National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture, Orono, ME;
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant; National
Germplasm Resources Program; National Nutrition Monitoring
System, Beltsville, MD; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo,
ND; National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Oxford, MS;
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS;
National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin/TMDLs, Oxford,
MS; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; National
Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN; National Warmwater
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS; Natural Products, Oxford,
MS; Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; New England Plant, Soil,
and Water Research, Orono, ME; Northern Grain Insect
Laboratory, Brookings, SD; Northern Great Plains Ecosystem,
Sidney, MT; Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan,
ND; Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, NM;
Nutritional Requirements, Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits
Research, Corvallis, OR; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN;
Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland, TX; Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA;
Montpelier, FR; Ornamental and Horticulture Research, Ithaca,
NY; Ornamental Crops Research, Poplarville, MS; Phytoestrogen
Research, New Orleans, LA; Pierce's Disease, Davis, CA;
Parlier, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Potato Breeding Research,
Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement, Prosser, WA; Potato
Research, Aberdeen, ID; Poultry Disease (Avian Coccidiosis),
Beltsville, MD; Poultry Disease (Avian Leukosis-J Virus);
Precision Agriculture Research, Mandan, ND; Rainbow Trout,
Aberdeen, ID; Rainbow Trout, Leetown, WV; Rangeland Resources
Research, Las Cruces, NM; Red Imported Fire Ants, Stoneville,
MS; Regional Grains Genotyping Research, Raleigh, NC; Residue
Management in Sugarcane, Houma, LA; Resistance Management and
Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton, Stoneville, MS; Risk Assessment
for Bt Corn, Ames, IA; Root Diseases in Wheat and Barley,
Pullman, WA; Seafood Waste, Fairbanks, AK; Sedimentation Issues
in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitations, Oxford, MS; Seismic and
Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Laboratory,
Oxford, MS; Shellfish Genetics, Newport, OR; Small Farms,
Booneville, AR; Small Fruits Research, Poplarville, MS; Soil
Plant Nutrient Research, Ft. Collins, CO; Soil Tilth Research,
Ames, IA; Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR: Manhattan, KS;
Stillwater, OK; Bushland, TX; Lubbock, TX; Southwest Pecan
Research, College Station, TX; Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation,
Raleigh, NC; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS; Soybean
Genetics, Columbia, MO; Soybean Research in the South,
Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak Disease, Frederick, MD; Sugarbeet
Research, Kimberly, ID; Sustainable Olive Production, Weslaco,
TX; Sustainable Vineyard Practices, Davis, CA; Sustainable
Viticulture Research, Davis; CA; Sweet Potato Research,
Stoneville, MS; Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research, Florence,
SC; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Trout Genome Mapping,
Leetown, WV; Turfgrass Research, Washington, DC; U.S. National
Arboretum, Washington, DC; U.S. Pacific Basin Ag Research
Center, Hilo, HI; U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation
Laboratory, Lubbock, TX; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory/Staffing,
Charleston, SC; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish Health,
Auburn, AL; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, WI; Virus-Free
Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, WA; Virus-Free Potato Germplasm,
Fairbanks, AK; Viticulture, Corvallis, OR; Waste Management
Research, Mississippi State, MS; Water Management Research
Laboratory, Brawley, CA; Water Resource Management, Tifton; GA;
Water Use Reduction/Producer Enhancement Research, Dawson, GA;
Watershed Research, Columbia, MO; Western Grazinglands, Burns,
OR; Western Wheat Quality Laboratory, Pullman, WA; Wheat and
Barley Scab Initiative, Manhattan, KS; Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND;
Wheat Quality Research, Manhattan, KS; Fargo, ND; Wooster, OH;
Pullman, WA; Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN; Woody Genomics and
Breeding for the Southeast, Poplarville, MS.
Rainbow Trout.--The Committee provides an increase of
$725,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to develop and test
improved rainbow trout strains and alternative grain-based fish
feeds in cooperation with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish
Culture Experiment Station in Hagerman, Idaho.
Red Imported Fire Ants.--Nationally, the red imported fire
ant causes damage and control costs of over $1,000,000,000 per
year. As an invasive species, it has expanded from its apparent
point of entry at Mobile, Alabama, to encompass over 300
million acres in 12 Southern States including Mississippi and
Texas, three Western States including California, and Puerto
Rico. Range expansion into one-fourth of the United States and
parts of Mexico is expected to continue without centralized
aggressive action. The Committee recognizes the leadership
provided by ARS at Stoneville, MS, in the development of
natural enemy mass propagation and release technologies for
area-wide suppression of the red imported fire ant and halting
its spread. Other research is directed toward development of
toxic baits and use of geographic information systems and
remote sensing technologies to detect the delineate fire ant
infested areas. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal
year 2003 level to expand cooperative research to implement
multi-year, community-wide trials in the mid-South to eliminate
populations of the imported fire ant.
Regional Grains Genotyping Research.--Current regional ARS
laboratories characterize germplasm and improve resistance to
rusts, blights and insect pests. Regional genotyping centers
will overcome the barriers to practical use through DNA
extraction and high-throughout marker screening procedures. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this
research to be carried out at the ARS research laboratory at
Raleigh, NC.
Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and
Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.--Transgenic Bt cottons
have provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant
tobacco budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests.
However, potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests
to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the
viability of the Bt plant protectant technology. The
Environmental Protection Agency has imposed strategies for
managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt
technology, but it is important to develop data to validate
these strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003
level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a national
program for devising the most effective and economically
sustainable production systems for ensuring the long-term
integrity of Bt crop protection and resistance management.
Seafood Waste.--The disposal of seafood waste continues to
be a national and international problem. Additional research is
needed to determine alternative uses of discarded fish as a
possible source of additional income for seafood producers. The
Committee supports the existing ARS/University of Alaska
collaborative research project on feedstuff that can be
generated from materials usually wasted during processing of
seafoods. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from
the level of funding available in fiscal year 2003 for expanded
research to address this problem.
Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitation.--
Nearly 11,000 flood control dams have been constructed by the
United States Department of Agriculture nationwide in 2,000
watersheds since 1944. These watershed projects represent a
$14,000,000,000 infrastructure, providing flood control,
municipal water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat
enhancement. The life expectancy of these dams is projected to
be 50 years. Sedimentation has reduced water-holing capacity,
structural components have deteriorated, and safety regulations
have become more strict. The Committee continues the fiscal
year 2003 funding level to ARS at Oxford, MS, for assessing the
efficiency of these structures in regulating floodwater,
including the use of acoustics techniques, and hazards that the
sediments may pose if introduced into the environment.
Shellfish Genetics.--ARS has established a shellfish
genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and
food quality. The Committee recognizes the importance of this
multi-State research program and continues the fiscal year 2003
funding level for shellfish genetics research at the Oregon
State University Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, OR.
Silverleaf Whitefly.--The silverleaf whitefly, also known
as the sweetpotato whitefly, causes 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 Fruits Research.--The Committee supports the ongoing
research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and Pathology
Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh and
processed berries and grapes in both domestic and international
markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The Committee
provides an increas of $250,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level
of funding for this research which involves cooperation between
industry, State and Federal research.
Soil Dynamics Research.--The extent of soil degradation in
the South not only impairs soil and water quality but also
reduces profitability and economic sustainability of farms in
the region. Improving profitability of farms in the South is
critical to rural economies as farm numbers continue to
decline. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from
the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the ARS Soil Dynamics
Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for expanded research to develop
technologies and strategies for managing soils to increase farm
profitability, and preserve the soil resource for future
generations.
Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research.--The Committee understands
the important contributions made by the ARS Ft. Collins Soil,
Plant, Nutrient Laboratory and continues the fiscal year 2003
funding level to support the cropping systems and nitrogen
management research program carried out at this laboratory.
Sorghum Research.--Sorghum is fourth on the list of
economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and
wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses
of this major U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over
$2,100,000,000. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003
funding level for expanded research at the ARS Grain Sorghum
Research Laboratory, Manhattan, KS, on the measurement of
sorghum quality and the development of alternative uses of this
important crop.
Soybean Research in the South.--The Committee has continued
the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the continuation of the
soybean research program located at the Delta Branch Experiment
Station in Stoneville, Mississippi with the USDA/ARS focusing
on soybean genetics and breeding, and Mississippi Agriculture
and Forestry Experiment Station devoting efforts to production
systems research.
Soybean Rust.--The Committee is aware of serious concerns
raised by the soybean industry due to the threat of soybean
rust. Soybean rust is a fungus that first appears on the leaves
of the plant and eventually causes pre-mature defoliation which
brings about substantial yield loss. The Committee encourages
the Agriculture Research Service to consider the submission of
a reprogramming request of existing funds relating to soybean
research to address the threat of soybean rust.
Sudden Oak Disease Syndrome.--This is a fungus that has
afflicted wood and nursery products in California and Oregon in
the last several years. Very little is known on how the fungus
is spread, which species are vulnerable, and how afflicted
species can be treated. The Committee is concerned about the
potential spread of the fungus to other parts of the country
without the appropriate treatment and management of the
disease. The Committee provides an increase of $450,000 from
the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS Ft. Detrick, MD, research
laboratory for research critical in stemming the spread of this
disease.
Sugarbeet Research.--There are 230,000 acres of sugarbeets
grown in Idaho and eastern Oregon requiring research
technologies to maintain and enhance production and
profitability. The Committee provides an increase of $40,000
from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to support research to
reduce irrigation and energy costs essential to sugarbeet
production. This research is carried out at the ARS Kimberly,
ID, research station.
Sugarcane Research.--The Committee is aware of the urgent
need for ARS research to provide viable, cost-effective ``green
cane'' harvesting methods that will provide alternatives to
burning cane in the field. The Committee provides an increase
of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this
research to be carried out at the Houma, LA, research station.
Sustainable Olive Production.--The Committee notes the
significance of olive oil as a value added product and its
growing importance to farmers in the Southwest as a viable
economic commodity. Research is underway to develop sustainable
methods for improved olive oil production and quality in the
Southwest. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for
fiscal year 2004 for this research at the ARS Weslaco, TX,
research station.
Sweet Potato Research.--Sweet potato is a high value,
nutritious, alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved
production practices, including timing of planting, agronomic
practices, and pest control, have the potential for doubling
the level of production per acre, further increasing the
profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 funding level for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to
conduct research on sweet potato production in cooperation with
the Alcorn State University Demonstration Farm at Mound Bayou,
MS.
Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research.--The Committee is aware
of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory
to treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost
while meeting stringent environmental regulations. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this
research.
Tree Fruit Industry.--The Committee is aware that the
Department has been working with the U.S. tree fruit industry
to develop a technology roadmap which will establish research
priorities to enhance fruit quality, strengthen access by the
tree fruit industry to technology advances, and ensure the U.S.
tree fruit industry remains competitive in world markets. The
Committee expects that a strategic plan addressing the
technology roadmap and the tree fruit industry's needs, which
was scheduled for completion in May 2003, will include
suggestions for future research initiatives based on strong
public/private collaborations. The Committee also expects that
the plan will be used to evaluate program policies and new
program initiatives to help the tree fruit industry remain
globally competitive.
Trout Genome Mapping.--The Committee recognizes the
important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and
their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold
water aquaculture industry, which has had a flat growth profile
nationally, but is an emerging industry in the Appalachian
region. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the
fiscal year 2003 funding level for research on cool and cold
water species at the National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture, in collaboration with West Virginia University.
Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus.--The Committee is aware of the
widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus in
Hawaii and encourages the agency to collaborate with and fund
as appropriate University of Hawaii scientists to transfer
generic resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus into University
of Hawaii breeding lines for the impacted vegetable crops.
USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.--
The USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory,
Orono, ME, performs a critical function that benefits not only
the Maine economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The
research performed at this laboratory--including cropping
systems and management practices, efficient use of nutrients
and water, and control of pathogens, insects and weeds--
benefits numerous agricultural interests, most notably the
potato and livestock industries.
It is especially vital to New England potato growers that
this lab continue and even increase its important research. The
laboratory conducts experiments to address unique challenges
that face potato growers both in the region and across the
Nation. Research at the Orono facility, for example, has
included tracking late blight disease, a devastating epidemic
that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000
annually. Of the nation-wide locations of USDA-ARS
laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New
England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato
acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the
laboratory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the
grower's fields.
The Committee provides funding at no less than the fiscal
year 2003 level to maintain the New England Plant, Soil, and
Water Laboratory and research programs.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee restores base funding not included in the
Administration's budget request, and provides an increase of
$400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for operating the U.S.
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. Of the amount
restored for fiscal year 2003 and the added amount provided for
fiscal year 2004, one-third is for the Center to continue the
recruitment and hiring of scientists and technicians at rates
consistent with construction of the Center and its mission;
one-third is for the University of Hawaii Hilo to increase its
capacity to complement the research of the Center; and one-
third is for the University of Hawaii Manoa for improving its
statewide capacity to transfer research results and to
communicate industry-identified needs and issues to the
research community.
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee is aware of the
important scientific staffing requirements of the newly
completed U.S. Vegetable Laboratory located at Charleston, SC.
Additional scientists are necessary to conduct priority
research and to maximize use of the facility. An increase of
$300,000 is provided from the fiscal year 2003 level for
research staffing.
Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars.--The Committee recognizes
the need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties
to sustain economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery
industries. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level
to implement new technologies for more rapid and dependable
methods of pathogen detection and to provide secure production
and maintenance of virus-free fruit tree cultivars. The
collaborative research is to be carried out at the Prosser, WA
research station with the Irrigated Agriculture Research and
Extension Center.
Viticulture Research.--With the emerging importance of the
grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the
viticulture research position at the University of Idaho Parma
Research and Extension Center, for research at the Center, and
for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho
researchers for viticulture research.
Waste Management Research.--The Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS
for the expanded joint research project with Western Kentucky
University. The cooperative program to be located and carried
out at Bowling Green, KY, will be directed toward management of
poultry waste as a fertilizer source for pasture, food crops,
as a nutrient source for cattle, and other agricultural
applications.
Water Quality/Water Use Research.--Agricultural producers
in the Southeast are seeking solutions to meet reduced
irrigation requirements while maintaining or enhancing their
net returns. The National Peanut Research Laboratory at Dawson,
GA, is conducting research to find solutions to a more
restrictive water supply that impacts agriculture and rural
economies in Southwest, Georgia. The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2003 level for these investigations at the Dawson
laboratory.
Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.--The Committee continues
the fiscal year 2003 level of funding to ARS for laboratory
analysis of water samples collected during implementation of,
and in accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research,
Assessment, and Stewardship Project.
Weed Management Program.--The Committee is aware of the
need for biologically-based weed management, using biocontrols
and revegetation to provide economical and environmentally
sound technologies to control weeds. The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 to develop non-
chemical alternatives for weed control.
Western Grazinglands Research.--The Committee is aware of
the important rangeland research program conducted at the
Burns, OR, laboratory to control invasive weeds which affect
the Great Basin. Research is targeted to management of
rangelands, conservation, and sustainable practices. The
Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this
research.
Western Wheat Quality Laboratory.--The Committee recognizes
the important contributions made by the Western Wheat Quality
Laboratory in Pullman, Washington. The Committee continues the
fiscal year 2003 level to enhance its ability to handle more
samples, modernize equipment, and develop new predictive
quality tests.
Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of the research carried out through the ARS
National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight
is a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to
yield and quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee
continues the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for this
research.
Wind Erosion Research.--The Committee provides funding for
the Wind Erosion Unit in Manhattan, KS, at the fiscal year 2003
level. 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 2004.
Wine Grape Foundation Block.--The Committee is concerned
about the potential for virus-infected wine grape rootstock
which could cause economic harm to Pacific Northwest wine grape
growers and vintners. The Committee provides an increase of
$150,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for wine grape
foundation block research at Prosser, WA.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................ $118,703,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 24,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of
$110,000,000 provided by Public Law 108-11.
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
$46,000,000. This is $72,703,000 less than the 2003
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 2004 budget recommendation
2003 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory, 12,220 ............... ...............
Maricopa....................................................
District of Columbia: U.S. National Arboretum................ 1,689 ............... ...............
Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo 2,981 ............... 5,400
Idaho: Advanced Genetics Laboratory, Aberdeen................ 4,570 ............... ...............
Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames................... \1\ 32,786 ............... ...............
Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, 4,252 ............... ...............
Manhattan...................................................
Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research 9,091 ............... 3,000
Center, Orono/Franklin......................................
Maryland:
Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville 1,490 2,000 ...............
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville...... 4,153 ............... 3,000
Minnesota: Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul............... 3,179 ............... ...............
Mississippi:
Plant Propagation Facility, Oxford....................... 1,987 ............... ...............
Southern Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville........... 9,140 ............... ...............
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville... ............... ............... 5,400
Missouri: National Plant and Genetics Security Center, ............... ............... 2,700
Columbia....................................................
Montana: Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, ............... ............... 2,800
Sidney......................................................
Oklahoma:....................................................
Southern Plains Range Research Station, Woodward......... 7,948 ............... ...............
Grazinglands Research Laboratory, Ft. Reno............... ............... ............... 2,400
South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston........ 1,391 ............... 3,500
South Dakota: Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory, 8,544 ............... ...............
Brookings...................................................
Utah: Poisonous Plant Laboratory, Logan...................... 1,485 ............... ...............
West Virginia: Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearnysville 472 ............... 2,000
Wisconsin:
Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison...................... 8,345 ............... ...............
Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield............... 2,981 ............... 4,100
Upgrade security at all ARS laboratories..................... ............... 22,000 11,700
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. \1\ \2\ 118,703 24,000 46,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of $110,000,000 provided by Public Law 108-11.
\2\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
The Committee provides funds for the following projects.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
provide the full amounts required to complete construction of
all projects.
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.--The
Committee provides funds for the completion of Phase I of the
U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hawaii.
National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center.--
The Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the next phase of
construction of the National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture
Research Center [NCWMAC] in Orono and Franklin, Maine.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 toward the construction of the Beltsville
Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center.--The Jamie
Whitten Delta States Research Center is strategically located
in the agriculturally important Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta.
Millions of acres of cotton, soybean, rice, and corn are
located in this Delta area, and the Delta leads the world in
channel catfish production. The Committee provides $5,400,000
for the completion of phase 1 of this construction and
modernization project.
National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee
provides $2,700,000 to complete the planning and design phase
of this project. The Committee notes that the current
collaborative effort between the ARS Plant Genetics Research
Unit and the University of Missouri has resulted in a
nationally-recognized crop biotechnology effort in maize,
soybeans, and wheat at Columbia, Missouri.
National Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.--The
Committee provides $2,800,000 to complete construction of the
next phase of the National Plains Agricultural Research
Laboratory in Sidney, Montana. The Committee notes that the
planned new greenhouses and improved BL-2 quarantine facility
will position the Lab to better serve the region's research
needs in biocontrol of invasive species, as well as improve
productivity and economic viability of sustainable diverse,
integrated dryland and irrigated cropping systems.
Grazinglands Research Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$2,400,000 for the completion of phases 1, 2, and 3 of the
greenhouse complex at the Grazinglands Research Laboratory in
Fort Reno, Oklahoma. The Committee notes that this project
includes bio-containment capabilities which, when completed,
will allow research on genetically-modified plants.
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$3,500,000 for the completion of greenhouse and headhouse
construction at the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston,
South Carolina.
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$2,000,000 toward renovation and repair of the Appalachian
Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville, West Virginia.
Nutrient Management Laboratory.--The Committee provides
funds for the completion of Phase I of the Nutrient Management
Laboratory in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
The Committee has provide $11,700,000 for physical security
upgrades at ARS facilities. Prior to the obligation of funds,
the Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the
Committee which describes those locations for which physical
security needs have been identified, as well as the locations
for purposes for which funds will be allocated.
The Committee notes that the ARS Analytical Services
Laboratory and other labs in the University of Wyoming's
biological research building are involved in research into
plague, rabbit fever, Brucellosis, Q fever, and regularly
receive suspect cases of anthrax. The Committee suggests that
some of these funds should be used to harden the facility by
designating a secure select agent laboratory, acquiring
security clearances for faculty and technicians, and renovating
the building to make it more secure.
The Committee notes that there is widespread interest in
additional construction and renovation of ARS facilities
throughout the country. This is not surprising when considering
the fact that many of the existing facilities are decades old.
Therefore, the Committee is requesting the assistance of ARS in
determining the merits and priority for these requests.
The Committee notes that $11,700,000 has been provided in
this account for security upgrades at all ARS laboratories. The
Committee also notes that several of the following construction
projects have been described by various ARS officials as top
priorities. Therefore, if ARS determines that any of the
following projects merit action in fiscal year 2004, these
funds may be used for site acquisition, design, or
construction. Should ARS exercise this authority, the Committee
expects to be notified of the projects selected for such
action.
Aberdeen/Billingsley Creek, Idaho.--The Committee directs
ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and
scope for construction of an ARS trout farm facility at
Billingsley Creek, Idaho which would include concrete raceways
and a pond/tank research complex. The report should detail
building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific
capacity, and other requirements. The report should also detail
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
Animal Waste Management Research.--The Committee has been
made aware of the need for an animal waste management research
laboratory in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The Committee directs
ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and
scope for construction of an ARS facility in that location. The
report should detail building size, cost, associated
facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for
collaboration with Western Kentucky University. The report
should also detail existing and planned program and resource
requirements for this location, and should be submitted to the
Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1,
2004.
Forage-Animal Research Laboratory.--The Committee has been
made aware of the need for a facility to accommodate existing
scientists and the expanding forage-animal production research
program at Lexington, Kentucky. The Committee directs ARS to
provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope
for the construction of such an ARS facility at that location.
The report should detail building size, cost, associated
facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for
collaboration with the University of Kentucky. The report
should also detail existing and planned program and resource
requirements for this location, and should be submitted to the
Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1,
2004.
Starksville, Mississippi.--The Committee has been made
aware of the need for a state-of-the-art laboratory and office
facilities to house ARS and Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES] scientists. The Committee
directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility,
requirements, and scope for construction of an ARS facility at
this location. The report should detail building size, cost,
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other
requirements for collaboration with the Mississippi State
University. The report should also detail existing and planned
program and resource requirements for this location, and should
be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House
and Senate by March 1, 2004.
Vivarium and Animal Disease Research.--The Committee has
been made aware of the need for a vivarium and animal disease
research facility at Mississippi State University. The
Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility,
requirements, and scope for construction of an ARS facility at
that location. The report should detail building size, cost,
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other
requirements for collaboration with the Mississippi State
University. The report should also detail existing and planned
program and resource requirements for this location, and should
be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House
and Senate by March 1, 2004.
Animal Biosciences Facility.--The Committee is aware of the
need for an animal bioscience facility at Montana State
University to provide a collaborative environment to allow
investigators from different disciplines to study issues
related to cutting-edge biobased food science and technology as
well as animal science. The Committee directs ARS to provide a
report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for
construction of an ARS facility at that location. The report
should also detail building size, cost, associated facilities,
scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration
with Montana State University. The report should detail
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
Red River Valley, North Dakota.--The Committee has been
made aware of needs for improvements at the Red River Valley
Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota. The
Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility,
requirements, and scope for facility needs at this location.
The report should detail any expansion of building size, costs,
associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other
requirements for operations. The report should also detail
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations for the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
University of Toledo.--The Committee has been made aware of
the need for an ARS laboratory, greenhouse, and office space
for USDA scientists involved in the greenhouse study at the
University of Toledo. The Committee directs ARS to provide a
report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for the
construction of an ARS facility at this location. The report
should detail building size, cost, associated facilities,
scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration
with the University of Toledo. The report should also detail
existing and planned program and resource requirements for this
location, and should be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
Dairy Forage Lab.--The Committee has been made aware of
improvement needs at Dairy Forage Laboratory facility locations
at Prairie du Sac and Madison, Wisconsin. The Committee directs
ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and
scope for facility needs at these locations. The report should
detail any expansion of building size, costs, associated
facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for
operations. The report should also detail existing and planned
program and resource requirements for these locations, and
should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations for the
House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
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 the Extension Service. The mission is to
work with university partners and customers 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, 2003.................................... $616,792,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 514,228,000
Committee recommendation................................ 617,575,000
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 support
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and 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); the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform
Act of 1998; and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture participates with State and other cooperators to
encourage and assist the State institutions to conduct
agricultural research and education 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 $617,575,000. This amount is $783,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This does not include an
increase of $51,000 for FECA administrative charges, as
requested in the budget.
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 2003 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]--RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 Committee
appropriation 2004 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act...................................... 178,977 180,148 178,977
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis).............. 21,742 21,884 21,742
Payments to 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University............. 35,411 36,000 35,411
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106):
Advanced genetic technologies (KY)........................ 671 ............... 671
Advanced spatial technologies (MS)........................ 983 ............... 983
Aegilops cylindricum (WA, ID)............................. 381 ............... 342
Agricultural diversification (HI)......................... 127 ............... 127
Agricultural diversity--Red River Trade Corridor (MN, ND). 497 ............... 497
Agricultural science (OH)................................. 497 ............... 497
Agriculture water usage (GA).............................. 291 ............... 261
Agroecology (MD).......................................... 397 ............... 397
Air quality (TX, KS)...................................... 869 ............... 869
Alliance for food protection (GA, NE)..................... 298 ............... 268
Alternative crops (ND).................................... 199 ............... ...............
Alternative nutrient management (VT)...................... 185 ............... 166
Alternative salmon products (AK).......................... 627 ............... 631
Alternative uses for tobacco (MD)......................... 358 ............... 358
Animal disease research (WY).............................. 248 ............... 248
Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS)........ 1,604 ............... 1,614
Apple Fire Blight (MI, NY)................................ 492 ............... 442
Aquaculture (AR).......................................... 230 ............... 172
Aquaculture (ID, WA)...................................... 770 ............... 693
Aquaculture (LA).......................................... 328 ............... 350
Aquaculture (MS).......................................... 582 ............... 582
Aquaculture (NC).......................................... 291 ............... 261
Aquaculture (VA).......................................... 124 ............... 111
Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV)........ 735 ............... 750
Armillaria root rot (MI).................................. 159 ............... 143
Asparagus technology and production (WA).................. 278 ............... 278
Babcock Institute (WI).................................... 596 ............... 600
Beef technology transfer (MO)............................. 292 ............... 292
Berry research (AK)....................................... 199 ............... 200
Biobased nanocomposite research (ND)...................... .............. ............... 199
Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS).................... 1,143 ............... 1,143
Biotechnology (NC)........................................ 304 ............... 228
Biotechnology test production (IA)........................ 199 ............... 199
Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA)........ 240 ............... ...............
Bovine tuberculosis (MI).................................. 346 ............... 311
Brucellosis vaccine (MT).................................. 490 ............... 490
Center for Food Quality (UT).............................. 149 ............... ...............
Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT).......... .............. ............... 250
Center for Rural Studies (VT)............................. 338 ............... 338
Chesapeake Bay agroecology/pfisteria initiative (MD)...... 318 ............... 318
Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT)...................... 149 ............... 149
Citrus canker (FL)........................................ 487 ............... ...............
Citrus tristeza (CA)...................................... 720 ............... ...............
Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA).............. 676 ............... 676
Computational agriculture (NY)............................ 248 ............... ...............
Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND).................. 334 ............... 600
Cotton fiber quality (GA)................................. 397 ............... 397
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology............ .............. ............... 150
Cranberry/blueberry (MA).................................. 171 ............... 171
Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ)............. 234 ............... 234
Crop diversification (MO)................................. 795 ............... 397
Crop integration and production (SD)...................... 273 ............... 300
Crop pathogens (NC)....................................... 199 ............... 199
Dairy and meat goat research (TX)......................... 63 ............... 63
Dairy farm profitability (PA)............................. 497 ............... 497
Delta rural revitalization (MS)........................... 204 ............... 204
Designing foods for health (TX)........................... 820 ............... 820
Diaprepes/root weevil (FL)................................ 447 ............... ...............
Dietary intervention (OH)................................. 248 ............... ...............
Drought mitigation (NE)................................... 224 ............... 224
Drought management (UT)................................... .............. ............... 750
Efficient irrigation (NM, TX)............................. 1,490 ............... 1,490
Environmental biotechnology (RI).......................... 596 ............... 596
Environmental research (NY)............................... 392 ............... ...............
Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY).................... 221 ............... ...............
Environmentally-safe products (VT)........................ 243 ............... 243
Ethnobotany research (AK)................................. .............. ............... 300
Exotic pest diseases (CA)................................. 1,888 ............... 2,000
Expanded wheat pasture (OK)............................... 308 ............... 277
Farm injuries and illnesses (NC).......................... 276 ............... 138
Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT)..................... 828 ............... 828
Feed efficiency in cattle (FL)............................ 248 ............... ...............
Feedstock conversion (SD)................................. 556 ............... 750
Fish and shellfish technologies (VA)...................... 462 ............... 415
Floriculture (HI)......................................... 397 ............... 397
Food chain economic analysis (IA)......................... 50 ............... 250
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO)... 1,515 ............... 1,515
Food irradiation (IA)..................................... 243 ............... ...............
Food Marketing Policy Center (CT)......................... 487 ............... 487
Food processing center (NE)............................... 42 ............... ...............
Food quality (AK)......................................... 348 ............... 350
Food safety (AL).......................................... 1,118 ............... 1,118
Food safety (OK).......................................... 621 ............... 558
Food safety (TX).......................................... 199 ............... 199
Food safety research consortium (NY)...................... 894 ............... ...............
Food safety risk assessment (ND).......................... 1,341 ............... 1,650
Food security (WA)........................................ 447 ............... 402
Food Systems Research Group (WI).......................... 546 ............... 550
Forages for advancing livestock production (KY)........... 431 ............... 431
Forestry (AR)............................................. 509 ............... 458
Functional genomics (UT).................................. .............. ............... 1,500
Future foods (IL)......................................... 248 ............... 300
Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation 194 ............... ...............
(NY).....................................................
Genomics (MS)............................................. 715 ............... 715
Global change/ultraviolet radiation....................... 2,235 2,500 2,235
Grain sorghum (KS)........................................ 139 ............... 139
Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL).................... 248 ............... ...............
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture 454 ............... 408
(ID, OR, WA).............................................
Grazing research (WI)..................................... .............. ............... 250
Greenhouse nurseries (OH)................................. 149 ............... ...............
Greenhouse crop production (AK)........................... .............. ............... 500
Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX)................... 447 ............... ...............
Hoop barns (IA)........................................... 209 ............... 325
Horn fly research (AL).................................... .............. ............... 150
Human nutrition (IA)...................................... 727 ............... 732
Human nutrition (LA)...................................... 795 ............... 715
Human nutrition (NY)...................................... 611 ............... ...............
Hydroponic tomato production (OH)......................... 99 ............... ...............
Improved dairy management practices (PA).................. 397 ............... 397
Improved early detection of crop disease (NC)............. 193 ............... ...............
Improved fruit practices (MI)............................. 237 ............... 213
Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID).... 790 ............... 790
Infectious disease research (CO).......................... 745 ............... 745
Institute for biobased products and food science (MT)..... 596 ............... 596
Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR)........... 1,214 ............... 1,214
Integrated production systems (OK)........................ 231 ............... 207
Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND)........... 358 ............... ...............
International arid lands consortium....................... 514 ............... 650
Iowa Biotechnology Consortium............................. 1,754 ............... 1,765
Leopold Center hypoxia project............................ .............. ............... 250
Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX)....................... 600 ............... 540
Waste..................................................... .............. ............... 150
Livestock genome sequencing (IL).......................... 447 ............... ...............
Livestock waste (IA)...................................... .............. ............... 300
Lowbush blueberry research (ME)........................... 263 ............... 263
Maple research (VT)....................................... 149 ............... 149
Meadowfoam (OR)........................................... 293 ............... 219
Michigan biotechnology consortium......................... 624 ............... 468
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE)......... 477 ............... 429
Midwest agricultural products (IA)........................ 628 ............... 646
Midwest poultry consortium (IA)........................... 695 ............... 700
Milk safety (PA).......................................... 745 ............... 745
Minor use animal drugs (IR-4)............................. 584 588 588
Molluscan shellfish (OR).................................. 392 ............... 284
Montana sheep institute (MT).............................. 556 ............... 556
Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology....................... 1,206 ............... 603
Multi-commodity research (OR)............................. 397 ............... 297
Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI)............ 123 ............... 123
National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY, 668 ............... 668
CO)......................................................
National biological impact assessment program............. 251 253 251
National Center for Soybean Technology (MO)............... .............. ............... 1,000
Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM).............. 146 ............... 146
Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV).................... 522 ............... 522
New crop opportunities (AK)............................... 487 ............... 500
New crop opportunities (KY)............................... 737 ............... 737
Non-food uses of agricultural products (NE)............... 64 ............... ...............
Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL)............ 308 ............... 285
Oil resources from desert plants (NM)..................... 224 ............... 224
Olive Fly (CA)............................................ 40 ............... ...............
Organic cropping (WA)..................................... 124 ............... 250
Organic waste utilization (NM)............................ 99 ............... 99
Oyster post harvest treatment (FL)........................ 447 ............... ...............
Ozone air quality (CA).................................... 427 ............... 427
Pasture and forage research (UT).......................... 246 ............... 250
Peach tree short life (SC)................................ 260 ............... 260
Perennial wheat (WA)...................................... 149 ............... ...............
Pest control alternatives (SC)............................ 303 ............... 303
Phytophthora root rot (NM)................................ 184 ............... 184
Pierce's disease (CA)..................................... 2,235 ............... 2,250
Plant biotechnology (IA).................................. 248 ............... ...............
Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging 245 ............... 245
(NM).....................................................
Potato research........................................... 1,574 ............... 1,416
Precision agriculture (KY)................................ 737 ............... 737
Preharvest food safety (KS)............................... 207 ............... 207
Preservation and processing research (OK)................. 223 ............... 200
Protein utilization (IA).................................. 422 ............... 750
Rangeland ecosystems (NM)................................. 318 ............... 318
Regional barley gene mapping project...................... 755 ............... 679
Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO,TX)........ 318 ............... 286
Rice Agronomy (MO)........................................ 199 ............... ...............
Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY)............ 447 ............... 500
Rural Development Centers (ND, LA)........................ 176 ............... 132
Rural obesity (NY)........................................ 199 ............... ...............
Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO)............ 1,262 ............... 1,262
Russian wheat aphid (CO).................................. 318 ............... 318
Satsuma mandarin orange research (AL)..................... 894 ............... ...............
Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and 301 ............... 301
marketing (MS)...........................................
Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK)........ 1,192 ............... 1,192
Seafood safety (MA)....................................... 422 ............... 422
Seed research (AK)........................................ 323 ............... 400
Seed technology (SD)...................................... .............. ............... 350
Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID)......................... 397 ............... 397
Soil and environmental quality (DE)....................... 129 ............... 129
Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water 389 ............... 389
resources................................................
Soybean cyst nematode (MO)................................ 688 ............... ...............
Soybean research (IL)..................................... 844 ............... 844
STEEP III--water quality in Pacific Northwest............. 666 ............... 666
Sudden oak death (CA)..................................... 99 ............... 99
Sustainable agriculture (CA).............................. 497 ............... ...............
Sustainable agriculture (MI).............................. 432 ............... 432
Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA)........ 149 ............... 149
Sustainable agriculture systems (NE)...................... 59 ............... ...............
Sustainable beef supply (MT).............................. 994 ............... 994
Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources 596 ............... 596
(VA).....................................................
Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT)........ 449 ............... 449
Swine waste management (NC)............................... 492 ............... 492
Synthetic gene technology (OH)............................ 167 ............... ...............
Technological development of renewable resources (MO)..... 295 ............... ...............
Tick borne disease prevention (RI)........................ 99 ............... 99
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA).......... 422 ............... 379
Tropical aquaculture (FL)................................. 238 ............... ...............
Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR.................. 8,942 ............... 4,471
Tri-State joint peanut research (AL)...................... 596 ............... 596
Uniform farm management program (MN)...................... 298 ............... 298
Value-added product development from agricultural 409 ............... 409
resources (MT)...........................................
Value-added products (IL)................................. 149 ............... ...............
Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO)........... .............. ............... 750
Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA)....................... 1,788 ............... 1,788
Water conservation (KS)................................... 78 ............... 79
Water treatment (RI)...................................... 149 ............... ...............
Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA)... 536 ............... 482
Weed control (ND)......................................... 432 ............... 432
West Nile virus (IL)...................................... 373 ............... 750
Wetland plants (LA)....................................... 596 ............... 336
Wheat genetic research (KS)............................... 263 ............... 263
Wheat sawfly research (MT)................................ 502 ............... 502
Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV). 6,130 ............... 6,786
Wool research (TX, MT, WY)................................ 292 ............... 292
-------------------------------------------------
Total, special research grants.......................... 111,534 3,341 101,637
=================================================
Improved pest control:
Expert IPM decision support system........................ 176 177 176
Integrated pest management................................ 2,707 2,725 2,707
IR-4 minor crop pest management........................... 10,673 10,485 10,485
Pest management alternatives.............................. 1,608 1,619 1,608
-------------------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest control............................ 15,164 15,006 14,976
=================================================
National Research Initiative.................................. 166,045 200,000 180,000
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433)......................... 5,065 5,098 5,065
Alternative crops............................................. 1,188 ............... 840
Critical Agricultural Materials Act........................... 1,242 ............... 1,242
1994 Institutions research program............................ 1,093 998 1,093
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM,TX,MT)....... 993 ............... 1,000
Institution challenge grants.................................. 4,888 5,500 4,888
Graduate fellowships grants................................... 3,222 4,500 3,222
Multicultural scholars program................................ 992 998 992
Hispanic education partnership grants......................... 4,073 3,492 4,073
Capacity building grants (1890 Institutions).................. 11,404 9,479 11,404
Payments to the 1994 Institutions............................. 1,689 2,250 1,689
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions 3,477 2,997 3,500
education grants.............................................
Secondary agriculture education............................... 994 1,000 994
Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE........... 13,661 9,230 13,661
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)............................... 4,471 3,996 4,471
Federal administration:
Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA).............. 447 ............... 450
Agriculture development in the American Pacific........... 548 ............... 548
Agriculture waste utilization (WV)........................ 686 ............... 690
Agriculture water policy (GA)............................. 710 ............... 710
Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND)........ 300 ............... 300
Animal waste management (OK).............................. 333 ............... 299
Aquaculture (OH).......................................... 447 ............... 447
Aquaculture (PA).......................................... 248 ............... 248
Biotechnology (MS)........................................ 745 ............... 745
Botanical research (UT)................................... 636 ............... 886
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA)........ 671 ............... 250
Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX).................. 248 ............... ...............
Center for innovative food technology (OH)................ 760 ............... ...............
Center for North American studies (TX).................... 199 ............... 199
Climate forecasting (FL).................................. 894 ............... ...............
Cotton research (TX)...................................... 1,182 ............... 1,182
Data information system................................... 2,732 2,750 2,732
Electronic grants administration system................... 2,235 2,173 2,173
FECA surcharge............................................ .............. 51 ...............
Feed efficiency (WV)...................................... 159 ............... 160
Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO).............. 338 ............... ...............
Geographic information system............................. 1,391 ............... 1,600
Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH).............. 99 ............... ...............
High value horticultural crops (VA)....................... 248 ............... 248
Information technology (GA)............................... 248 ............... ...............
Livestock marketing information center (CO)............... 195 ............... 195
Mariculture (NC).......................................... 358 ............... 322
Mississippi Valley State University....................... 1,043 ............... 1,043
Office of Extramural Programs............................. 445 448 445
Pasteurization of shell eggs.............................. 248 ............... ...............
Pay costs and FERS........................................ 2,081 2,540 2,540
Peer panels............................................... 347 349 349
Phytoremediation plant research (OH)...................... 636 ............... 636
PM-10 air quality study (WA).............................. 435 ............... 435
Precision agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research and 477 ............... 650
Extension Center (AL)....................................
Produce pricing (AZ)...................................... 79 ............... ...............
Rural systems (MS)........................................ 348 ............... 348
Salmon quality standards (AK)............................. 139 ............... 150
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC,TX)............ 4,187 ............... 4,187
Sustainable agriculture development (OH).................. 497 ............... ...............
The Land Institute (KS)................................... .............. ............... 100
Urban silviculture (NY)................................... 239 ............... ...............
Vitis gene discovery (MO)................................. .............. ............... 400
Water pollutants (WV)..................................... 596 ............... 600
Water quality (ND)........................................ 431 ............... 431
Wetland plants (WV)....................................... 179 ............... ...............
-------------------------------------------------
Total, federal administration........................... 29,466 8,311 26,698
=================================================
Total, CSREES R&E.......................................; 616,792 514,228 617,575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 a
funding level of $178,977,000 for payments made under the Hatch
Act.
Special Research Grants Under Public Law 89-106.--The
Committee recommends a total of $100,486,000. Specifics of
individual grant allowances are included in the table above.
Special items are discussed below.
The Committee is aware of the need for special research
grants in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand
promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural
sciences that are awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition
to these grants, the Committee believes research should be
supplemented by additional funding that is obtained on a
competitive basis.
Alternative Milk Policies.--The Committee that directs that
of funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy
Research Institute, $250,000 shall be provided for
collaborative work between the University of Missouri and the
University of Wisconsin/Madison, for an analysis of dairy
policy changes, including trade related matters, and assist
Congress in making policy decisions. This project will be a
one-stop shop for Congressional requests for analysis of
alternative dairy policies.
Aquaculture Centers.--The Committee recommends $4,471,000,
the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
The Committee is aware of and supports aquaculture research
efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes
Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research
Institute that is carried out in collaboration with the North
Central Regional Aquaculture Center.
Technology Transfer.--The Committee directs CSREES to
continue to support at the fiscal year 2003 level the cotton
technology transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
Aquaculture (MS).--Of the $582,000 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 Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station [MAFES] and the Delta Research and Extension Center in
Stoneville.
Future Foods Initiative.--The Committee has provided
$300,000 for the Future Foods Initiative at the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The Committee expects the
University to use a portion of the funds for research and
programs associated with the World Food and Health Center.
International Arid Lands Consortium.--The Committee has
provided an additional $136,000 for the International Arid
Lands Consortium for a joint initiative with Hands Together to
implement a water development plan, for drinking and irrigation
water, in the Artibonite region of Haiti.
Midwest Agricultural Products [MATRIC].--The Committee
directs the Department to allocate the designated funds for
MATRIC equally between Iowa State University and the Greater
Des Moines Partnership.
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 recommends
$6,786,000 for wood utilization research. Of this amount
$500,000 is made available for the Mississippi Forest and
Wildlife Research Center to conduct forest inventories. In
addition, of this amount, $500,000 is made available to include
West Virginia in this program.
Competitive Research Grants.--The Committee supports the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI]
and provides funding of $180,000,000 for the program, an
increase of $13,955,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level. The
Committee includes a general provision to make 20 percent of
these funds available for a program under the same terms and
conditions as those provided in Section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
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 not less
than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used
for USDA's agricultural research enhancement awards program
(including USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $840,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee recommends
$13,661,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the fiscal
year 2003 level.
Higher Education.--The Committee recommends $28,837,000 for
higher education. The Committee provides $3,222,000 for
graduate fellowships; $4,888,000 for challenge grants; $992,000
for multicultural scholarships; $4,073,000 for grants for
Hispanic education partnership grants; and $3,500,000 for
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions.
The Committee notes that the Department's higher education
multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of
scholars from under-represented groups. The Committee directs
the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully
in this program.
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee provides
$3,500,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible
institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska
and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded equally between
Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7
U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law 106-78). The Committee
directs the agency to fully comply with the use of grant funds
as authorized.
Federal Administration.--The Committee provides $26,698,000
for Federal administration. The Committee's specific
recommendations are reflected in the table above.
Geographic Information System Program.--The Committee
recommends $1,600,000, an increase of $209,000 from the fiscal
year 2003 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 2003 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.
The Land Institute.--The Committee recognizes the goals of
research to develop a variety of diverse perennial grain crops
that could help prevent soil erosion and water pollution while
still producing good grain yields. The Committee provides
$100,000 for Natural Systems Agriculture at The Land Institute
in Salina, Kansas, for this purpose.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $7,054,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,000,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (31 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.
Beginning with 2001, income funds are also available for
facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. 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 $9,000,000. This amount is $1,946,000 more
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $450,520,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 422,268,000
Committee recommendation................................ 450,084,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is
authorized 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 $450,084,000. This amount is $436,000 less
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not
include an increase of $46,000 for FECA administrative charges,
as requested in the budget.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the
fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2003 enacted 2004 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c)....................................... 279,390 275,940 279,390
Smith Lever 3(d):
Farm safety................................................. 5,489 .............. 5,489
Food and nutrition education [EFNEP]........................ 58,185 60,909 58,185
Indian reservation agents................................... 1,983 1,996 1,983
Pest management............................................. 10,689 10,759 10,689
Sustainable agriculture..................................... 4,843 3,792 4,843
Youth at risk............................................... 8,426 8,481 8,426
Youth farm safety education and certification............... 496 499 496
1890 colleges and Tuskegee University........................... 31,908 32,117 31,908
1890 facilities grants.......................................... 14,903 13,500 14,903
Extension services at 1994 institutions......................... 3,365 3,273 3,273
Grants to Youth Organizations................................... 2,981 .............. 2,981
Renewable resources extension act............................... 4,516 4,093 4,516
Rural health and safety education............................... 2,605 .............. 2,605
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 429,779 415,359 429,687
===============================================
Federal administration and special grants:
Ag in the classroom......................................... 695 750 695
Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI)............ 129 .............. 130
Agricultural telecommunications (NY)........................ 380 .............. ..............
Alabama beef connection..................................... 124 .............. 375
Beef producers improvement (AR)............................. 194 .............. 174
Botanical garden initiative (IL)............................ 238 .............. ..............
Conservation technology transfer (WI)....................... 497 .............. 500
Dairy education (IA)........................................ 233 .............. 235
Dairy industry revitalization (WI).......................... 219 .............. 220
Diabetes detection, prevention (WA)......................... 918 .............. 918
E-Commerce (MS)............................................. 373 .............. 373
Efficient irrigation (NM/TX)................................ 2,027 .............. 2,027
Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA)........................... 248 .............. ..............
Extension specialist (MS)................................... 149 .............. 149
Family farm beef industry network (OH)...................... 1,377 .............. ..............
FECA........................................................ .............. 46 ..............
Food animal residue avoidance database/FARAD................ 795 .............. 795
Food preparation and marketing (AK)......................... 298 .............. 300
Food product development (AK)............................... 447 .............. 450
General administration and pay.............................. 5,643 6,113 6,113
Health education leadership (KY)............................ 894 .............. 894
Income enhancement demonstration (OH)....................... 239 .............. ..............
Iowa vitality center (IA)................................... 278 .............. 280
National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA)................. 197 .............. 250
National Wild Turkey Federation............................. .............. .............. 250
Nursery production (RI)..................................... 248 .............. ..............
Nutrition enhancement (WI).................................. .............. .............. 1,000
Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative.......................... .............. .............. 600
Oquirrh Institute........................................... .............. .............. 300
Pilot technology transfer (WI).............................. 162 .............. ..............
Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS).......................... 336 .............. 336
Potato pest management (WI)................................. 298 .............. 300
Range improvement (NM)...................................... 243 .............. 243
Resilient communities (NY).................................. 124 .............. ..............
Rural business enhancement (WI)............................. .............. .............. 200
Rural development (AK)...................................... 695 .............. 700
Rural development (ND)...................................... 99 .............. ..............
Rural development (NM)...................................... 392 .............. 392
Rural technologies (HI, WI)................................. 695 .............. 348
Urban horticulture (WI)..................................... 536 .............. 650
Urban market development (NY)............................... 124 .............. ..............
Web-based agriculture classes (MO).......................... .............. .............. 200
Wood biomass as alternative farm product (NY)............... 194 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, federal administration.......................... 20,741 6,909 20,397
===============================================
Total, Extension activities............................... 450,520 422,268 450,084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Technology Transfer.--Of the funds provided
for Conservation Technology Transfer, the Committee provides
$200,000 for a nutrient management and conservation education
program to meet the needs of the Wisconsin comprehensive
nutrient management program in cooperation with Professional
Dairy Producers of Wisconsin, Dairy Business Association, and
others. In addition, the Committee provides $300,000 for the
Dairy Discovery Farm Program.
Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,200,000 for the
AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the
National Easter Seal Society.
Potato Pest Management.--Of the funds provided for Potato
Pest Management, the Committee provides $150,000 for the
ongoing effort between the University of Wisconsin, World
Wildlife Fund, and Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers
Association. The Committee also directs $150,000 for an ongoing
project with the University of Wisconsin for pesticide use
reduction efforts for other commodities.
Rural Business Enhancement.--The Committee provides
$200,000 to the University of Wisconsin at Platteville for
collaborative work with the University of Wisconsin Extension.
Urban Horticulture.--Of the funds provided for Urban
Horticulture, the Committee directs $200,000 for University of
Wisconsin Extension activities, $200,000 for a regional
diagnostic center at Boerner Botanical Gardens, and $250,000
for Growing Power of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $46,439,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 62,865,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,711,000
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 Regional Pest Management Centers
programs previously funded under Research and Education and/or
Extension Activities are included under this account, as well
as new programs that support integrated or multifunctional
projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For integrated activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee
recommends $46,711,000. This amount is $272,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 level.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2003 enacted 2004 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Issues--Plant & Animal Diseases........................ 497 2,500 497
Crops at Risk from FQPA: Implementation......................... 1,487 1,497 1,487
Food Safety..................................................... 14,870 14,967 14,870
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems........ 4,857 4,889 4,857
Homeland Security............................................... .............. 16,000 ..............
International Science & Education Grants........................ 497 1,000 497
Methyl Bromide Transition Program............................... 3,229 2,498 3,500
Organic Transition Program...................................... 2,111 499 2,111
Regional Pest Management Centers................................ 4,502 4,531 4,502
Rural Development Centers....................................... 1,503 1,513 1,503
Water Quality................................................... 12,887 12,971 12,887
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 46,439 62,865 46,711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,470,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,003,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,470,000
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 outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,470,000. This
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $721,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 791,000
Committee recommendation................................ 736,000
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 $736,000. This amount is $15,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $682,758,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 694,897,000
Committee recommendation................................ 705,552,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] 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 [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees 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
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring 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 to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce 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
$705,552,000. This is $22,794,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $288,000 for
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize authorities and
resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] to provide
assistance in response to animal and plant health threats, and
to allow compensation to certain producers for losses sustained
in connection with these threats in instances when the
additional assistance is deemed necessary. The Committee is
aware of the need to compensate producers for losses associated
with avocado and citrus production in California, poultry
losses in California resulting from avian influenza and exotic
Newcastle disease, goose production losses in South Dakota in
connection with West Nile virus, and tree losses in Michigan
due to infestations of the emerald ash borer.
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 2004 budget Committee
2003 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest and disease exclusion:
Agricultural quarantine inspection....................... 24,152 21,300 24,300
Cattle ticks............................................. 6,313 6,575 6,534
Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases.. 7,937 9,039 7,987
Import/export............................................ 9,345 12,429 9,640
Trade issues resolution and management................... 11,452 11,621 11,546
Fruit fly exclusion and detection........................ 56,449 61,273 57,059
Screwworm................................................ 30,480 30,751 30,552
Tropical bunt tick....................................... 419 2,916 423
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease exclusion...................... 146,547 155,904 148,041
==================================================
Plant and animal health monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and surveillance................ 93,216 93,962 96,038
Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement........... 8,483 9,566 9,211
Emergency Management System.............................. 8,985 11,693 9,075
Pest detection........................................... 22,261 27,051 22,577
--------------------------------------------------
Total, plant and animal health monitoring.............. 132,945 142,272 136,901
==================================================
Pest and disease management programs:
Aquaculture.............................................. 1,388 968 1,250
Biocontrol............................................... 9,059 9,329 9,270
Boll weevil.............................................. 61,597 26,722 51,720
Brucellosis eradication.................................. 10,191 8,747 10,303
Chronic wasting disease.................................. 14,836 14,979 20,000
Emerging plant pests..................................... 74,800 109,463 86,400
Golden nematode.......................................... 626 971 642
Grasshopper.............................................. 4,341 4,287 5,709
Gypsy moth............................................... 4,647 4,755 4,725
Imported fire ant........................................ 2,421 2,140 2,429
Johne's disease.......................................... 20,863 3,104 21,500
Low pathogen avian influenza............................. ............... 2,003 ...............
Noxious weeds............................................ 1,899 1,142 1,953
Pink bollworm............................................ 1,987 1,710 2,031
Plum pox................................................. 4,025 3,471 4,041
Pseudorabies............................................. 4,258 4,344 4,316
Scrapie eradication...................................... 15,373 17,068 15,700
Tuberculosis............................................. 14,798 15,135 14,925
Wildlife services operations............................. 68,587 65,706 72,186
Witchweed................................................ 1,520 1,536 1,526
--------------------------------------------------
Total, pest and disease management..................... 317,216 297,580 330,626
==================================================
Animal care:
Animal welfare........................................... 16,301 14,704 16,400
Horse protection......................................... 490 493 490
--------------------------------------------------
Total, animal care..................................... 16,791 15,197 16,890
==================================================
Scientific and technical services:
Biosecurity.............................................. ............... 2,920 ...............
Biotechnology regulatory services........................ 3,825 3,946 3,921
Environmental services................................... 2,534 2,615 2,598
Plant methods development laboratories................... 7,991 8,260 8,208
Veterinary biologics..................................... 14,535 16,281 14,894
Veterinary diagnostics................................... 17,209 20,973 18,697
Wildlife services methods development.................... 14,875 13,647 16,450
--------------------------------------------------
Total, scientific and technical services............... 60,969 68,642 64,768
==================================================
Contingency fund............................................. 4,076 4,139 4,112
APHIS information technology infrastructure.................. 4,214 4,602 4,214
Physical security............................................ ............... 6,273 ...............
FECA surcharge............................................... ............... 288 ...............
==================================================
Total, salaries and expenses........................... 682,758 694,897 705,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is unable to provide the full increases
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide
increases for a number of specific animal and plant health
programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue
use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation
monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as identified
in the President's budget and any additional emergencies as the
Secretary determines necessary.
Pest and Disease Exclusion
AQI.--For fiscal year 2004, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $24,300,000 for the AQI appropriated account.
The Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 above the
budget request to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections
of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for
movement from the State of Hawaii to the continental United
States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United States Virgin Islands.
The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols
that allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in
Hawaii to cold-weather States during winter months while
maintaining reasonable assurances that potential transshipment
of such produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards
of warm weather States.
The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and
less disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii
airports and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to
provide not less than the number of inspectors and inspection
equipment required in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal
year 2003. The Committee also encourages the agency to
aggressively identify and evaluate flexible hiring and staff
deployment arrangements, such as the Senior Environmental
Employment Program, to minimize overtime rates charged to
agricultural shippers. The Committee further encourages APHIS
to acquire and deploy commercially available, state-of-the art
inspection technology and equipment for key ports of entry,
such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for banned
agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous
agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.
The Committee urges APHIS to continue working closely with
U.S. avocado growers to implement procedures for the
importation of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to
report on the status of Mexican avocado imports, including
problems in pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel, and the
diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved
destinations. The Committee directs APHIS to include
independent, third party scientists in the development of any
pest risk assessment for Mexican avocados, prior to the
publication of any such pest risk assessment in the Federal
Register. The Committee also directs APHIS to report to
Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the approved
areas or lengthening time periods for the importation of
Mexican avocados.
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.--The Committee provides
$57,059,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program,
of which no less than the fiscal year 2003 level shall be used
to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving into the
United States as well as activities at U.S. borders.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee
provides $95,888,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and
Surveillance account. The Committee provides continued funding
at the fiscal year 2003 level for a cooperative agreement with
the Wisconsin Animal Health Consortium for ongoing activities
related to animal and animal-based product tracking and
database management. The Committee also provides continued
funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for the National Farm
Animal Identification and Records Project. The Committee
provides an increase of $250,000 for the New Mexico Rapid
Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection and
reporting system for infectious animal diseases. The Committee
expects APHIS to work with the Wisconsin Animal Health
Consortium, the National Farm Animal Identification and Records
Project, and the Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to
coordinate activities and report to the Committee by March 1,
2004 on the development of a National Animal Tracking System.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 level, to continue the cooperative agreement
with the Murray State University, Breathitt Veterinary Center,
Hopkinsville, KY, to determine the impact on animal health from
common agricultural chemical usage.
The Committee provides $250,000 toward an alkaline digester
in the State of Kansas to destroy and dispose of animal
carcasses suspected of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
infection and other diseases.
The Committee provides $250,000 to address bio-safety
issues relating to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial
pathogens in the State of Vermont.
The Committee is greatly concerned about the growing
incidence around the world of animal disease, such as chronic
wasting disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, monkeypox,
and others which pose grave threats to the Nation's livestock
sector and the public health. The Committee feels there should
be an enhanced relationship between Federal and State
veterinary programs to better coordinate all activities related
to the exclusion, management, or eradication of these diseases.
Toward that objective, the Committee requests that APHIS work
with the States to further develop a Federal/State partnership
to make more efficient use of limited resources, including the
need for expanded laboratory capacity. The Committee requests a
report on this subject by March 1, 2004, which will include a
plan to work with States to improve existing laboratory
capacity.
The Committee provides $250,000 to establish a national
institute at Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment,
mitigation, and communication for genetically modified
agricultural products.
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.--The
Committee provides an increase of $728,000 for the animal and
plant health regulatory enforcement account for additional
activities in support of increased Animal Welfare Act
compliance inspections.
The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal
animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work
with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper means
for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding
these activities.
Emergency Management Systems.--The Committee provides an
increase of $90,000 for the emergency management systems
program.
Pest Detection.--The Committee provides an increase of
$316,000 for pest detection. The Committee is concerned about
continuing threats posed by the accidental or intentional
introduction of pests, disease, or species into this country
which could be devastating to our agricultural resources. The
Committee is aware of interest by the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services to move toward completion of
the Western Escambia County Agriculture Interdiction Station
and encourages APHIS to work with the State of Florida to
determine and, if prudent, develop a collaborative agreement
for operations at this station.
Pest and Disease Management
Aquaculture.--The Committee provides $1,250,000 for the
aquaculture program. The Committee provides funding at the
fiscal year 2003 level to continue telemetry and population
dynamics studies to develop environmentally and economically
sustainable methods to help catfish farmers manage cormorant
and pelican populations.
Boll Weevil.--The Committee provides $51,720,000 for fiscal
year 2004 to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This
funding will provide the active eradication zone areas with a
30 percent cost share and possible exceptions to address
special funding requirements arising from extraordinary
circumstances in some States.
Brucellosis Eradication.--The Committee provides an
increase of $112,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the
bruccellosis program. This amount continues funding at the
fiscal year 2003 level 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 that
surround Yellowstone National Park.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis
Committee, and encourages the coordination of Federal, State,
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Chronic Wasting Disease.--The Committee is very concerned
about the escalating number of deer and elk in different
regions of the U.S. testing positive for chronic wasting
disease and provides an increase of $5,118,000 to expand the
chronic wasting disease certification and control program to
include additional surveillance and disease control activities
with free-ranging cervids, and to increase State testing
capacity for the timely identification of the presence of this
disease.
The Committee is aware of the development of a rapid prion
assay that would more effectively test for BSE in meat
processing facilities and for chronic wasting disease in the
field for evaluating wild game. The Committee directs the
Department to undertake a review of this testing technology
and, if warranted, to move forward with the use of this
technology.
Of the amount provided for chronic wasting disease,
$2,000,000 is for the State of Wisconsin, $250,000 is for the
State of Utah, and $500,000 is for the Conservation Medicine
Center of Chicago which is a collaboration between the
University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Loyola
University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, and the
Brookfield Zoo.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The Committee provides an increase
of $11,600,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for emerging
plant pests. Within this total, the Committee provides an
additional $5,000,000 for Pierce's disease; $5,000,000 for
citrus canker; and the fiscal year 2003 level for the Asian
long-horned beetle program in Illinois and New York, of which
no less than $1,500,000 shall be for activities in the area of
Chicago, IL. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for sudden oak death syndrome. The Committee
provides $1,000,000 for activities related to the emerald ash
borer in the State of Michigan. The Committee expects the
Secretary to make funds available from the CCC for activities
related to these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2004, as
necessary.
The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation
program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and
facilities that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation
provided for handlers and facilities does not adequately
represent the costs these facilities incur when they receive
deliveries of karnal bunt-infected wheat. This inadequate
compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate
in activities to prevent the spread of karnal bunt in the
United States. Due to the serious threat that karnal bunt poses
to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects
APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to develop an
adequate compensation plan, and to report back to the Committee
on its recommendations no later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative
agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture
to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The
Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents
a severe threat to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and
urges APHIS to direct the resources necessary to eradicate the
citrus longhorned beetle.
Grasshopper.--The Committee provides an increase of
$1,368,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the grasshopper
account. Of this amount, no less than $1,000,000 shall be for
grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah:
$150,000 to prepare necessary environmental documents, and
$500,000 to continue control measures. The Committee also
provides an additional $300,000 for grasshopper and Mormon
cricket activities in the State of Nevada, including survey,
control, and eradication of crickets.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee provides $2,429,000 for
the imported fire ant account to continue sharing
responsibility with the States to conduct detection and nursery
surveys; compliance monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of
nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of
promising control agents. The Committee continues funding at
the fiscal 2003 level for the State of Tennessee for additional
control activities.
Johne's Disease.--The Committee provides an increase of
$637,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for Johne's disease
to expand the agency's efforts to coordinate State
certification programs for herd-testing, and to provide
additional assistance to States to develop herd management
plans that comply with APHIS's national standards for
certification. The Committee expects APHIS to work with the
Agricultural Research Service to coordinate activities to
research and develop an effective diagnostic test for Johne's
disease with appropriate field validation and methods
development.
Noxious Weeds.--The Committee provides $1,953,000 for the
noxious weeds account. This amount includes an increase of
$150,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the
availability and distribution of biological control organisms
used in an integrated weed management system. The Committee
provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for an
invasive species program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in
Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps
to address this invasive weed as a regional infestation
problem.
The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat
to pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of
alien weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and
directs APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an
integrated approach, including environmentally safe biological
controls, for eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as
necessary.
Scrapie Eradication.--The Committee provides an increase of
$325,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the scrapie
eradication program, and directs the Secretary to use funds
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional eradication
activities in fiscal year 2004.
Tuberculosis.--The Committee provides $14,925,000 for the
tuberculosis program. Of this amount, no less than $5,000,000
shall be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is concerned
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the
agency to increase technical and operational assistance to
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and
livestock. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use funds
from the CCC, as necessary, for additional surveillance and
eradication activities in fiscal year 2004.
Wildlife Services Operations.--The Committee does not
concur with the President's request to reduce funding in the
wildlife services operations account to allow cooperators to
assume a larger share of the costs associated with preventing
and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee restores fiscal
year 2003 funding to continue cooperating with States to
conduct wildlife management programs such as livestock
protection, migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species
damage, property damage, human health and safety, and
threatened and endangered species protection.
The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies
vaccination program and provides an increase of $1,250,000
above the fiscal year 2003 level for rabies control activities
in fiscal year 2004. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
use funds from the CCC, as necessary, for additional control
activities in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level to fully implement the recommendations of the
Aviation Safety Review Committee.
Of the amount provided to conduct wildlife monitoring and
surveillance activities to prevent the spread of foreign animal
diseases in the United States, the Committee provides an
increase of $500,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for
remote diagnostic and wildlife disease surveillance activities
with North Dakota State University and Dickinson State
University.
The Committee is concerned about the growing number of
livestock that are killed or injured by preying animals,
especially wolves, in the Western Great Lakes and Southwest
regions of the United States. The Committee provides continued
funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for integrated predation
management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Arizona, and New Mexico. Of this amount, no less than
$1,050,000 shall be available for activities in the Western
Great Lakes States. A portion of the funding shall be made
available to assist livestock producers who are interested in
the proper use of non-lethal alternatives and best management
practices in order to fully ensure that all such methods are
exhausted before any lethal control occurs.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for the Tri-state predator control program for
livestock operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the
increase in federally listed endangered species, the States'
operations accounts for wildlife services have suffered
financially.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for a cooperative agreement with the University of
Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Services
Operations in the State of Georgia to address the fluctuations
in game bird and predator species resulting from recent changes
in land use throughout the southeastern United States.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for the operation of the 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 continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level
for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate and
operate a comprehensive brown tree snake prevention and
detection program for Hawaii and to initiate eradication and
control of coqui frogs.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for wildlife service operations with the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to meet the growing
demands of controlling predatory, nuisance, and diseased
animals.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for the management of beavers in Mississippi. The
Committee commends the agency's assistance in cooperative
relationships with local and Federal partners to reduce beaver
damage to cropland and forests.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level to continue control measures for minimizing
blackbird damage to sunflowers in North Dakota and South
Dakota. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding
level for blackbird management efforts in Louisiana.
The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 to assist
the Nevada Division of Wildlife with returning displaced
wildlife back to its natural habitat. This rescue initiative
shall be a cooperative effort between Federal, State, local,
and private sources.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2003
level for a cooperative agreement with the Eastern Idaho
Sandhill Crane Lure Crop Project for integrated predator
management activities to reduce sandhill crane depredations and
grain crop damage in Eastern Idaho.
The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2003
level for beaver control in the State of North Carolina,
$150,000 for beaver control in the State of Kentucky,
$1,300,000 for the Predator Research Station in the State of
Utah, an increase of $200,000 for the control of birds in the
State of New York, an increase of $225,000 for the control of
blackbirds in the State of Kansas, and an increase of $250,000
to address wildlife damage in the State of New Hampshire.
The Committee notes the growing problem due to cormorants
in the Lake Champlain basin and urges APHIS to provide support,
as deemed necessary, to assist in the management of cormorants
in the region.
Animal Care
Animal Welfare.--The Committee provides $16,400,000 for the
Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized
animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the
President's budget.
Scientific and Technical Services
Veterinary Diagnostics.--The Committee provides $18,697,000
for the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2004.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 to update equipment needed to
test certain animal samples in the State of Colorado.
Wildlife Services Methods Development.--The Committee
provides $16,450,000 for wildlife services methods development.
Of this amount, the Committee provides an increase of $200,000
from the fiscal year 2003 level to enhance existing research
efforts at the National Wildlife Research Center field station
in Starkville, MS, for resolving problems regarding bird damage
to aquaculture farms in the Southeast. The Committee also
provides an increase of $400,000 from the fiscal year 2003
level to expand the existing program at the Jack Berryman
Institute for addressing wildlife damage management issues,
including wildlife disease threats and wildlife economics, and
facilitating a cooperative relationship with the Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The Committee
emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the
Jack Berryman Institute and the National Wildlife Research
Center. The remaining increase, beyond pay costs, is for
maintenance and operations necessary to support wildlife
methods development at the National Wildlife Research Center in
Fort Collins, CO.
The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year
2003 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active
agricultural areas.
The Committee provides $750,000 for the National Wildlife
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with
wildlife populations and human health.
Projects identified in the Senate directives as contained
in the Congressional Record of January 15, 2003, pages S356-
S410, and Conference Report 108-10 that the Committee directed
to be funded for fiscal year 2003 are not funded for fiscal
year 2004 unless specifically mentioned herein.
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS 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,
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, 2003.................................... $9,924,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,996,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,996,000
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.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2003 and budget request levels:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and 4,957 4,996 4,996
preventative maintenance.................................
Miami Animal Import Center, FL............................ 4,967 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Buildings and Facilities..................... 9,924 4,996 4,996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $4,996,000. This amount is $4,928,000 less than the fiscal
year 2003 appropriation.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $75,210,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 75,071,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,263,000
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
$75,263,000. This amount is $53,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $167,000 for
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
Included in this amount is $1,500,000, an increase of
$477,000 over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, for the
National Organic Program. The Committee believes that part of
this funding should be used to hire an Executive Director for
the National Organic Standards Board, to create a Peer Review
Panel to oversee the USDA accreditation process for organic
certifiers, and to pay expenses for volunteer technical
advisors to assist in the scientific evaluation of materials
considered for inclusion of the National List.
The Committee provides $14,586,000 for the Pesticide Data
Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the
Pesticide Data Program [PDP] to collect reliable, scientific-
based pesticide residue data that benefits consumers, food
processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers.
The PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the
Food Quality Protection Act, which requires thorough re-
evaluation of agricultural pesticides and tolerances for uses
on individual crops. The PDP is an effective tool to maintain
the availability of critical products which allow the
production of safe and affordable foods.
The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska regional marketing
organizations to promote wild salmon.
The Committee provides $6,179,000 for costs associated with
the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999.
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 again to give full consideration to
funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program,
which includes Alaska agricultural products and seafood
harvested in the State. The Alaska Grown Program should
coordinate with other regional marketing entities.
The amount provided also includes $6,175,000 for the
microbiological data program so that baselines may be
established for the incidence, number and types of food-borne
microorganisms. The Committee expects AMS to coordinate with
other agencies of USDA, other public health agencies of the
government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to
ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested
parties.
The Committee is aware of the transportation cost
differentials among those U.S. farmers and ranchers having
access to low cost ground transportation and those who lack
such access, and recommends that the Agency provide technical
assistance to those departments of agriculture serving U.S.
farmers and ranchers outside of the 48 contiguous States in
identifying and evaluating transportation alternatives that
would allow these producers to compete globally.
The Committee encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS and RMA
on the collection of segregated data on the production and
marketing of organic agricultural products. This data should be
included in the ongoing baseline of data collection regarding
agricultural production and marketing, as directed in the 2002
Farm Bill. Specifically, data should be collected on prices,
yields, acreage and production costs in the organic sector.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2003........................................ $61,619,000
Budget limitation, 2004................................. 62,577,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,577,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, 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 $62,577,000.
This amount is $958,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 level.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $14,910,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 15,392,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,392,000
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 appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2002-2004:
SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2002-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------
2002 actual 2003 estimate 2004 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts).......... $6,139,942,369 $5,798,093,321 $5,927,395,463
Less Rescission..................................... -468,370 .................. ................
Transfer from CCC................................... ................ 250,000,000 ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service.......................... -5,172,458,000 -4,745,663,000 -4,699,661,000
Commerce Department................................. -79,126,813 -75,223,778 -79,724,463
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................. -5,251,584,813 -4,820,886,778 -4,779,385,463
=======================================================
Budget Authority........................................ 887,889,186 1,227,206,543 1,148,010,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year............ 107,824,527 192,156,087 ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations.................... ................ 13,000,000 ................
-------------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation................................ 995,713,713 1,432,362,630 1,148,010,000
=======================================================
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Purchases....................... 399,934,661 15,000,000 400,000,000
State Option Contract........................... ................ 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities................ ................ 1,000,000 1,000,000
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Project............... 6,000,000 .................. ................
Emergency Surplus Removal....................... 206,898,187 183,232,371 ................
Diversion Payments.............................. ................ .................. ................
Direct Payments................................. 172,867,307 .................. ................
Disaster Assistance............................. ................ 500,000 ................
Lamb Grading and Certification Support.......... 592,057 950,626 ................
Estimated Future Purchases...................... ................ 304,036,633 415,575,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement.................. 786,292,212 1,406,719,630 821,575,000
=======================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Service...................... 6,906,166 10,733,000 11,043,000
Marketing Agreements & Orders................... 10,359,248 14,910,000 15,392,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds................... 17,265,414 25,643,000 26,435,000
=======================================================
Total, Obligations............................ 803,557,626 1,432,362,630 848,010,000
=======================================================
Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year.............. 192,156,087 .................. 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $15,392,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders. This amount is $482,000 more
than the fiscal year 2003 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 directs the Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to
assess the existing inventories of pink salmon, salmon nuggets,
and pouched salmon and determine whether there is a surplus and
continued low prices. If a surplus exists, the Committee
expects the Department to purchase salmon for use in schools,
institutions, and other domestic feeding programs, and for
humanitarian aid.
The Committee encourages USDA to use all existing
authorities under the section 32 program through emergency
surplus removal and other commodity purchases, including fruit
and vegetable purchases as mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill, to
continue the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program during fiscal
year 2004. The Committee requests a report on the feasibility
of continuing the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program on a
permanent basis under current section 32 authorities within 120
days of the enactment of this Act.
The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000
each fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other
specialty food crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the
language included in section 53 of the conference report
accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be
made according to Congressional intent.
In the utilization of section 32 funds for USDA feeding
programs, the Department of Agriculture shall not exclude or
discriminate against farmer-owned cooperatives when considering
contracts.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,338,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,347,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,338,000
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
$3,338,000. This amount is $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation. The Committee directs that $2,000,000 be
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection for the creation of specialty markets.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $39,690,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 41,688,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,638,000
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 $35,638,000. This amount is $4,052,000 less
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not
include $41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested
in the budget.
The Committee expects the Department to continue the market
catalog reporting.
The Committee understands GIPSA is assessing how the agency
can facilitate the efficient marketing of grain by augmenting,
not supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The Committee
encourages the Department to establish a cooperative
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the
Illinois Corn Growers Association, and provides $500,000 to
continue a study of process verification systems with
protocols.
The Committee recognizes that the Livestock Mandatory Price
Reporting Act has been in effect since October, 1999, and
encourages GIPSA to complete implementation of the Swine
Contract Library.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2003........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2004................................. 42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,463,000
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 $42,463,000 limitation on
inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $595,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 792,000
Committee recommendation................................ 611,000
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 $611,000. This amount
is $16,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $754,821,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 797,149,000
Committee recommendation................................ 783,761,000
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 $783,761,000. This amount is
$28,940,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This
amount does not include $1,034,000 for FECA administrative
charges, as requested in the budget.
The Committee has provided an increase of $26,017,000 above
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation for Federal food safety and
inspection. This increase includes funding for an additional 80
in-plant FSIS inspectors, bringing the total number of FSIS
slaughter inspectors to 7,680.
The Committee has provided an increase of $67,000 from the
fiscal year 2003 funding level for activities related to the
Codex Alimentarius.
Humane Slaughter.--Activities relating to humane slaughter
are fully funded. In fiscal year 2003, the Committee provided
FSIS with $5,000,000, available for 2 years, and has included
statutory language in this bill to require that FSIS hire no
less than 50 FTEs to work solely on the enforcement of the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act [HMSA]. The Committee
understands that FSIS plans to have hired 38 of these FTEs by
the end of fiscal year 2003, and expects the remainder of the
FTEs to be hired during fiscal year 2004. The Committee expects
FSIS to maintain funding for these FTEs in its fiscal year 2005
budget request. Further, the Committee expects that the 17
District Veterinary Medical Specialist positions created in
fiscal year 2001 will continue in fiscal year 2004.
Import Inspection.--The Committee remains aware that FSIS
uses two methods to determine whether the inspection systems of
foreign countries that sell meat and poultry to the United
States meet the same standards as our domestic meat inspection
system. These methods include USDA audits of foreign plants and
laboratories, and USDA inspection of foreign meat and poultry
at the U.S. border. The Committee has provided an increase of
$1,777,000 for USDA to hire seven additional foreign program
auditors and to increase the number of equivalency review
trips. The Committee understands that this funding will allow
the number of countries reviewed by USDA auditors to increase
from 33 to 40. Further, the Committee requests notification
when the additional seven auditors are hired, identification of
the countries they will be auditing, and the number of audits
they will be performing. In addition, the Committee requests
information regarding the total number of countries and audits
planned for inspection by USDA in fiscal year 2004.
When a significant number of plants initially audited in a
particular country fail to meet U.S. safety standards, the
Committee continues to expect the Department to exercise all
authorities to limit imports from all plants in that country
which have not been audited in the previous 12 months, as well
as imports from those plants that failed initial audits, until
subsequent findings establish that proper inspection systems
are in place.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2004 budget Committee
2003 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 675,086 713,686 701,103
State....................................................... 49,379 50,232 49,854
International............................................... 16,005 18,682 18,380
Codex Alimentarius.............................................. 2,556 2,677 2,629
FAIM............................................................ 11,795 11,872 11,795
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 754,821 797,149 783,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $614,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 916,000
Committee recommendation................................ 635,000
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 $635,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with
representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-
governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified
dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
The Committee urges the U.S. Agency for International
Development 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.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003......................................... 970,389 279,209 1,249,598
Budget estimate, 2004........................................ 1,016,836 294,096 1,310,932
Committee recommendation..................................... 988,768 284,941 1,273,709
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [FSA],
including funds transferred from other program accounts, the
Committee recommends $1,273,709,000. This amount is $24,111,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does
not include $110,000 for FECA administrative charges, as
requested in the budget.
The Committee recognizes the pressures FSA has been under
to downsize staff levels. However, concerns have been raised
about the criteria being used for further staff reductions and
the potential impact these reductions will have on farm
services in all States. Until these concerns have been
addressed, States in compliance with the original Espy
reorganization plan should not be required to undertake further
staff reductions.
The Committee provides $750,000 for comprehensive
environmental and cultural resources training, review and
compliance programs for employees and provides $250,000 for
third party review of and assistance for environmental and
cultural resource documentation and assessments. The Committee
strongly encourages the Department to identify and partner with
a private sector entity to develop this program. Preference
should be provided to an entity that has a demonstrated track
record in successfully developing environmental training
programs for Federal employees of other government agencies and
should be accredited by a land grant university or other higher
learning institution. Special consideration should be given to
identifying an entity that also meets the general guidelines of
a small business with annual receipts under $6,000,000 in
accordance with the NAICS guidelines.
The Committee notes the FSA headquarters in the State of
Alaska lacks the necessary staff to adequately support an area
one-fifth the size of the United States. The Committee has
provided $100,000 to hire an information technology specialist
and a clerical support person in the Palmer office.
Peanut Promotion Assessments.--Historically, the Farm
Service Agency [FSA] has deducted assessments, which are
mandated by Federal and State laws, when peanuts go into the
United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] loan program.
These assessments are used to fund research and promotion
programs that peanut growers vote for in referenda conducted
pursuant to Federal and State laws.
In 2002, FSA did not collect any peanut promotion
assessments. Because of this inaction, great confusion occurred
in the marketplace and inhibited the ability of peanut growers
to fund their research and promotion programs. Therefore, the
Committee directs FSA to continue to collect assessments as
mandated by Federal and State statutes when peanuts are placed
under loan. Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this
Act, FSA shall provide a report to the Committee on its efforts
to implement this directive.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,974,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,974,000
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 $3,974,000 for State mediation
grants. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $100,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000
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
$100,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
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 $759,000 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 $759,000 for guaranteed loans. The term of the loan
varies from 1 to 7 years.
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
$3,248,475,000. This amount is $663,585,000 less than the
fiscal year 2003 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 the fiscal year
2003 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Committee
enacted budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................ 129,155 140,149 129,158
Guaranteed............................................ 993,500 1,000,000 950,000
Farm operating:
Direct................................................ 601,068 650,000 601,068
Guaranteed unsubsidized............................... 1,688,950 1,400,000 1,200,000
Guaranteed subsidized................................. 397,400 266,249 266,249
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 1,987 2,000 2,000
Boll weevil eradication loans............................. 100,000 60,000 100,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans................................... 3,912,060 3,518,398 3,248,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Insured Guaranteed Transfer to Total ACIF
loan loan Total Appropriations FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003........... 118,917 107,884 226,801 7,948 277,361 512,110
Budget estimate, 2004.......... 124,675 86,020 210,695 8,000 290,136 508,831
Committee recommendation....... 115,192 79,090 194,282 7,948 283,020 485,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2003 enacted 2004 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 14,995 30,945 28,518
Guaranteed........................................... 7,451 5,400 5,130
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 103,744 93,730 86,674
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 53,540 46,620 39,960
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 46,893 34,000 34,000
Indian tribe land acquisition \1\........................ 178 ............... ...............
Boll weevil eradication loans \2\........................ ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................ 226,801 210,695 194,282
ACIF expenses................................................ 285,309 298,136 290,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 is calculated for this program.
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $70,248,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 78,488,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,422,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Public Law 107-171.
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program
largely without change. This Act also requires the continuation
of the Adjusted Gross Revenue [AGR] pilot program, which
provides insurance coverage for crops for which traditional
crop insurance is not available. However, the 2002 Act
eliminates the ARPA provision that allowed selection of
continuous coverage levels, rather than coverage levels at
fixed intervals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk
Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$71,422,000. This amount is $1,174,000 more than the fiscal
year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $18,000
for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
The Committee is concerned that there are several
provisions in the crop insurance program that have been harmful
to potato producers. Therefore, RMA is directed to work with
potato producers to identify these problems and report its
findings to the Committee within 180 days of the enactment of
this Act.
The Committee does not include the administration's
legislative proposal to reduce the crop insurance
administrative expense reimbursement from 24.5 percent to 20
percent. This proposal has the potential to disrupt crop
insurance services to farmers by forcing consolidation or
withdrawal of companies that currently provide crop insurance.
In 2002, crop insurance provided more than $3,800,000,000 to
farmers affected by drought, and farmers' reliance on the
program continues to grow. The Committee believes that
renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement would be a
more appropriate means by which to adjust the reimbursement
rate.
The Risk Management Agency continues to develop a Cost of
Production [COP] crop insurance pilot program that includes 12
crops: almonds, apricots, cotton, corn, cranberries,
nectarines, onions, peaches, soybeans, sugarcane, rice, and
wheat. The Committee instructs RMA to include hard, soft, and
durum sub-classes of wheat when implementing the COP pilot
program for wheat.
The Committee is aware of the benefits to producers of risk
management programs like the Dairy Options Pilot Program. The
program introduces dairy farmers to the futures and options
markets and gives producers first-hand experience in buying put
options contracts to ensure a minimum price for their milk. The
Committee encourages the Agency to continue funding this
important risk management program.
The Committee is aware that the cap on RMA's assigned risk
pool has not been updated for States since 1997, but that new
negotiations should be complete in fiscal year 2004, and take
effect by the 2005 crop year. However, since 1997, many States
have experienced extreme weather and other conditions which
have caused significantly higher losses than anticipated when
their current caps were negotiated. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that RMA should begin now to work with individual
States, as appropriate, to adjust their risk pool caps in order
to more adequately reflect the needs of each State.
The Committee encourages RMA to develop and implement an
actuarially-sound rider option to the current crop insurance
program for avocados to cover losses due to quarantines, and to
do so in close cooperation with the California avocado
industry. The Committee further requests the Department to
report on the economic impacts of recent domestic quarantines
and to analyze options for protecting avocado growers against
future losses due to such regulatory actions. The Committee
expects the Department to report within 6 months on its
progress in developing a program for a rider option for avocado
crop insurance that will address future quarantines imposed due
to any injurious pest or disease, including fruit fly
infestation.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................ $2,886,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\ \2\........................... 3,368,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 3,368,000,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
\2\ Does not include a reduction of $81,000,000 to reflect the impact of
Section 723 as proposed in the budget request.
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.
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, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
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 $100 per crop per policy.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended
the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from
production and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows
for the improvement of basic crop insurance products by
implementing higher premium subsidies to make buy-up coverage
more affordable for producers; make adjustments in actual
production history guarantees; and revise the administrative
fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More crops and
commodities have become insurable through pilot programs
effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an
investment for over $8,200,000,000 in 5 years to further
improve Federal crop insurance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary, estimated to be $3,368,000,000. This amount is
$482,000,000 more than the current fiscal year 2003 estimate.
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.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act, as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949
Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (the
1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985
Act); and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(2002 Act), enacted May 13, 2002.
Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a
program of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and
peanuts). The 2002 Act also provides for marketing loans for
wool, mohair, honey, small chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A
national Dairy Market Loss Payment [DMLP] program is
established by the 2002 Act, providing that producers enter
into contracts extending through September 30, 2005. A milk
price support program is also provided to support the price of
milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The
rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.
The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar
program at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan
forfeitures in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse
loan program is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18
cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for
refined beet sugar.
In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands
the conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve
program [WRP], the environmental quality incentives program
[EQIP], the farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife
habitat incentives program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is
funded through the CCC.
The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for
other conservation programs, including the conservation
security program and the grassland reserve 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, 2003 \1\................................ $16,285,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\............................... 17,275,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 17,275,000,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
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 fiscal year 2004 to be $17,275,000,000. This
amount is $990,000,000 more than the current estimated
limitation.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2003........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 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.
The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste
management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000.
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 limitation.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $740,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 918,000
Committee recommendation................................ 761,000
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
$761,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
The Committee continues its opposition to administration
proposals to fund technical assistance for Farm Bill
conservation programs from discretionary accounts provided in
this Act. The Committee provides statutory language under the
Conservation Operations, the Watershed Surveys and Planning,
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, and the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program accounts to prohibit the use
of any funds appropriated under these accounts to provide
technical assistance to carry out programs listed in section
1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
The Committee notes that section 2701 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides for the certification
of third party providers to assist in the implementation of
conservation programs. However, it should be noted that the
stated purpose of this provision was to meet the immediate
technical assistance needs to carry out the many new
conservation programs included in the 2002 Farm Bill. This
authorization was not intended to supplant current USDA
conservation positions, but to supplement them during this
period of increasing workload in much the same way the Farm
Service Agency would hire temporary employees to implement new
or time sensitive commodity programs. The Committee does
recognize that the inclusion of third party providers will meet
many of the short term objectives of competitive sourcing and,
therefore, strongly believes that any positions employed under
the authorization of section 2701 be applied to any numerical
competitive sourcing goals that may be assigned to the
Department.s
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, 2003.................................... $819,641,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 703,605,000
Committee recommendation................................ 826,635,000
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 $826,635,000. This amount is $6,994,000 more
than the 2003 level. This amount does not include $198,000 for
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends funding
increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing conservation
activities. Amounts provided by the Committee for specific
conservation measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise
made available to States.
Projects identified in the Senate directives as contained
in the Congressional Record of January 15, 2003, pages S356-
S410, and Conference Report 108-10 that were directed to be
funded by the Committee for fiscal year 2003 are not funded for
fiscal year 2004, unless specifically mentioned herein.
The Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue the Georgia
Agricultural Water Conservation Initiative.
The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national
priority area pilot program under the guidelines of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the Delta of
the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $900,000 for a study to characterize
the on-site consequences, estimate off-site impacts, and
develop strategies to facilitate land use change while
preserving critical natural resources. The agency is directed
to work in cooperation with Clemson University.
The Committee provides $290,000 to expand the cooperative
efforts with the Claude E. Phillips Herbarium in the State of
Delaware.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to maintain a partnership
between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
The Committee provides $23,500,000 for the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative, of which no less than $550,000 shall
be for grazing land conservation activities in the State of
Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $350,000 to obtain and evaluate
materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52
degrees North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the
Southern Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The
Committee directs the agency to continue working in conjunction
with the Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Western Kentucky University.
The Committee provides $700,000 to continue support of
agricultural development and resource conservation on the
Island of Molokai in the State of Hawaii.
The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach
effort so that USDA can serve small-scale Appalachian farmers
in sustaining agriculture production while protecting natural
resources. The Committee provides $860,000 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 $1,500,000 for technical assistance
for the Franklin County Lake Project in the State of
Mississippi.
The Committee expects NRCS to continue to support all
existing offices in the State of Alaska at current levels.
Also, the Committee notes that currently all administrative
functions for NRCS are handled out of Spokane, Washington--
1,000 miles from the Alaska headquarters. The Committee directs
the agency to provide an additional two staff positions to
enable the Palmer office to manage human resources, budget, and
contracting operations in Alaska.
The Committee directs the agency to work with soil
scientists at regional land-grant universities to continue the
pilot project in Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties,
Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and
taxonomic characteristics of Sharkey soils.
The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address the erosion in
the Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in Western Iowa. The
Committee is aware that the Eastern Red Cedar and other
invasive species of woody plants are having a very negative
effect on prairies in the Loess Hills, a unique soil important
to many rare animals and plants. The Committee encourages the
Department to support efforts to minimize this problem.
The Committee provides $160,000 to conduct nitrogen soil
tests and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate
poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve
farmers' economic returns and minimize potential water quality
conditions resulting from excess application of nutrients from
manure and fertilizers on West Virginia's cropland.
The Committee provides $1,425,000 for the Delta
Conservation Demonstration Center in Washington County,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides $200,000 to continue the Idaho One-
Plan in Canyon County, Idaho.
The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion
of the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to
include Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This
funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia
University and the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center,
Natural Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE to identify and
characterize phosphorous movement in soils to determine
appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the
management of phosphorous. This information is critical in
helping 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 $350,000 for evaluating and
increasing native plant materials in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for technical assistance
for the Tanana River watershed project in Salcha, Alaska.
The Committee provides $800,000 for the continued
development of a geographic information system database in the
State of South Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation
program data at the field level for watershed analysis
purposes.
The Committee provides $9,500,000 for Snow Survey and Water
Supply Forecasting, which includes full funding for activities
related to snowpack telemetry [SNOTEL].
The Committee provides $600,000 to provide technical
assistance for improved nutrient management and protection of
water resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The Committee provides $450,000 for the Little Red River
Irrigation Project in the State of Arkansas.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to provide technical
assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey
Program.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for cattle and nutrient
management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi
Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $400,000 to continue the Certified
Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation
with the Iowa Soybean Association.
The Committee provides $4,500,000 for the establishment of
a Geographic Information System Center of Excellence in
cooperation with West Virginia University.
The Committee encourages the agency to support watershed
management and demonstration projects in cooperation with the
National Pork Producers Council.
The Committee provides $175,000 for a cooperative agreement
between NRCS and Alcorn State University for the analysis of
soil erosion and water quality.
The Committee provides $6,459,000 for the Wildlife Habitat
Management Institute [WHMI] for the development and transfer of
fish and wildlife technology to States and field offices. The
Committee expects WHMI to expand the development of technology
to improve the habitat of declining species such as the
bobwhite quail, sage grouse, and associated species.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the
conversion to sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka,
Idaho, in order to reduce water quality impairments resulting
from the return of water runoff to the aquifer by way of
agricultural drain wells.
The Committee provides $900,000 for the New Jersey State
Conservation Cost Share Program.
The Committee provides $600,000 to continue assistance for
conservation programs related to cranberry production in the
States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
The Committee provides $300,000 to provide expedited
conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project
in the State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to
work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.
The Committee provides $500,000 for the ecological site
description project in the State of Idaho. The Committee
directs the agency to work in cooperation with the Idaho
Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
The Committee provides $400,000 for fiscal year 2004 for
flood protection around the Humphreys County Hospital and the
City of Belzoni, Humphreys County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot
project.
The Committee provides $500,000 for geographic information
system based mapping and hyperspectral imaging of agricultural
lands in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides $2,500,000 for a native grassland
demonstration project in the vicinity of Tar Creek, Oklahoma.
The Committee provides $1,100,000 for the Dry Creek project
in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2003 for
drainage improvements on Watkins Drive in the City of Jackson,
Mississippi.
The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2003 for
drainage improvements in the City of Port Gibson, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the
environmental benefits of using vegetative buffers along
waterways. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Committee provides $500,000 for conservation programs
in the Great Lakes Watershed.
The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin,
regarding dairy waste management and in the development of a
working arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy
Forage Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin and the
possible establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at
that location.
The Committee provides $6,000,000 to implement the Source
Water Protection Program and encourages that these funds be
used in States with the greatest needs.
The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming
soil survey mapping project.
The Committee notes that the Natural Resource Inventory
[NRI] has not included the State of Alaska due to factors such
as accessibility of remote locations, climate, and staff
availability. The Committee believes that natural resources
data collection in Alaska is of critical national importance.
As such, the Committee provides an additional $1,500,000 for
NRI pilot activity development in Alaska and directs NRCS to
provide no later than December 30, 2004 a report describing the
technology, personnel, and other resources needed to include
Alaska in the NRI annual reporting system.
The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land
Internship Program in the State of Wisconsin to help students
learn about resource conservation.
The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2003 for
technical assistance in the State of North Carolina to address
concerns with the application of phosphorous on agricultural
lands.
The Committee provides $200,000 for the Old Canton Road
erosion control project in Hinds County, Mississippi.
The Committee is disturbed that the State of Alaska has
largely been ignored thus far in the implementation of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill). The
Committee notes that while Alaska comprises 20 percent of the
United States, it has received minimal funding from
participation in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wetlands Reserve
Program, as well as conservation and watershed technical
assistance. The Committee directs the Secretary to take all
necessary measures to maximize participation and to provide a
fair allocation of resources under the Farm Bill to Alaska. The
Committee directs the Secretary to report on her actions by
January 15, 2004.
The Committee provides $800,000 for additional conservation
technical assistance funding to Kentucky Soil Conservation
Districts.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the
effect of vegetation manipulation on water yields and other
watershed functions. The agency is directed to work in
cooperation with Utah State University.
The Committee provides $2,100,000 for the Georgia Soil and
Water Conservation Commission cooperative agreement.
The Committee provides $467,000 for bank stabilization and
channel improvement work in the Oaklimeter Watershed in the
State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $100,000 for a surface water
impoundment in Choctaw County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the Richland Creek
Watershed in Rankin County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $780,000 for the Lower Payette Ditch
Irrigation Diversion Project in the State of Idaho.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the West Cary Watershed
and Farmland Protection Project in the State of North Carolina.
The Committee provides $500,000 for range revegetation at
Fort Hood in the State of Texas.
The Committee understands that pursuant to a 1988
memorandum of understanding, Indian Conservation Districts were
transferred from the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the
Department of the Interior to NRCS. This transfer has
significantly increased the workload for NRCS offices in States
with former Indian Conservation Districts. The Committee is
concerned that funding for affected offices has not kept pace
with the increased workloads and that services to these
communities may have suffered. Within 120 days of enactment of
this legislation, NRCS shall review all offices that
incorporated Indian Conservation Districts and assess service
delivery, staffing needs, and funding requirements. The agency
shall report its findings to the Committee on Appropriations no
later than 60 days after completion of its review.
The Committee provides $500,000 for the Innovative
Environmental Technologies program in the State of Indiana.
The Committee provides $250,000 for technical assistance
for a water project in Hardin County, Kentucky.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the McCarthy Watershed
project in the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Northern Iowa.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District.
The Committee provides $500,000 for the continued
development of a conjunctive use optimization model in the
Pawcatuck Watershed in the State of Rhode Island.
The Committee provides $300,000 for the testing of emerging
alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce
phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain.
The Committee provides $900,000 for a surface water
impoundment in the Port De Luce Watershed in the State of
Louisiana.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a study on the
effectiveness of agriculture and forestry best management
practices on water quality. The Committee directs the agency to
work in cooperation with Louisiana State University.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Committee for
conservation and sustainable agricultural activities.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Sand County Foundation in the State of
Wisconsin to carry out an expanded nitrogen removal test
project.
The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer
Farm project.
The Committee provides $600,000 to carry out riparian
restoration activities along the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in
the State of New Mexico.
The Committee provides $150,000 for the evaluation of
manure management systems in the State of New York. These
systems should be developed in a manner to control phosphorous,
nitrogen, pathogens, and odors through the implementation of
best alternative manure management systems that will help
maintain economic viability on farms in the Northeast.
The Committee provides $600,000 for a cooperative agreement
with Tufts University to conduct pilot programs in the State of
Connecticut to improve conservation practices and enhance the
diversification of agricultural production in the area.
The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in the State of
North Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than it was in
1993, and the local community has been working with NRCS for
many years on options to address flooding in this basin. To
advance these efforts, the Committee provides $600,000 to the
North Central Planning Council so that it may work with the
Devils Lake Basin Joint Water Resource Board on a Devils Lake
water utilization test project to determine to what extent
excess water from Devils Lake can be used to irrigate land for
beneficial use.
The Committee provides $1,490,000 to continue the Red River
Basin Flood Prevention Project in the State of North Dakota in
cooperation with the Energy and Environmental Research Center.
The Committee provides $450,000 for assistance in the
Iroquois River Watershed in Iroquois County, Illinois.
The Committee provides $250,000 for the Illinois River
Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of
Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited.
The Committee provides $250,000 for a wildlife habitat
education program in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with
the National Wild Turkey Federation.
The Committee provides $900,000 to continue implementation
of pilot projects designed for nutrient reducing waste
treatment systems for dairy operations in the State of Florida.
The Committee has been informed on the importance of
Eelgrass habitats to marine ecosystems along the coast of the
Atlantic Ocean. Eelgrass is a primary source of food for many
plants and animals in areas such as Narragansett Bay in the
State of Rhode Island and provides many additional conservation
benefits, such as protection of the coastline from erosion. The
Committee urges the Department to give consideration to the use
of EQIP funding for projects in Rhode Island, and similar
areas, that will enhance these habitats.
Section 2503 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 authorizes a Farm Viability Program through which
producers may receive assistance for planning and
implementation of strategies for long-term economic viability
of farming operations, including conservation practices. The
Committee provides $200,000 to establish a Pilot Farm Viability
Program Project in the State of Vermont.
The Committee provides $250,000 for assistance for an On
Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.
The Committee provides $750,000 to continue the Delta Water
Resources Study in the State of Mississippi.
The Committee provides $250,000 for an erosion control
project in Rankin County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement
with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources for conservation education.
Plant Materials Centers.--The Committee provides no less
than $11,269,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
The Committee notes the need for extensive rehabilitation
and restoration of public lands in Western States, such as
Nevada, which is required to reduce hazardous fuels on those
lands, reduce the threat of wildfires, and conserve wildlife
habitat. The Committee believes there is a need to develop a
program and location related to productive and successful
native plant materials and restoration. Toward that goal, the
Committee provides $500,000 for the establishment of a plant
materials center in the vicinity of Fallon, Nevada.
The Committee provides $375,000 for the planning and design
of a new storage facility at the Alaska Plant Materials Center.
FARM BILL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004................................... $432,160,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Farm Bill Technical Assistance account funds all of the
technical assistance costs of certain conservation programs
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-171). These are the same conservation
programs included in NRCS's Farm Security and Rural Investment
Programs account--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
Ground and Surface Water Conservation, Klamath Basin Water
Conservation, Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve
Program, and Conservation Security Program. The Farm Security
and Rural Investment Programs account funds the financial
assistance needed to deliver conservation measures on
agricultural lands. The Farm Bill Technical Assistance account
would fund the technical assistance needed to plan, design,
layout, and install conservation systems funded by the 2002
Farm Bill programs. This would include both NRCS's technical
assistance costs, as well as the costs for certified, non-
Federal technical service providers to provide technical
assistance to farmers and ranchers for 2002 Farm Bill programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not provide funding for the Farm Bill
Technical Assistance Account. This subject is addressed under
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $11,124,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
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 $10,000,000. This amount is
$1,124,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $109,285,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,000,000
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 $55,000,000. This
amount is $54,285,000 less than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Project in
the State of West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete
measures regarding the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed, Upper
Deckers Creek Watershed, and Little Whitestick Creek Channel
improvements in the State of West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Lost River Watershed Project in the State of
West Virginia.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Square Butte Project in the State of North Dakota.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for Big Creek/Hurricane Creek, Moniteau Creek, East
Locust Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, East Yellow Creek,
McKenzie Creek, Hickory Creek, East Fork of Grand River,
Troublesome Creek, Willow Cravens Creek, and Upper Locust Creek
projects in the State of Missouri.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed,
Lahaina Watershed, and the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed projects
in the State of Hawaii.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Kuhn Bayou Project in the State of Arkansas.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to provide
assistance for the Ditch 26 Improvement Project in Jonesboro,
Arkansas.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Turkey Creek, Troublesome Creek, 12-Mile
Creek, East Fork of Grand River, West Fork of Big Creek, A&T;
Longbranch, Mill Creek, Hacklebarney, Bear Creek, Little Paint,
Mill-Pacauyne, Soap Creek, Little Sioux River, and West Tarkio
Creek projects in the State of Iowa.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the
Dry Gulch-Martin Lateral, Muddy Creek-Orderville, Tri-Valley,
and Coal Creek projects in the State of Utah.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for small watershed projects in the State of
Vermont.
The Committee provides funds for the Muenster Lake Project
in the State of Texas.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the Piney Creek Watershed Project in Yazoo
County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides funding for the agency to continue
assistance for the Matanuska River Erosion Control Project in
the State of Alaska.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue
assistance for the construction of the Town Creek Floodwater
Retarding Structure #8 in Lee County, Mississippi.
The Committee provides funds for the agency to begin
assistance in the Marmaton Watershed in the State of Kansas.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $29,805,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,805,000
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by Section 313 of
Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 1012), and by
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-171).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee
recommends $29,805,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal
year 2003 level.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $50,668,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 49,943,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,000,000
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 $51,000,000. This amount is
$332,000 more than the 2003 level.
TITLE III--RURAL 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.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $632,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 913,000
Committee recommendation................................ 651,000
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
$651,000. This amount is $19,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
The Committee is aware the Department has previously
provided funding for the National Rural Development Partnership
[NRDP]. The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development
Councils, provide technical support and guidance for rural
development at the State and local level. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue support for this
important organization from within available funds.
The Committee recognizes that the town of Tchula,
Mississippi, has requested technical and program assistance for
housing, business, and other essential community needs. The
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve
funds to assist this Delta community.
The Committee applauds the Department for establishing the
Centralized Service Center [CSC] in St. Louis, Missouri, which
has resulted in significant cost savings. The Committee
encourages the Department to work within USDA and with other
Federal agencies to explore the possibility of turning this
facility into a Government-wide Federal debt collection center.
The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations
of the Rural Business Cooperative Service Office in Hilo,
Hawaii, to address the continuing and increasing demands for
marketing and purchasing cooperatives.
The Committee is aware of and supports the ongoing
activities of the Farm Worker Institute for Education and
Leadership Development [FIELD] and encourages the Secretary to
support this effort through technical assistance programs
available within the Department.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is
restricting not-for-profit developer-owners of essential
community facilities from entering into contracts to provide
services with a third party not-for-profit entity for childcare
and other related services. The Committee strongly encourages
the Secretary to address this policy prohibition to allow such
activities and insure the government's interests are protected
with third party contracts. The developer-owner should be
responsible for securing Departmental approval for any changes
in existing contracts addressing issues that include services
provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees.
The Committee notes that section 6102 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized the expansion of
911 access for rural areas subject to regulations issued by
USDA. To date, USDA has not begun the rulemaking process for
this program. The Committee encourages the Department to
initiate the rulemaking process as expeditiously as possible to
expand and improve 911 access for rural areas.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $901,837,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 477,864,000
Committee recommendation................................ 769,479,000
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
$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, 309A, 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 $769,479,000. This amount is $132,358,000
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee recognizes that the direct community
facilities loan program is an essential tool in addressing
basic needs in rural America. The Committee also notes that
this program has a negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004,
the first time since the inception of the program in 1974.
Demand for this program far exceeds available funding. To meet
the needs for our rural communities, the Committee strongly
encourages the Department to consider establishing a program
level of $500,000,000 to meet these needs.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2003 2004 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community:
Community facility direct loan subsidies.............. 15,762 ................ ................
Community facility grants............................. 25,766 17,000 24,838
Economic impact initiative grants..................... 24,837 ................ 25,000
High energy costs grants.............................. 29,805 ................ 30,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, community................................. 96,170 17,000 79,838
=====================================================
Business:
Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies....... 35,498 29,280 27,000
Rural business enterprise grants...................... 47,679 44,000 48,000
Rural business opportunity grants..................... 3,974 3,000 4,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, business.................................. 87,151 76,280 79,000
=====================================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies........ 102,642 35,132 30,141
Water and waste disposal grants....................... 612,374 345,952 577,000
Solid waste management grants......................... 3,500 3,500 3,500
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities................................. 718,516 384,584 610,641
=====================================================
Total, loan subsidies and grants.................... 901,837 477,864 769,479
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Advancement Program.--The Committee
provides the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for
transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural
Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative.
The Committee directs that of the $24,000,000 provided for
loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native
American Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American
Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development
and assistance initiative.
Community Facilities Loans and Grants.--The Committee is
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications relating to community facilities for the
following: Alaska Rural Telecommunications Service; Illinois
Valley Community Arts and Economic Center, OR; Maine Rural
Community Innovation Center, MA; Noxubee County Multi-Purpose
Facility, MS; Franklin Parish School Renovations, LA; Union and
Wallowa Counties Rail Line, OR; City of Port Gibson, MS;
Mississippi Blood Services, MS; Southern Plain Conference
Center, OK; Elmo, UT; Casey County Agricultural Center, KY;
Montana Food Bank, MT; Coushatta Tribe, LA; Jefferson Street
Drainage Improvement Project, LA; Grand Isle Multiplex Center,
LA; Golden Meadow Multi-purpose Facility, LA; City of Bozeman,
MT; City of Port Gibson, MS; Vineland Produce Auction
Association, NJ; City of Bayfield, WI; Bawcomville Flood
Control Pump, LA; White County Emergency Warning System, AR;
Central Upper Peninsula Fitness, Growth and Learning Center,
MI; Village of Owego, NY; Heritage Christian Home Center, NY;
Salkehatchie Leadership Center, SC; Miles City Improvement
District, MT; West Baton Rouge Parish Communications Center,
LA; Donaldsonville Natural Gas Line, LA; Public Ice Facilities,
Bristol Bay Borough, AK; Kawerak's Bering Region Cultural
Center, Nome, AK; and the Southern Training and Social Services
Complex, LA.
Economic Impact Initiative Grants.--The Committee includes
statutory language to provide $25,000,000 for the Rural
Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme
unemployment or severe economic depression.
High Energy Cost Grants.--The Committee includes statutory
language to provide $30,000,000 for the Rural Community
Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy
costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities
Service.
Business and Industry Loan Program.--The Committee
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business opportunity grants [RBOG] for the following:
Santiam Canyon Economic Development, OR; Quinebaug-Shetucket
Corridor, CT; and the Louisiana Communication and Information
Technology Capability Project, LA.
The Committee includes statutory language to provide for a
community planning pilot program in the State of Alaska.
Rural Business Enterprise Grants.--The Committee is also
aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] for
the following: Sustainable Systems, MT; Mission Valley Market,
MT; Power Applications Resource Center at Montana State
University-Northern; University of Montana Business Incubators,
MT; Grants to Public Broadcasting Systems; New Product
Development and Commercialization Center, OK; Calista Native
Corporation, AK; Vineland Produce Auction Association, NJ;
Southern Maryland Regional Processing Kitchen and Agriculture
Business Incubator, MD; Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor,
CT; Technology Venture Center TechRanch, MT; New York
Agricultural Development, NY; Agricultural Innovation Center,
NJ; Hibbing Technology Business Center, MN; Kershaw County
Industrial Park, SC; Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural
Partnership, MA; Continental Structural Plastics, LA; Quachita
Terminal and Dock, LA; Bering Straits Native Corporation, Nome,
AK; Vermont Maple Industry Council; Covington Northern Kentucky
Regional Farmers Market; Daviess County BioTech Cluster
Initiative, KY; Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; Chesapeake
Innovation Center, MD; Center for Blackbelt Development, GA;
Rural Enterprise Assistance Program, NE; Mobile Slaughter
Facility, OR; Oregon Center for Rural Policy; Southern Ohio
Diversification Initiative, OH; and Chesapeake Fields
Institute, MD.
The Committee includes statutory language to provide no
less than $5,000,000 in grants to statewide private nonprofit
public television systems.
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.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.--The Committee
is aware of and encourages the Department to consider
applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants for
the following projects: Iron County Sewer and Waste Water
Treatment Facility, UT; City of Oxford, MS; Port Gibson, MS;
City of Wasilla, AK; Pueblo of Picuris, NM; Santo Domingo
Pueblo, NM; Pueblo of San Felipe, NM; Carnuel MDWWCA, NM;
Pueblo of Laguna, NM; Pueblo of Acoma, NM; Pueblo of Pojoaque,
NM; Miles Crossing Sanitary Sewer District, OR; Neuse Regional
Water and Sewer Authority, NC; Dillon County Bingham Project,
SC; Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, MT; Alger County, MI; City
of Watervliet, MI; Alachua County, FL; Desoto County, FL; St.
John the Baptist Drinking Water, LA; Dallas County, AR; Brushy
Island Water Improvement Association, AR; Albany Water
Conservation, OR; Miles City Improvement District, MT;
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, LA; Neshoba County Central Water
Association, MS; Adair County, KY; Russell County, KY; and
Hardin County, KY.
The Committee includes statutory language to make up to
$30,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants
available for village safe water for the development of water
systems for rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In
addition, the Committee is aware of and encourages the
Department to consider applications to the national program
from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations
less than 5,000 which are not able to compete for village safe
water funding; $25,000,000 for water and waste systems for the
Colonias along the United States-Mexico border; and $24,000,000
for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes. In addition, the Committee makes up to
$13,000,000 available for the circuit rider program.
The Committee includes statutory language ensuring that
Alaska receives 5 percent of the total amount available for the
circuit rider program.
The Committee encourages the Department to work with the
Union-Lincoln Water Supply Initiative to provide technical
assistance relating to alternative sources of water for the
Sparta Aquifer that supplies Northern Louisiana and Southern
Arkansas.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to fund the activities of
the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority [NGPRA], as
authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. Within 180 days of enactment of this Act, NGPRA shall
provide the Committee with a report on its anticipated fiscal
needs in future years. The report should also explain the
NGPRA's grant awarding criteria. Furthermore, the Committee
expects that Northern Great Plains, Inc. will establish the
policies and procedures of the Authority as required by law.
Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.--The
Committee provides $2,000,000 for the Individually Owned
Household Water Well Program as authorized in section 6012 of
Public Law 107-171. The Committee encourages the Department to
work with interested parties, including the Foundation for
Affordable Drinking Water, to implement this new program.
Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.--The
Committee provides a significant increase in the technical
assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the
Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware
of and encourages the Department to consider applications from
the Alaska Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide
training in water and waste systems operation and maintenance.
Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee is aware of
the need for landfill improvements for Point Barrow, Alaska,
and urges the Department to give priority consideration for an
application for a solid waste management grant.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2003 2004 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations............................................ 144,789 147,520 140,922
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account..... 429,564 482,787 439,453
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 37,587 41,562 37,920
Program Account......................................
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account.................. 3,062 3,462 3,182
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account........... 4,163 4,850 4,283
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, RD salaries and expenses..................... 619,165 680,181 625,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and 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.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $625,760,000 for salaries and
expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development
Programs. This amount is $6,595,000 more than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $169,000 for
FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.
The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for
Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to
enter into or renew a contract for any activity that is best
suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior
approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate. Such activities may include, but are not limited to,
any function that affects eligibility determination,
disbursement, collection or accounting for Government subsidies
provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of
the Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
The Committee is aware that USDA Rural Development-Alaska
staff works with the Denali Commission. The Committee expects
the Department to look favorably on a request for Anchorage
office space for Rural Development staff to share with the
Denali Commission staff in the Commission's office. If such a
request is agreed to, USDA is directed to reimburse the Denali
Commission through the existing cooperative interagency
agreement.
Rural Housing Service
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
$1,505,651,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This amount is
$61,791,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to set-
aside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help
housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and
State rental assistance, and other related activities that
facilitate the development of housing in rural areas.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2003 levels and the 2004 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2003 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 1,037,866 1,366,462 1,359,417
Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase.................... 2,621,781 2,500,000 2,500,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance................... 223,537 225,172 225,172
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 34,772 35,003 35,004
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................ 99,350 100,000 100,000
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ 115,053 70,830 115,052
Site loans (sec. 524).................................... 5,013 5,046 5,045
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 11,988 11,500 11,500
Self-help housing land development fund.................. 4,979 5,000 1,623
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF............................................ 4,154,339 4,319,013 4,347,768
==================================================
Farm Labor Program:
Farm labor housing loan level............................ 37,480 42,167 37,480
Farm labor housing grants................................ 17,698 17,000 17,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program.............................. 55,178 59,167 54,480
==================================================
Grants and payments:
Mutual and self-help housing............................. 34,773 34,000 34,000
Rental assistance........................................ 721,281 740,000 721,281
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG]................... 42,222 41,500 46,222
--------------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing grants and payments............... 798,276 815,500 801,503
==================================================
Total, RHS loans and grants............................ 5,007,793 5,193,680 5,203,751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
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, 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. 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.
An increased priority should be placed on long term
rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing
portfolio including increased equity loan activity and
financial and technical assistance support for acquisition of
existing projects.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
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 2003, as well
as for administrative expenses. The following table presents
the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2003 levels and the
2004 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------- Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct.............................................. 201,035 126,671 126,018
Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase................... 31,986 39,250 39,250
Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance.................. 402 653 653
Housing repair (sec. 504)............................... 10,786 9,612 9,612
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)............... 4,471 5,950 5,950
Rental housing (sec. 515)............................... 53,649 30,464 49,484
Site loans (sec. 524) \1\............................... 55 ............... ...............
Credit sales of acquired property....................... 928 663 663
Self-help housing land development fund................. 220 154 50
---------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................. 303,532 212,764 231,680
===================================================
Administrative expenses..................................... 429,564 482,787 439,453
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $721,281,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 740,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 721,281,000
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 rent over
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; 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 $721,281,000. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The section 521 rental assistance program is the largest
single line item request in the Department's fiscal year 2004
budget request for the Rural Development mission area. The
Committee is concerned that as of March 31, 2002, over 19,000
units of rental assistance were unused. Given the tremendous
need for this assistance, including the large number of rent
overburdened tenants, the Committee requests that the Secretary
make the necessary changes to effectively minimize this unused
portion of rental assistance.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $34,772,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,000,000
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 $34,000,000 for mutual and self-
help housing grants. This amount is $772,000 less than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $42,222,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 41,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,222,000
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.
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 $27,500, 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, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. 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 $46,222,000. This amount is $4,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee provides $5,000,000 to administer a
demonstration housing program for agriculture processing
workers in the States of Alaska, Mississippi, and Wisconsin.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to administer the
Demonstration Housing Grants for Agriculture Processing Workers
through non-profit community-based organizations, including
cooperatives, and fund grants of up to 75 percent of total
development costs for each project awarded. The Department
should also require on-site tenant services in the selection
criteria. The Committee provided funding for this purpose in
fiscal year 2001 and requests the Department to take into
consideration difficulties encountered previously and make
necessary changes in any notice of availability of funds. The
Committee also encourages the Department to issue a notice for
availability of funds within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
The Committee is concerned that only a few States benefited
from the Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grant Program in
fiscal year 2003, and encourages the Secretary to consider an
allocation process that ensures that no State or Territory
receives more than 5 percent of available funds. Priority
should be given to entities that have experience in
homeownership education and/or reducing delinquencies and
foreclosures.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2003 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 31,295 31,500 31,295
Supervisory and technical assistance......................... 992 ............... 992
Rural housing preservation grants............................ 9,935 10,000 8,935
Demonstration housing grants for agricultural processing ............... ............... 5,000
workers.....................................................
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 42,222 41,500 46,222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Loan level level Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.................. 37,480 18,373 17,698
Budget estimate, 2004................. 42,167 18,018 17,000
Committee recommendation.............. 37,480 16,015 17,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the cost of direct farm labor housing loans and grants,
the Committee recommends $33,015,000. This amount is $3,056,000
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
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.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................... 39,740 40,000 40,000
Direct loan subsidy....................................... 19,179 17,308 17,308
Administrative expenses................................... 4,163 4,850 4,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2004, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the
Committee recommends a total loan level of $40,000,000. This
amount is $260,000 more than the 2003 loan level.
The Committee encourages the agency to consider the
following for intermediary relending loans: LED
Microenterprise, LA; Forest County Technology, PA; and the
Clarion County Economic Development, PA; and Women in
Technology in Hawaii and Wisconsin.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level...................................... 14,869 15,002 15,002
Direct loan subsidy \1\................................... 3,176 2,792 2,792
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
$2,792,000. This amount is $384,000 less than the fiscal year
2003 appropriation. As proposed in the budget, the $3,000,000
provided is derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of
credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $8,941,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 11,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,967,000
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, except 1994 institutions,
which only need to provide 5 percent. 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.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $8,967,000 for rural cooperative
development grants. This amount is $26,000 more than the fiscal
year 2003 appropriation.
Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through
a cooperative agreement with the National Center for
Appropriate Technology.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
consider a grant application from the Rural Information
Technology Cooperative, IA.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $14,870,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 14,370,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $14,370,000 for Rural Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is
$500,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of the
funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third
round enterprise communities.
Renewable Energy Program
Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004................................... $3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,000,000
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for the renewable
energy program. In fiscal year 2003, $23,000,000 from the
Commodity Credit Corporation was provided to fund this program.
The Committee encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for loans and grants for the
renewable energy program for the following: Montana Bio-
Refinery Project, MT; Biodiesel Feedstock Feasibility Study,
MT; Agri-Waste to Ethanol Program, MN; Ethanol Feedlot Project
in Mead, NE; and Ecofuels Project in Wisconsin and Iowa.
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
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
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 2004, as well
as for administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 120,316 240,000 240,000
Direct, Muni......................................... 99,350 100,000 1,000,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 2,500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 1,150,000 700,000 750,000
Guaranteed........................................... 99,350 100,000 100,000
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. 1,000,000 ............... 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 4,969,096 2,640,000 5,090,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 74,542 145,042 145,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 298,050 250,000 250,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 120,000 100,000 120,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 492,592 495,000 515,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorizations......................... 5,461,608 3,135,042 5,605,000
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent \1\................................ 6,870 ............... ...............
Direct, Muni \1\..................................... 4,004 ............... ...............
Direct, FFB \2\...................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate \2\............................ ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... 79 60 60
Guaranteed, Underwriting \2\......................... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 10,953 60 60
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent \1\................................ 1,275 ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 149 125 125
Direct, FFB \2\...................................... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 1,424 125 125
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 12,377 185 185
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 37,587 41,562 37,920
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 49,964 41,747 38,105
Loans Programs Account................................
==================================================
(Loan authorization)............................... 5,461,608 3,135,042 5,605,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.
\2\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 are calculated for these programs.
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
Loan level subsidy expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003......... 173,503 2,394 3,062
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\.... ............ ........... 3,462
Committee recommendation \1\. 173,503 ........... 3,182
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this
program.
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 2004, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a loan level of $173,503,000. This
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loans......................................... 300,000 50,000 300,000
Grants............................................... 46,636 25,000 40,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loans......................................... ............... 40,000 40,000
Treasury rate loans.................................. ............... 255,963 255,963
Guaranteed loans..................................... ............... 40,000 40,000
Grants............................................... 9,935 2,000 10,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations......... 356,571 412,963 685,963
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2003 level 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loan subsidies \1\................................ ............... ............... ...............
Grants................................................... 46,636 25,000 40,000
Broadband Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... ............... 1,976 1,976
Treasury subsidies....................................... ............... 5,580 5,580
Guaranteed subsidies..................................... ............... 1,560 1,560
Grants................................................... 9,935 2,000 10,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, grants and loan subsidies....................... 56,571 36,116 59,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 are calculated for this program.
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 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, Telemedicine, and Broadband
Program, the Committee recommends $59,116,000. This amount is
$2,545,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of
this amount, the Committee has provided $15,000,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations.
In addition, of the funds provided, $10,000,000 in grants
shall be made available to support broadband transmission and
local dial-up Internet services for rural areas. The Department
should continue to provide financial support in addition to the
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan
accounts.
The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to
give consideration to the following applications for grants and
loans: Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network; Caswell
Foundation, NC; Rural Information Technology Cooperative, IA;
Louisiana Online; Pioneer Public T.V., MN; Maui Community
College Skybridge Interactive Network, HI; Jamerson Rural
Nevada Small Business Project; Nurses for Tomorrow, WA; SWIFT
Cyber Group, WA; REAPNET Program in Bowling Green, KY; Montana
Agriculture Knowledge Network; Kentucky Partnership for Farm
Family Health and Safety in Bowling Green, KY; and National
Rural Telework Institute of Appalachia, OH.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $595,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 786,000
Committee recommendation................................ 611,000
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 $611,000. This amount is $16,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee is aware of the innovative work in Iowa and
Wisconsin to make milk available through school vending
machines. Due to their success in improving child health and
nutrition, the Committee supports expanding these pilot
programs with available funding.
The Committee has provided increases throughout FNS to
promote healthy eating and to combat obesity. According to USDA
statistics, since 1980, the percentage of children who are
overweight has nearly doubled, and the percentage of
adolescents who are overweight has nearly tripled. Almost 9
million young Americans, or about 15 percent of all children,
are overweight. This number continues to increase, putting
these children and adults at a higher risk for health problems
including diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and other
ailments. The Committee believes it is imperative that USDA
maintain and increase obesity prevention and nutrition
education activities, and work with other government and
private entities to provide the public with appropriate, up-to-
date information on healthy eating and exercise habits.
The Committee is aware of the efforts of several non-profit
groups throughout the country, such as Farm Share in Florida,
whose mission is to recover and distribute surplus fresh and
nutritious fruits and vegetables. These organizations recover
fresh produce in bulk or by gleaning fields with the help of
volunteers. The produce is washed, sorted, packed, and
distributed locally, statewide and throughout the United States
to a network of participating social service agencies serving
the homeless and low-income households. The Committee believes
the activities carried out by these organizations are extremely
worthwhile, and strongly encourages USDA to support their
efforts in any way possible.
The Committee is aware of the efforts of Share Our Strength
and its Operation Frontline program to improve the eating
habits, food budgeting skills, and overall self-confidence and
sufficiency of program participants. The Committee encourages
the Under Secretary to work with Operation Frontline, as well
as other innovative organizations, to identify funding which
may be available to expand their efforts.
The Committee notes the growing problem of childhood
obesity and recent reports that many school children receive a
substantial percentage of their calories from sweetened drinks,
candy, and high fat snacks. Likewise, many non-subsidized
school lunches are high in fat content and low in certain
nutrients linked to school performance such as Omega 3 fatty
acids. The Committee directs the Food and Nutrition Service to
work aggressively to develop food products for the school lunch
program that are appealing to children, high in nutrition, and
will foster lifelong healthy eating patterns. The Committee
also notes that learning disabilities and behavioral disorders
have been linked to low serum levels of Omega 3 fatty acids.
Therefore, particular attention should be paid to developing
food choices that are high in Omega 3 fatty acids. FNS should
develop incentives to encourage schools to serve healthy food
choices and should impose disincentives to schools which
continue to offer high fat and sugar content foods to children
either through the school lunch program or other sources.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry is scheduled to consider the reauthorization of Child
Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] during the 108th
Congress. The following programs are included in the
reauthorization: National School Lunch Program, School
Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program, Summer Food Service
Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition 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 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.
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 electronic access
to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to
Puerto Rico. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-171) authorizes block grants for Nutrition
Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, which provide
broad flexibility in establishing nutrition assistance programs
specifically tailored to the needs of their 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.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000
from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to
purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], and
administrative expenses for 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.
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. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs 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.
child nutrition programs
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003......... 5,834,480 4,745,663 10,580,143
Budget estimate, 2004........ 6,718,780 4,699,661 11,418,441
Committee recommendation..... 6,718,780 4,699,661 11,418,441
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell 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 for 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 2004 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. On July 1, 1999,
the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the Homeless Summer
Food Service Program was 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 apply 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
2004, the School Lunch Program will provide assistance
for serving an estimated 4.9 billion school lunches
including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income
families and 2.9 billion for children from lower and
low-income families. An estimated 29.1 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 2004, under current
law, the program will provide assistance for about 2.9
billion lunches, of which 2.4 billion will be served
free of charge and 0.5 billion at reduced price. Over
17 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. These schools receive higher rates of
reimbursement in both the free and reduced-price
categories. In fiscal year 2004, the program will serve
an estimated 1.5 billion breakfasts to a daily average
of 9.1 million children.
(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 2004, $140,240,000 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 2004,
approximately 138.5 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 2004,
approximately 1.9 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.--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 2004, approximately 112.4
million half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program.
These include about 106.4 million half-pints served to children
whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During
fiscal year 2004, the average full cost reimbursement for milk
served to needy children is expected to be 17.7 cents for each
half-pint. Milk served to nonneedy children is expected to be
reimbursed at 13.8 cents for each half-pint.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends
an appropriation of $6,718,780,000, plus transfers from section
32 of $4,699,661,000, for a total program of $11,418,441,000.
This amount is $838,298,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
appropriation.
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 2003 estimate 2004 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 6,074,648 6,683,704 6,683,704
School Breakfast Program..................................... 1,660,870 1,797,923 1,797,923
State administrative expenses................................ 133,583 140,240 140,240
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 334,686 308,653 308,653
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 1,904,494 2,019,045 2,019,045
Special Milk Program......................................... 16,449 15,270 15,270
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support...... 435,334 431,309 431,309
Coordinated review system.................................... 5,080 5,235 5,235
Team nutrition............................................... 10,025 10,025 10,025
Food safety education........................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000
School Breakfast Grant Startup Program....................... 3,278 ............... ...............
Common Roots Program......................................... 199 ............... ...............
Child Nutrition Archive Resource Center...................... 497 ............... ...............
Child nutrition program pay costs............................ ............... 37 37
Child nutrition program integrity funds...................... ............... 6,000 6,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training
grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for
other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to
recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25
percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option.
The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in
increasing participation in the CACFP program.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $4,696,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,769,232,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,639,232,000
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 7.8
million participants at an average food cost of $36.39 per
person per month in fiscal year 2004.
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 WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] has
historically been 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 $4,639,232,000. This amount is $56,768,000
less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Although less than the President's request, this funding
level is adequate to support the approximately 7.78 million
women, infants, and children estimated in the President's
budget. Updated estimates since the budget was submitted in
February have revealed lower than projected participation rates
in fiscal year 2003 and food costs that have decreased by
approximately $0.50 per person per month. However, there have
also been increases due to recent infant formula contracts with
decreased rebates. All of these factors were taken into
consideration when calculating the appropriation for the WIC
program.
The Committee provides $5,000,000 for a childhood obesity
pilot project, $10,000,000 for breastfeeding support
initiatives, and $30,000,000 for a management information
system initiative. This funding also maintains a WIC funding
reserve of $125,000,000, the same level as fiscal year 2003, to
become available if the Secretary deems necessary.
The Committee is aware that the WIC Farmers' Market Program
provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low income mothers and
children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but local
farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee provides $25,000,000
for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and directs the
Secretary to obligate these funds within 45 days.
The Committee also provides $14,000,000 for infrastructure
funding, as well as funding requested by the President for a
study on the effectiveness of the WIC program.
While the Committee continues to support and encourage
State and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important
means of participation referral to other health care services,
it also continues to recognize the constraints that WIC
programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care
priorities and continuing demand for core WIC program
activities. The Committee wishes to clarify that while WIC
plays an important role in screening and referral to other
health care services, it was never the Committee's intention
that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and
assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the
responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee's
intention that WIC State and local agencies should assume the
burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost
sharing agreements. The Committee again includes language in
the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC services authorized by
law to ensure that WIC funds are not used to pay the expenses
or to coordinate operations or activities other than those
allowable pursuant to section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal
agency.
To ensure equitable and fair access for all WIC agencies to
the WIC State Management Information Systems, Breastfeeding
Peer Counseling, and Childhood Obesity Prevention Project
funds, the Committee directs USDA to partner with WIC public
health nutritionists and agency directors to consider the
methodologies for the distribution of those funds.
The Committee is concerned that the Department has
published interim infant formula cost containment regulations
with no public comment. The Committee strongly encourages USDA
to work with WIC State agency directors and other interested
parties to review the interim regulations and propose
regulatory changes to ensure maximum participant benefits.
food stamp program
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEFAP
Expenses Amount in Puerto Rico commodity Total
reserve purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003...................... 22,772,692 2,000,000 1,401,000 140,000 26,313,692
Budget estimate, 2004..................... 24,203,176 2,000,000 1,402,805 140,000 27,745,981
Committee recommendation.................. 24,203,176 2,000,000 1,402,805 140,000 27,745,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 stamp benefits 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 Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, enacted May 13,
2002, reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year
2007.
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 benefits, the value of
which is determined by household size and income. The cost of
the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by
law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household
stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty
food plan.
At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/
her card and enters a unique personal identification number
into a terminal that debits the household's account for the
amount of purchases. Federal funds are shifted from the Federal
Reserve to the EBT processor's financial institution so that it
may reimburse the grocer's account for the amount of purchases.
The grocer's account at a designated bank is credited for the
amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted
for in the same manner as those benefit costs that result from
issuance of coupons.
As of May 2003, 46 Electronic Benefits Transfer [EBT]
projects were operating statewide in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. EBT is
also operating in parts of California, Delaware, Guam, Iowa,
Maine, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia.
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.--The Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized
block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and
American Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility
to establish a nutrition 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 Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171,
enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through
fiscal year 2007. 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.
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. The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-171), substantially revised the
performance requirements for States under the Quality Control
[QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face
sanctions. States that demonstrate a high degree of accuracy or
substantial improvement in their degree of accuracy under the
QC system are eligible to share in a $48,000,000 ``bonus fund''
established by Congress to reward States for good performance.
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. The Department of Agriculture has
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in
providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends
$27,745,981,000. This amount is $1,432,289,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of the amount provided,
$2,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. This
is the same as the 2003 contingency reserve level and the
budget request.
Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase
bison for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
from Native American producers and Cooperative Organizations
without competition.
The Committee is aware that there continues to be a
pressing need for infrastructure development in the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations [FDPIR].
Warehousing facilities on some reservations do not allow for
the proper and efficient storage and distribution of
commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization must be able to
replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor trailers and fork
lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep pace with
improvements in the food package, including the addition of
fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which
generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.
Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
must submit for the Secretary's approval a yearly plan that
contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits
under the Nutrition Assistance Program [NAP] for Puerto Rico
are provided during the following fiscal year. While the
Committee notes the program flexibility normally afforded to
Puerto Rico, the Committee encourages the Secretary not to
approve any NAP plan that does not require at least 75 percent
of NAP funds to be spent on food at certain stores with point-
of-sales devices.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $163,431,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\............................... 166,072,000
Committee recommendation................................ 145,740,000
\1\ Includes $1,074,000 previously funded through the Food Donations
Program.
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance 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 2004 approximately 68,000 women, infants,
and young children and 342,000 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 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002
Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007
and establishes a specific administrative funding level for
each caseload slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, the
program provides nutrition assistance to low-income people
through prepared meals served on site and through the
distribution of commodities to low-income households for home
consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State
agencies for distribution through State-established networks.
State agencies make the commodities available to local
organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food
banks, and community action agencies, for their use in
providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
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 2002, $307,100,000 worth of commodities were
distributed to assist needy individuals. Donations will
continue in fiscal year 2003. Precise levels depend upon the
availability of surplus commodities and requirements regarding
displacement. In fiscal year 2003, $60,000,000 will be used to
help State and local authorities with the storage and
distribution costs of providing surplus commodities to needy
individuals. Although the $60,000,000 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 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
reauthorizes funding to support the storage and distribution of
commodities through fiscal year 2007, and increases the amount
authorized to be appropriated from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000.
The law permits State and local agencies to use these funds to
pay costs associated with the storage and distribution of USDA
commodities and commodities secured from other sources. At the
request of the State, these funds can be used by USDA to
purchase additional commodities. The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 also reauthorizes funding for the
purchase of TEFAP commodities and increases the amount of funds
available from $100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the
commodities purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities
obtained under agriculture support programs are donated to
States for distribution through TEFAP.
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 Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $145,740,000. This amount is
$17,691,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee does not agree with the President's proposal
to fund the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program under the
Commodity Assistant Program account. The Committee provides
$25,000,000 in funding for this purpose under the Special
Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]
account.
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 programs funded under this
account.
The Committee is aware that since 1997, commodities
provided through TEFAP have increased by approximately 400
percent, with most of the increase coming through surplus or
bonus commodities purchased by USDA. The Committee is further
aware that during difficult economic times, the number of
Americans in need of assistance through State and local food
banks increases. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 provides $140,000,000 for TEFAP commodities to be
purchased with food stamp funds. The Committee provides
$50,000,000 for TEFAP administrative funding. In addition, the
Committee provides the Secretary authority to transfer up to an
additional $10,000,000 from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food
products are made available by hunters and other game
harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State
inspected facilities, and present an additional source of
donated commodities. The Department should give consideration
to this opportunity as a means to supplement and provide
variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP
administrative funds for this purpose.
The Committee provides $94,991,000 for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. This amount is $18,765,000 less than
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of this amount, no less
than $22,841,000 shall be available for administrative funding.
The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which is expected to provide
fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 419,000 low-income
senior citizens and benefit more than 8,500 farmers in fiscal
year 2003. The Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is
available for the program in fiscal year 2004 through the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,074,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ The fiscal year 2004 budget recommends transferring funds from this
account to the Commodity Assistance Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Funding for Pacific Island Assistance is provided under the
Commodity Assistance Program account, as requested in the
President's budget.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $135,672,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 144,849,000
Committee recommendation................................ 138,304,000
The Nutrition Programs 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 Pacific Island Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
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 Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $138,304,000. This amount is
$2,632,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This
amount does not include $32,000 for FECA administrative
charges, as requested in the budget.
The Committee is aware of concerns regarding which USDA
Agency is best suited to oversee and carry out research related
to food assistance programs within the Department. The Economic
Research Service has particular capacities related to economics
analysis and modeling. The food and Nutrition Service has
longstanding expertise in programmatic operations of food
assistance programs. Given their respective capacities and
areas of expertise, research dollars at the Department of
Agriculture are provided to both ERS and FNS. The Committee
provides $3,195,000, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level,
for studies and evaluations in the Nutrition Programs
Administration account.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
Appropriations from loan Total
accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003........ 129,103 4,229 133,332
Budget estimate, 2004....... 140,798 4,393 145,191
Committee recommendation.... 131,648 4,365 136,013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 63 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 80 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. 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.
A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
2003, Division A of Public Law 108-7, made permanent a
prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or
export of tobacco or tobacco products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
recommends an appropriation of $131,648,000. This amount is
$2,545,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This
amount does not include $16,000 for FECA administrative
charges, as requested in the budget.
The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2003 level.
The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 budget request
level of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
The Committee continues to include language in a general
provision 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],
consistent with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure
U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.
The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service
to assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska
Fisheries Development Foundation in marketing Alaska salmon and
other seafood to overseas markets.
To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve
world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural
Service must increase its efforts to improve the understanding
among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the
thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology.
As trading partners construct regulatory systems for
biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS is frequently requested
to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign
government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the
United States fails to participate in such discussions, those
attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by U.S.
producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine
confidence in the benefits and safety of the technology while
reducing trade opportunities for American producers. The
Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate funding to meet the
needs of our trading partners so that officials from the
Department of Agriculture may, when requested, educate foreign
regulators on the safety of the technology and the thoroughness
of the U.S. regulatory process.
In addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary
to work with representatives of the dairy industry and
appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the
amount of fortified dry milk exported under humanitarian
assistance programs.
The Committee is aware of the continuing buildup of surplus
non-fat dry milk acquired by the CCC through the dairy price
support program. The Committee is concerned with increasing
storage costs associated with this buildup and encourages the
agency to utilize all existing food donation programs to reduce
this growing surplus.
The Committee encourages FAS to support the Central Asia/
Krasnodar, Turkey and China Initiative project for the
development of biotechnological and conservation activities and
to develop services modeled on the Cooperative Extension
Service. The Committee also recommends FAS support for the
``Good Neighbor Partnership--Azores'' initiative by the Azores
Collaborative Research and Education Group [ACREG].
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003........................................ 153,663 115,416 2,045
Budget estimate, 2004....................................... 131,670 103,887 4,041
Committee recommendation.................................... 131,670 103,887 2,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2004 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 total
appropriations of $106,021,000. This amount is $11,440,000 less
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This appropriation
will support a Public Law 480, title I, credit level of
$131,670,000 for fiscal year 2004, $21,993,000 less than the
fiscal year 2003 level. The corresponding loan levels, loan
subsidy amounts, and administrative expenses are reflected in
the table above, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget
request levels.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $24,995,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,000,000
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the
Committee recommends $28,000,000. This amount is $3,005,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................ $1,440,575,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,185,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,192,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of
$369,000,000 provided by Public Law 108-11.
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition;
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development;
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage
the development of private enterprise and democratic
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly
supports the continued efficient operation of this important
program.
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
For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of
$1,192,000,000. This amount is $248,575,000 less than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
The Committee expects the administration to allocate no
less than 1,875,000 metric tons of the commodities provided
under Title II to non-emergency programs. Unanticipated
emergency needs, such as the famine in southern Africa, should
be met primarily through the section 416b program, the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, or emergency appropriations.
The Committee directs the administration not to place
arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title
II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant countries,
monetization stimulates the economy and allows needed
commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not
on the level of monetization.
The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal
year 2004 to continue the fiscal year 2003 level of funding 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.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
increased the level of Public Law 480 Title II non-emergency
assistance to 1,875,000 metric tons. Congress provided this
level to help address the underlying causes of hunger in the
world. The Committee expects that funding for Public Law 480
Title II will be used for its intended purpose and not for ad
hoc emergency assistance. In the event of additional emergency
needs, the Committee reminds the Department of the availability
of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new
funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7
U.S.C. 1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds
available for any fiscal year for carrying out any title of
Public Law 480 to any other title of the program. This
authority may be used to transfer funds to title III should a
transfer be deemed appropriate.
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program Grants
Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004................................... $50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, Public Law 107-171, the McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support
education, child development, and food security for some of the
world's poorest children. The program provides for donations of
U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects. For fiscal year 2003, $100,000,000 from
the Commodity Credit Corporation was used to fund this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee provides $25,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The Committee
is aware that opportunities may exist to use Food for Progress
resources in certain countries through arrangements consistent
with the objectives of the McGovern-Dole Program. The Secretary
is encouraged to investigate the possible use of Food for
Progress resources to supplement funds made available by this
Act to carry out activities consistent with the McGovern-Dole
Program and report to the Committee on the specific countries
for which this opportunity may exist and the extent to which
such use is a prudent allocation of resources.
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 \1\ subsidy \1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003......................................... 4,225,000 293,927 4,032
Budget estimate, 2004........................................ 4,155,000 297,000 4,312
Committee recommendation..................................... 4,155,000 297,000 4,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. Other credit activities may also be financed under
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S.
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing
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 Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 [FDAMA] reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor
products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy.
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act.
Medical devices include thousands of products from thermometers
and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs,
microwave ovens, and video display terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure,
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Prescription Medical clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user device inspection certification Total
fees user fees fees fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003............................................... 1,373,131 222,900 25,125 16,112 6,378 1,643,646
Budget estimate, 2004.............................................. 1,394,617 249,825 29,190 16,576 6,649 1,696,857
Committee recommendation........................................... 1,384,213 249,825 29,190 16,576 6,649 1,686,453
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendations
For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,384,213,000. This amount is $11,082,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The Committee
also recommends $249,825,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act
user fee collections, $29,190,000 in Medical Device User Fee
and Modernization Act user fee collections, $16,576,000 in
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections, and
$6,649,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the
President's budget. These amounts are $26,925,000, $4,065,000,
$464,000, and $271,000 more than the 2003 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 following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2003 enacted 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods....................................................... 410,452 413,208 412,020
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN].... 148,069 144,351 144,382
Field activities........................................ 262,383 268,857 267,638
===============================================
Human drugs................................................. 276,120 303,802 293,595
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER].......... 176,669 206,979 197,536
Orphan product grants................................... 13,270 13,270 13,270
Field activities........................................ 86,181 83,553 82,789
===============================================
Biologics................................................... 145,820 124,494 123,539
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER]..... 117,584 97,854 97,084
Field activities........................................ 28,236 26,640 26,455
===============================================
Animal drugs................................................ 88,349 85,224 84,646
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM].................... 57,470 55,657 55,281
Field activities........................................ 30,879 29,567 29,365
===============================================
Medical and radiological devices............................ 193,359 184,543 191,878
-----------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH]....... 140,432 133,815 141,496
Field activities........................................ 52,927 50,728 50,382
===============================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........... 40,403 40,151 39,887
===============================================
Other activities................................................ 84,134 91,821 90,154
-----------------------------------------------
Office of the Commissioner.................................. 13,080 29,422 29,075
Office of Management and Systems............................ 40,655 42,505 41,323
Office of Senior Associate Commissioner..................... 8,200 .............. ..............
Office of External Relations................................ .............. 7,364 7,323
Office of International and Constituent Relations........... 7,362 .............. ..............
Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning................. 8,044 5,567 5,514
Central services............................................ 6,793 6,963 6,919
===============================================
Rent and related activities..................................... 36,261 42,498 40,261
===============================================
Rental payments to GSA.......................................... 98,233 108,876 108,233
===============================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority.... 1,373,131 1,394,617 1,384,213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the following increases in budget
authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $20,500,000
for counterterrorism activities related to food safety;
$2,400,000 for activities related to patient safety;
$10,000,000 for increased medical device review; $600,000 to
improve FDA's over-the-counter [OTC] drug program; $8,000,000
to reduce review times and increase the number of generic drugs
on the market; $3,000,000 for activities related to the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act; $4,000,000 to continue the
relocation of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; and
$1,374,000 to continue implementation of the Unified Financial
Management System. The Committee also recommends a decrease in
budget authority requested in the budget of $57,575,000
associated with management savings and information technology
consolidation efforts.
The Committee understands that FDA and the Department of
Health and Human Services [DHHS] are making progress in
migrating from FDA's legacy systems and preparing for the
implementation of the DHHS Unified Financial Management System.
The Committee expects the same funding ratios for the two
respective projects as was established in fiscal year 2003 to
continue progress.
Other Activities Reorganization.--The Committee has
provided funding consistent with the President's request for a
reorganization within the ``Other Activities'' line item.
Specifically, the Office of the Senior Associate Commissioner
has been streamlined and re-titled the Office of External
Relations [OER]. The OER will consist of the current Advisory
Committee Oversight and Management Staff as well as the Office
of Executive Secretariat, Office of Public Affairs, Office of
the Ombudsman, and Office of Special Health Issues. Further,
the funding and responsibilities of the Office of International
and Constituent Relations will be divided between the Office of
the Commissioner and the OER.
Rent Payments.--The Committee recommends $108,233,000 for
FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration
[GSA]. This is $10,000,000 more than the 2003 level. The
Committee has included $4,000,000 for relocation expenses
related to the move of the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research to the consolidated White Oak campus. It is expected
that the remaining $2,000,000 necessary for this phase of the
move will be provided from carryover funds available in the
Prescription Drug User Fee account.
Within the total funding available, at least $2,534,000 is
for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.
Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The
Committee provides $2,000,000, an increase of $250,000 over the
fiscal year 2003 level, for the FDA to continue its contract
with New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences Laboratory
to operate the Food Technology Evaluation Laboratory, which
conducts evaluation and development of rapid screening
methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and to
provide technology deployment modeling and data analysis for
food safety and product safety in order to facilitate FDA's
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium [WERC]
and its work in food safety technology verification and
education at no less than the fiscal year 2003 level.
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 sufficient funding for the National Center to continue
the important work done there.
In addition, the funding provided for food safety will
ensure the continuation of food contract inspections in the
State of Alaska. Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew
its contract with the State of Alaska for inspections of food
and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The current
contract became effective on June 12, 2003. It will fund at
least 292 inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP
inspections and 20 other food inspections, at a cost of
approximately $269,000. The establishments to be inspected will
be mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.
Seafood Safety.--General Accounting Office [GAO] reports on
the safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy of the FDA
efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, including
shellfish. GAO found FDA's seafood inspection system provides
consumers with inadequate protection for seafood-related
foodborne illness. The Committee urges FDA to promote the
development of new food safety technologies such as
irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or
others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of
pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe
temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.
The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the
FDA and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety
regulations through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
The Committee recommends no less than the fiscal year 2003
level be directed through the Office of Seafood Inspection to
continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be
directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for
the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective
action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption
of raw shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned
that Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission's [ISSC]
proposed steps to reduce the rates of death and illness due to
consumption of Vibrio vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may
not effectively address public health concerns.
The Committee also continues its concern with the agency's
failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with
HACCP. However, the Committee is aware that special or unique
circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors.
While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the
Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii's lengthy and
culturally important history of hook-and-line fisheries,
auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other
pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to
take into account both the history and the industry's practical
experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy
seafood products and national standards for seafood safety.
The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported
from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the
color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit
was recently filed against national grocery chains alleging
they do not adequately label the fish which are dyed. The
Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to continue
to monitor information concerning the safety of the use of such
additives and dyes in seafood and to more aggressively enforce
the clear and conspicuous disclosure of such additives and dyes
to consumers on consumer packaging.
Chloramphenicol.--The Committee is aware that FDA currently
rejects all shrimp imports that test positive for
chloramphenicol, an antibiotic used in aquaculture that may
cause severe effects in humans. However, FDA currently inspects
approximately 2 percent of all seafood imports. The Committee
believes that this number is too low, and encourages the FDA to
use any available funding to increase the frequency of
inspections for imported seafood.
Mercury.--New reports highlight the need to increase
Federal attention to mercury levels in seafood and improve
Federal advisories on potential mercury exposure through fish
consumption. The Committee strongly encourages FDA to restart
its fish monitoring program to track levels of mercury in
frequently consumed seafood or species with potentially high
mercury levels, as well as revise its mercury advisory to be
consistent with recommendations from the National Academy of
Sciences and the FDA Food Advisory Committee.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.--The
Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring Service [NARMS] and its collaborative
relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee
expects the coordination of activities among these three areas
of Government to result in the most unbiased presentation of
timely, accurate data in the best interest of public health.
Orphan Products Grants.--Included in the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research is $13,270,000 for the Orphan Products
Grants Program. This is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
Dietary Supplements.--The Committee believes that the
potential for dietary supplements to have positive health
benefits has been realized in many cases. However, it is
essential that FDA continue its efforts to ensure their safety,
and to fully enforce the prohibition of false, misleading or
unsubstantiated claims regarding dietary supplements
implemented in the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act
[DSHEA] of 1994. The budget request includes total funding of
approximately $4,700,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting
System [CAERS], of which approximately $1,500,000 is for
dietary supplements. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,000,000 for CAERS over the budget request, bringing total
funding to $5,700,000. These funds are to be used to ensure
prompt identification of and response to adverse health events
related to foods including dietary supplements. The Committee
notes that the budget request assumes additional reductions to
the fiscal year 2003 level of $6,600,000 resulting from
information technology consolidation savings. The Committee
believes that the CAERS program should be considered a high
priority and any savings from IT consolidation should not
result in any diminution of the program. Therefore, prior to
any modifications to this system, the Committee instructs FDA
to report on proposed consolidation efforts with detailed
information on the impact to the system.
FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze
specific components in ingredients, including botanical
ingredients, is an essential component of research and
regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee expects the
same level of review of botanicals in dietary supplements to
continue in fiscal year 2004. This work is being carried out by
FDA in collaboration with the National Center for Natural
Products Research, Oxford, MS.
Biotechnology.--The Committee understands that the FDA
frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA
regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on
the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing
information on the soundness of the U.S. regulatory process
will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology
to human health and the environment and improve the climate for
acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee
directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency
representatives may perform this service.
Blood Product Safety.--The Committee remains concerned FDA
has not moved forward in finalizing its proposed rule to
require manufacturer tracking of blood-derived products and
prompt patient notification of adverse events. The Committee
continues to urge FDA to complete implementation of this
important blood product safety mechanism and requests quarterly
reports on its progress.
Blood Safety.--The Committee is aware that multiple
standards currently exist regarding the collection of recovered
and source plasma from blood, and encourages FDA to work with
all stakeholders to ensure the equivalence of these standards
in safeguarding the Nation's blood supply.
Generic Drugs.--Prompt approval of generic drug
applications is imperative to making generic drugs available at
the earliest possible date to American consumers. Therefore,
the Committee is providing $52,845,000 for the generic drugs
program, an increase of $8,000,000. The Committee expects that
this increase will result in more than 85 percent of generic
drug applications being reviewed within 6 months of submission.
FDA Reclassification of Medical Gloves.--The Committee
remains concerned about the prevalence of natural rubber latex
allergy, particularly among heath care workers and patients,
even though a small percentage of the general population is
sensitive to latex protein. The Committee recognizes that
proper glove choices are important, as health care workers and
their patients will encounter risks of infection and/or disease
if barrier protection against viral transmission is inadequate.
The Committee understands that latex gloves are
acknowledged for their barrier effectiveness. The Committee is
also aware that as a result of technological advances in
manufacturing, the residual protein in some latex gloves has
been largely removed, reducing the potential for allergic
sensitisation.
Recognizing the need for the public, and particularly
health care workers, to be provided with the necessary
information on proper glove choices, the Committee directs that
the FDA finalize the 1999 proposed regulation that would
reclassify all surgeon's and patient examination gloves as
Class II Medical Devices. This would enable medical gloves that
provide effective barrier protection with low or zero allergen
risk to be better appreciated and identified.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. A General Accounting Office
investigation highlighted a dramatic increase in milk protein
concentrate imports. The Committee remains concerned with FDA's
current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as it
relates to the potential illegal use of milk protein
concentrate in standardized cheese.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
notes that in the budget request, the Office of Women's Health
at FDA is funded at not less than $3,075,000 for program
operation and oversight. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure
that the Office of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to
carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if
necessary.
Medical Device Application Review.--The Committee is aware
that for the last several years, premarket approval
applications for breakthrough medical technologies have taken
more than a year, despite the 180-day statutory maximum for
approval or denial of such applications. In fact, it is the
Committee's understanding that the average length of time for
medical device premarket reviews is still over 400 days.
In an effort to address this unacceptable level of service,
the medical device industry, the executive branch, and Congress
worked together to develop the Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act [MDUFMA] which was signed into law on October
26, 2002. Under the provisions of this Act, the medical device
industry would pay a fee upon application for approval of a
medical device, the FDA would meet certain statutory
performance goals for timely review of these applications, and
additional appropriations would be provided.
Although this Committee was not consulted during the
development of this Act, a partial installment of $4,000,000
was provided in fiscal year 2003 in order to begin
implementation of the law. It was the Committee's expectation
that the necessary subsequent funding would be included as part
of the fiscal year 2004 request. Unfortunately, the fiscal year
2004 budget request does not even come close to the second-year
amount necessary to meet the requirements of the law.
The Committee is extremely disappointed by this lack of
commitment to MDUFMA, and strongly encourages the FDA to
include the necessary appropriation in the fiscal year 2005
budget request. The Committee believes the intent of MDUFMA is
extremely worthy, and that lifesaving medical devices should be
approved as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Committee
has provided an increase of $10,000,000 for this program, and
hopes to see increased support for MDUFMA in the future in
order to prevent the termination of this worthwhile law.
Further, the Committee notes a requirement contained in the
Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 Congressional
Record on pages S356-S410, that the FDA provide a report within
90 days of the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Act on the obligation of the $4,000,000 provided
for MDUFMA in fiscal year 2003, to include the number of
employees to be hired, a description of their duties, and the
effect those funds will have on premarket review times for
medical devices. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2003
Appropriations Act was signed into law on February 20, 2003. To
date, this report has not yet been received. The Committee
expects agency compliance with congressional directives, and
urges in the strongest possible terms that this report be
received no later than 1 week following the filing of this
report.
Implanted Medical Devices.--The Committee acknowledges
current FDA requlations designed to improve post-market
surveillance for medical devices, and strongly encourages FDA
to devote the necessary resources to require registries and
monitor well-designed long-term safety studies for implanted
devices, including but not limited to jaw implants. As the
aging U.S. population becomes more dependent on implanted
devices, the Committee believes it is essential that the FDA
allocate adequate resources to patient safety activities
related to these devices, such as registries, post-market
surveillance, and long-term phase IV trials.
Tissue Safety.--Although FDA has placed proposed rules
regarding donor suitability and good manufacturing practices
related to tissue safety in the Unified Agenda as an ``other
significant'' priority, the Committee remains concerned that
these rules have not yet been finalized. In the fiscal year
2003 Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003
Congressional Record, pages S356-S410, FDA was directed to
finalize these rules ``within 9 months of the enactment of this
Act.'' The fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act was
signed into law on February 20, 2003. Therefore, the Committee
expects FDA to finalize these proposed rules by November 20,
2003.
Chlorofluorocarbon Propelled Medicines.--The Committee is
pleased that the FDA has published a rule articulating a
transition strategy for removing chlorofluorocarbon [CFC]
propelled medicines from the U.S. market. The Committee is
aware that several well recognized patient and physician
organizations which represent those who suffer from asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease submitted a Citizen
Petition to the FDA requesting that it take measures to remove
albuterol from the list of essential uses for CRCs. The
Committee encourages the FDA to respond to the petition request
in a timely manner and, if appropriate, expeditiously implement
a transition strategy as alternative non-CFC products enter the
U.S. market.
Prescription Drug Monograph System.--The Committee is aware
of interest in the establishment of a monograph system for
prescription drug products that have been marketed to a
material extent and for a material time without apparent safety
or efficacy problems and do not have premarket approval. FDA
currently regards these products as ``DESI'' (Drug Efficacy
Study Implementation) or ``DESI-II'' products for compliance
purposes. Such a monograph system would be modeled after the
Agency's system for over-the-counter pharmaceuticals that was
established 30 years ago for products that were similarly
generally recognized as safe and effective due to their long
history of safe and effective marketing. The Committee is
sympathetic to those who advocate such a monograph system, but
recognizes that review of a proposal to establish such a system
falls under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee. However, in an effort to start the
dialogue, the Committee directs FDA to prepare a report for the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding the feasibility and
cost of such a new monograph system for prescription drug
products as described above. In the meantime, the Committee
believes that enforcement resources regarding pharmaceutical
products should be dedicated to activities that are most likely
to improve the public health.
Color Certification Fees.--The Committee is aware that the
color certification function, performed by FDA and paid for by
user fees from the certified color industry, moved into new
temporary space in October 2002, and is planning on moving into
permanent space in the fall of 2004. Increased rent and
security costs for the temporary space, which is much larger
than necessary and significantly more expensive, are being paid
by the color certification user fees. The Committee is aware
that color certification user fee assessments have not
increased since 1993, and that the industry received a rebate
of $1,000,000 from FDA in fiscal year 2002. However, the
Committee is concerned that the industry must pay for space and
security costs above necessary levels. The Committee is also
concerned about the apparent lack of consultation with the
industry as this office move was contemplated. The Committee
directs FDA to provide a report on the steps that will be taken
to ensure that there will not be any future excessive
fluctuations in the cost of this program.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $7,948,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 11,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,948,000
In addition to Washington, DC, area laboratories which are
in six separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other
locations around the country, including regular field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements and construction 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 $7,948,000. This amount is
the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $85,426,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 88,435,000
Committee recommendation................................ 90,435,000
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 to better 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 $90,435,000. This amount is $5,009,000 more than the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2003........................................ $38,400,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \1\............................... 40,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,900,000
\1\ Includes an increase of $2,500,000 pursuant to the May 9, 2003,
budget amendment.
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 a limitation of $40,900,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. This amount is $2,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
limitation.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The majority of the general provisions are essentially the
same as those included in the fiscal year 2003 and previous
years' appropriations acts. In addition, the Committee
recommends the following provisions:
Section 744 to limit the use of funds under section 2301 of
Public Law 107-171.
Section 745 to limit use of funds under section 2502 of
Public Law 107-171.
Section 746 to limit the use of funds under section 2503 of
Public Law 107-171.
Section 747 to carry out section 6028 of Public Law 107-
171.
Section 748 to limit the use of funds under section 6029 of
Public Law 107-171.
Section 749 to limit the use of funds under section 6193 of
Public Law 107-171.
Section 750 to limit the use of funds under section 9006 of
Public Law 107-171.
Section 751 to authorize the payment of costs association
with the preparation of discrimination complaints.
Section 752 to set the maximum level for single family
housing assistance in high cost remote areas of Alaska.
Section 753 to rescind any unobligated balances in the
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Revolving Fund.
Section 754 to provide funds to the Denali Commission.
Section 755 to provide community eligibility for rural
housing programs.
Section 756 to provide community eligibility for the Rural
Community Advancement Program.
Section 757 regarding loan or grant programs.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2004, 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, 2004, 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 2004 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 2004 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 program
which currently lacks authorization for fiscal year 2004:
Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2003,
the Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1427, an original
bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; S. 1424, an original
bill making appropriations for Energy and Water Development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1426, an
original bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004; each subject to amendment and each
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
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.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
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 \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
Budget Resolution for 2004: Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Discretionary..................................... 17,005 17,005 17,891 \1\ 17,632
Mandatory......................................... 55,536 60,488 39,472 \1\ 39,142
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2004.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 48,164
2005.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 5,599
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 1,017
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 644
2008 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 645
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 22,381 NA 17,673
for 2004............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
-)
Item 2003 Budget House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation estimate deg. recommendation 2003 Budget House
appropriation estimate allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and
Marketing
Office of the Secretary....... 3,368 10,068 10,046 +6,678 -22
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist........... 8,510 12,264 8,707 +197 -3,557
National Appeals Division. 13,670 14,242 13,997 +327 -245
Office of Budget and 7,270 7,980 7,544 +274 -436
Program Analysis.........
Homeland Security staff... ................ 1,479 910 +910 -569
Office of the Chief 14,993 31,334 15,710 +717 -15,624
Information Officer......
Common computing 132,289 177,714 119,289 -13,000 -58,425
environment..........
Office of the Chief 5,496 7,902 5,496 ................ -2,406
Financial Officer........
Working capital fund...... 11,922 ................. ................ -11,922 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive 194,150 252,915 171,653 -22,497 -81,262
Operations.............
Office of the Assistant 397 808 794 +397 -14
Secretary for Civil Rights...
Office of Civil Rights........ ................ ................. 15,445 +15,445 +15,445
Office of the Assistant 656 793 673 +17 -120
Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture buildings and (186,878) (199,332) (188,022) (+1,144) (-11,310)
facilities and rental
payments.....................
Payments to GSA........... 120,795 123,910 123,910 +3,115 ................
Building operations and 32,327 41,445 32,559 +232 -8,886
maintenance..............
Repairs, renovations, and 33,756 33,977 31,553 -2,203 -2,424
construction.............
Hazardous materials management 15,583 15,713 15,611 +28 -102
Departmental administration... 37,628 45,128 23,031 -14,597 -22,097
Office of the Assistant 3,781 4,186 3,825 +44 -361
Secretary for Congressional
Relations....................
Office of Communications...... 9,031 10,084 9,228 +197 -856
Office of the Inspector 73,416 81,895 75,781 +2,365 -6,114
General......................
Office of the General Counsel. 34,700 37,328 35,343 +643 -1,985
Office of the Under Secretary 580 792 596 +16 -196
for Research, Education and
Economics....................
Economic Research Service..... 68,674 76,657 69,902 +1,228 -6,755
National Agricultural 138,448 136,182 128,922 -9,526 -7,260
Statistics Service...........
Census of Agriculture..... (41,274) (25,279) (25,279) (-15,995) ................
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses..... 1,036,779 987,303 1,045,533 +8,754 +58,230
Buildings and facilities.. 118,703 24,000 46,000 -72,703 +22,000
Supplemental 110,000 ................. ................ -110,000 ................
appropriations
(Public Law 108-11)..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 1,265,482 1,011,303 1,091,533 -173,949 +80,230
Research Service...
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension
Service:
Research and education 616,792 514,228 617,575 +783 +103,347
activities...............
Native American (7,054) (9,000) (9,000) (+1,946) ................
Institutions Endowment
Fund.....................
Extension activities...... 450,520 422,268 450,084 -436 +27,816
Integrated activities..... 46,439 62,865 46,711 +272 -16,154
Outreach for socially 3,470 4,003 3,470 ................ -533
disadvantaged farmers....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State 1,117,221 1,003,364 1,117,840 +619 +114,476
Research, Education,
and Extension Service..
Office of the Under Secretary 721 791 736 +15 -55
for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.....................
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses..... 682,758 694,897 705,552 +22,794 +10,655
Buildings and facilities.. 9,924 4,996 4,996 -4,928 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant 692,682 699,893 710,548 +17,866 +10,655
Health Inspection
Service................
Agricultural Marketing
Service:
Marketing Services........ 75,210 75,071 75,263 +53 +192
Standardization user (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
fees.................
(Limitation on (61,619) (62,577) (62,577) (+958) ................
administrative expenses,
from fees collected).....
Funds for strengthening 14,910 15,392 15,392 +482 ................
markets, income, and
supply (transfer from
section 32)..............
Payments to states and 1,338 1,347 3,338 +2,000 +1,991
possessions..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 91,458 91,810 93,993 +2,535 +2,183
Marketing Service......
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses..... 39,690 41,688 35,638 -4,052 -6,050
Limitation on inspection (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................
and weighing services....
Office of the Under Secretary 595 792 611 +16 -181
for Food Safety..............
Food Safety and Inspection 754,821 797,149 783,761 +28,940 -13,388
Service......................
Lab accreditation fees \1\ (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, 4,729,960 4,518,671 4,583,532 -146,428 +64,861
Processing, and
Marketing..............
=========================================================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary 614 916 635 +21 -281
for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services........
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses..... 970,389 1,016,836 988,768 +18,379 -28,068
(Transfer from export (829) (985) (846) (+17) (-139)
loans)...................
(Transfer from Public Law (1,019) (2,975) (1,075) (+56) (-1,900)
480).....................
(Transfer from ACIF)...... (277,361) (290,136) (283,020) (+5,659) (-7,116)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from (279,209) (294,096) (284,941) (+5,732) (-9,155)
program accounts.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (1,249,598) (1,310,932) (1,273,709) (+24,111) (-37,223)
expenses...............
State mediation grants.... 3,974 4,000 3,974 ................ -26
Dairy indemnity program... 100 100 100 ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service 974,463 1,020,936 992,842 +18,379 -28,094
Agency.................
Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership
loans:
Direct........ (129,155) (140,149) (129,158) (+3) (-10,991)
Guaranteed.... (993,500) (1,000,000) (950,000) (-43,500) (-50,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... (1,122,655) (1,140,149) (1,079,158) (-43,497) (-60,991)
Farm operating
loans:
Direct........ (601,068) (650,000) (601,068) ................ (-48,932)
Unsubsidized (1,688,950) (1,400,000) (1,200,000) (-488,950) (-200,000)
guaranteed...
Subsidized (397,400) (266,249) (266,249) (-131,151) ................
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... (2,687,418) (2,316,249) (2,067,317) (-620,101) (-248,932)
Indian tribe land (1,987) (2,000) (2,000) (+13) ................
acquisition loans
Boll weevil (100,000) (60,000) (100,000) ................ (+40,000)
eradication loans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (3,912,060) (3,518,398) (3,248,475) (-663,585) (-269,923)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership
loans:
Direct........ 14,995 30,945 28,518 +13,523 -2,427
Guaranteed.... 7,451 5,400 5,130 -2,321 -270
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... 22,446 36,345 33,648 +11,202 -2,697
Farm operating
loans:
Direct........ 103,744 93,730 86,674 -17,070 -7,056
Unsubsidized 53,540 46,620 39,960 -13,580 -6,660
guaranteed...
Subsidized 46,893 34,000 34,000 -12,893 ................
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.... 204,177 174,350 160,634 -43,543 -13,716
Indian tribe land 178 ................. ................ -178 ................
acquisition......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 226,801 210,695 194,282 -32,519 -16,413
subsidies......
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and 277,361 290,136 283,020 +5,659 -7,116
expense (transfer
to FSA)..........
Administrative 7,948 8,000 7,948 ................ -52
expenses.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF 285,309 298,136 290,968 +5,659 -7,168
expenses.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, 512,110 508,831 485,250 -26,860 -23,581
Agricultural
Credit
Insurance Fund.
(Loan (3,912,060) (3,518,398) (3,248,475) (-663,585) (-269,923)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Farm 1,486,573 1,529,767 1,478,092 -8,481 -51,675
Service Agency.
=========================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency........ 70,248 78,488 71,422 +1,174 -7,066
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance 1,557,435 1,609,171 1,550,149 -7,286 -59,022
Programs...............
=========================================================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance 2,886,000 3,368,000 3,368,000 +482,000 ................
Corporation: Federal crop
insurance corporation fund...
Commodity Credit Corporation
Fund:
Reimbursement for net 16,285,000 17,275,000 17,275,000 +990,000 ................
realized losses..........
Hazardous waste management (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
(limitation on
administrative expenses).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations..... 19,171,000 20,643,000 20,643,000 +1,472,000 ................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title I, 25,458,395 26,770,842 26,776,681 +1,318,286 +5,839
Agricultural Programs..
(By transfer)....... (279,209) (294,096) (284,941) (+5,732) (-9,155)
(Loan authorization) (3,912,060) (3,518,398) (3,248,475) (-663,585) (-269,923)
(Limitation on (109,082) (110,040) (110,040) (+958) ................
administrative
expenses)..........
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 740 918 761 +21 -157
for Natural Resources and
Environment..................
Natural Resources Conservation
Service:
Conservation operations... 819,641 703,605 826,635 +6,994 +123,030
Watershed surveys and 11,124 5,000 10,000 -1,124 +5,000
planning.................
Watershed and flood 109,285 40,000 55,000 -54,285 +15,000
prevention operations....
Watershed rehabilitation 29,805 10,000 29,805 ................ +19,805
program..................
Resource conservation and 50,668 49,943 51,000 +332 +1,057
development..............
Farm bill technical ................ 432,160 ................ ................ -432,160
assistance...............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources 1,020,523 1,240,708 972,440 -48,083 -268,268
Conservation Service...
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title II, 1,021,263 1,241,626 973,201 -48,062 -268,425
Conservation Programs..
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 632 913 651 +19 -262
for Rural Development........
Rural Development:
Rural community 901,837 477,864 769,479 -132,358 +291,615
advancement program......
Tree assistance (sec. ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
747).................
(Transfer out)........ (-29,805) ................. (-30,000) (-195) (-30,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 901,837 477,864 769,479 -132,358 +291,615
community
advancement program
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses. 144,789 147,520 140,922 -3,867 -6,598
(Transfer from RHIF).. (429,564) (482,787) (439,453) (+9,889) (-43,334)
(Transfer from RDLFP). (4,163) (4,850) (4,283) (+120) (-567)
(Transfer from RETLP). (37,587) (41,562) (37,920) (+333) (-3,642)
(Transfer from RTB)... (3,062) (3,462) (3,182) (+120) (-280)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers (474,376) (532,661) (484,838) (+10,462) (-47,823)
from program
accounts...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses.. (619,165) (680,181) (625,760) (+6,595) (-54,421)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 1,046,626 625,384 910,401 -136,225 +285,017
Development........
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance
Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family (1,037,866) (1,366,462) (1,359,417) (+321,551) (-7,045)
(sec. 502).......
Unsubsidized (2,845,318) (2,725,172) (2,725,172) (-120,146) ................
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (3,883,184) (4,091,634) (4,084,589) (+201,405) (-7,045)
Single
family.....
Housing repair (34,772) (35,003) (35,004) (+232) (+1)
(sec. 504).......
Rental housing (115,053) (70,830) (115,052) (-1) (+44,222)
(sec. 515).......
Site loans (sec. (5,013) (5,046) (5,045) (+32) (-1)
524).............
Multi-family (99,350) (100,000) (100,000) (+650) ................
housing
guarantees (sec.
538).............
Multi-family (1,988) (1,500) (1,500) (-488) ................
housing credit
sales............
Single family (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
housing credit
sales............
Self-help housing (4,979) (5,000) (1,623) (-3,356) (-3,377)
land develop.
(sec. 523).......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (4,154,339) (4,319,013) (4,352,813) (+198,474) (+33,800)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Single family 201,035 126,018 126,018 -75,017 ................
(sec. 502).......
Unsubsidized 32,388 39,903 39,903 +7,515 ................
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 233,423 165,921 165,921 -67,502 ................
Single
family.....
Housing repair 10,786 9,612 9,612 -1,174 ................
(sec. 504).......
Rental housing 53,649 30,464 49,484 -4,165 +19,020
(sec. 515).......
Site loans (sec. 55 ................. ................ -55 ................
524).............
Multi-family 4,471 5,950 5,950 +1,479 ................
housing
guarantees (sec.
538).............
Multi-family 928 663 663 -265 ................
housing credit
sales............
Single family ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
housing credit
sales............
Self-help housing 220 154 50 -170 -104
land develop.
(sec. 523).......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 303,532 212,764 231,680 -71,852 +18,916
subsidies......
RHIF administrative 429,564 482,787 439,453 +9,889 -43,334
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
Rental assistance
program:
(Sec. 521)........ 715,419 734,100 715,381 -38 -18,719
(Sec. 5,862 5,900 5,900 +38 ................
502(c)(5)(D))....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental 721,281 740,000 721,281 ................ -18,719
assistance
program........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 1,454,377 1,435,551 1,392,414 -61,963 -43,137
Housing
Insurance Fund.
(Loan (4,154,339) (4,319,013) (4,352,813) (+198,474) (+33,800)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Mutual and self-help 34,772 34,000 34,000 -772 ................
housing grants...........
Rural housing assistance 42,222 41,500 46,222 +4,000 +4,722
grants...................
Farm labor program account 36,071 35,018 33,015 -3,056 -2,003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants and 113,065 110,518 113,237 +172 +2,719
payments...............
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing 1,567,442 1,546,069 1,505,651 -61,791 -40,418
Service................
(Loan authorization) (4,154,339) (4,319,013) (4,352,813) (+198,474) (+33,800)
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service:
Rural Development Loan
Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (39,740) (40,000) (40,000) (+260) ................
Loan subsidy.......... 19,179 17,308 17,308 -1,871 ................
Administrative 4,163 4,850 4,283 +120 -567
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 23,342 22,158 21,591 -1,751 -567
Development Loan
Fund...............
Rural Economic Development
Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (14,870) (15,002) (15,002) (+132) ................
Direct subsidy........ 3,176 2,792 2,792 -384 ................
Rural cooperative 8,941 11,000 8,967 +26 -2,033
development grants.......
Rural empowerment zones 14,870 ................. 14,370 -500 +14,370
and enterprise
communities grants.......
Renewable energy program.. ................ 3,000 23,000 +23,000 +20,000
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural Business- 50,329 38,950 70,720 +20,391 +31,770
Cooperative Service....
(Loan authorization) (54,610) (55,002) (55,002) (+392) ................
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans
Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 (120,316) (240,000) (240,000) (+119,684) ................
percent......
Direct, (99,350) (100,000) (1,000,000) (+900,650) (+900,000)
Municipal
rate.........
Direct, FFB... (2,599,350) (1,500,000) (2,000,000) (-599,350) (+500,000)
Direct, (1,150,000) (700,000) (750,000) (-400,000) (+50,000)
Treasury rate
Guaranteed (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................ ................
electric.....
Guaranteed (1,000,000) ................. (1,000,000) ................ (+1,000,000)
underwriting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (5,069,016) (2,640,000) (5,090,000) (+20,984) (+2,450,000)
Electric...
Telecommunications
:
Direct, 5 (74,542) (145,042) (145,000) (+70,458) (-42)
percent......
Direct, (298,050) (250,000) (250,000) (-48,050) ................
Treasury rate
Direct, FFB... (120,000) (100,000) (120,000) ................ (+20,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (492,592) (495,042) (515,000) (+22,408) (+19,958)
Telecommuni
cations....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (5,561,608) (3,135,042) (5,605,000) (+43,392) (+2,469,958)
authorizati
ons........
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 6,870 ................. ................ -6,870 ................
percent......
Direct, 4,004 ................. ................ -4,004 ................
Municipal
rate.........
Guaranteed 79 60 60 -19 ................
electric.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 10,953 60 60 -10,893 ................
Electric...
Telecommunications
:
Direct, 5 1,275 ................. ................ -1,275 ................
percent......
Direct, 149 125 125 -24 ................
Treasury rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 1,424 125 125 -1,299 ................
Telecommuni
cations....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 12,377 185 185 -12,192 ................
subsidies..
RETLP 37,587 41,562 37,920 +333 -3,642
administrative
expenses
(transfer to RD).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 49,964 41,747 38,105 -11,859 -3,642
Electrification
and
Telecommunicati
ons Loans
Program Account
(Loan (5,561,608) (3,135,042) (5,605,000) (+43,392) (+2,469,958)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Telephone Bank
Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (173,503) ................. (173,503) ................ (+173,503)
Direct loan subsidy... 2,394 ................. ................ -2,394 ................
RTB administrative 3,062 3,462 3,182 +120 -280
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 5,456 3,462 3,182 -2,274 -280
Telephone Bank
Program Account....
High energy costs grants (29,805) ................. (30,000) (+195) (+30,000)
(by transfer)............
Distance learning,
telemedicine and
broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Distance learning (300,000) (50,000) (300,000) ................ (+250,000)
and telemedicine.
Broadband ................ (335,963) (335,963) (+335,963) ................
telecommunication
s................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (300,000) (385,963) (635,963) (+335,963) (+250,000)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Distance learning 46,636 25,000 40,000 -6,636 +15,000
and telemedicine:
Grants...........
Broadband
telecommunication
s:
Direct........ ................ 9,116 9,116 +9,116 ................
Grants........ 9,935 2,000 10,000 +65 +8,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 56,571 36,116 59,116 +2,545 +23,000
subsidies
and grants.
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural 111,991 81,325 100,403 -11,588 +19,078
Utilities
Service....
(Loan (6,035,111) (3,521,005) (6,414,466) (+379,355) (+2,893,461)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title 2,777,020 2,292,641 2,587,826 -189,194 +295,185
III, Rural
Economic
and
Community
Development
Programs...
(By (504,181) (532,661) (514,838) (+10,657) (-17,823)
transfer)..
(Loan (10,244,060) (7,895,020) (10,822,281) (+578,221) (+2,927,261)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 595 786 611 +16 -175
for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services............
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs.. 5,830,506 6,718,780 6,718,780 +888,274 ................
Transfer from section 4,745,663 4,699,661 4,699,661 -46,002 ................
32...................
Discretionary spending 3,974 ................. ................ -3,974 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child 10,580,143 11,418,441 11,418,441 +838,298 ................
nutrition programs.
Special supplemental 4,696,000 4,769,232 4,639,232 -56,768 -130,000
nutrition program for
women, infants, and
children (WIC)...........
Contingency fund...... (125,000) (25,000) ................ (-125,000) (-25,000)
Food stamp program:
Expenses.............. 22,772,692 24,203,176 24,203,176 +1,430,484 ................
Reserve............... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 ................ ................
Nutrition assistance 1,401,000 1,402,805 1,402,805 +1,805 ................
for Puerto Rico and
Samoa................
The emergency food 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................
assistance program...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp 26,313,692 27,745,981 27,745,981 +1,432,289 ................
program............
Commodity assistance 163,431 166,072 145,740 -17,691 -20,332
program..................
Food donations programs: 1,074 ................. ................ -1,074 ................
Needy family program.....
Nutrition programs 135,672 144,849 138,304 +2,632 -6,545
administration...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and 41,890,012 44,244,575 44,087,698 +2,197,686 -156,877
Nutrition Service......
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 41,890,607 44,245,361 44,088,309 +2,197,702 -157,052
Domestic Food Programs.
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Salaries and expenses, 129,103 140,798 131,648 +2,545 -9,150
direct appropriation.....
(Transfer from export (3,203) (3,327) (3,306) (+103) (-21)
loans)...................
(Transfer from Public Law (1,026) (1,066) (1,059) (+33) (-7)
480).....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (133,332) (145,191) (136,013) (+2,681) (-9,178)
expenses program level.
=========================================================================================================================
Public Law 480 Program and
Grant Accounts:
Program account:
Loan authorization, (153,662) (131,676) (131,670) (-21,992) (-6)
direct...............
Loan subsidies........ 115,416 103,887 103,887 -11,529 ................
Ocean freight 24,995 28,000 28,000 +3,005 ................
differential grants..
Title II--Commodities for
disposition abroad:
Program level......... (1,192,200) (1,185,000) (1,192,000) (-200) (+7,000)
Appropriation......... 1,192,200 1,185,000 1,192,000 -200 +7,000
Supplemental 369,000 ................. ................ -369,000 ................
appropriations
(Public Law 108-11)..
Salaries and expenses:
Foreign Agricultural 1,026 1,066 1,059 +33 -7
Service (transfer to
FAS).................
Farm Service Agency 1,019 2,975 1,075 +56 -1,900
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............ 2,045 4,041 2,134 +89 -1,907
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Public Law
480:
Program level... (1,192,200) (1,185,000) (1,192,000) (-200) (+7,000)
Appropriation... 1,703,656 1,320,928 1,326,021 -377,635 +5,093
=========================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program
Account (administrative
expenses):
Salaries and expenses
(Export Loans):
General Sales Manager 3,203 3,327 3,306 +103 -21
(transfer to FAS)....
Farm Service Agency 829 985 846 +17 -139
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export 4,032 4,312 4,152 +120 -160
Loans Program
Account............
=========================================================================================================================
McGovern-Dole international ................ 50,000 25,000 +25,000 -25,000
food for education and child
nutrition program grants.....
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign 1,836,791 1,516,038 1,486,821 -349,970 -29,217
Assistance and Related
Programs...............
(By transfer)....... (4,229) (4,393) (4,365) (+136) (-28)
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct 1,373,131 1,394,617 1,384,213 +11,082 -10,404
appropriation................
Prescription Drug User Fee (222,900) (249,825) (249,825) (+26,925) ................
Act......................
Medical Device User Fee (25,125) (29,190) (29,190) (+4,065) ................
Act......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ (1,621,156) (1,673,632) (1,663,228) (+42,072) (-10,404)
Mammography clinics user (16,112) (16,576) (16,576) (+464) ................
fee (outlay savings).....
Export and color (6,378) (6,649) (6,649) (+271) ................
certification............
Payments to GSA........... (108,269) (120,045) (119,152) (+10,883) (-893)
Buildings and facilities...... 7,948 11,500 7,948 ................ -3,552
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug 1,381,079 1,406,117 1,392,161 +11,082 -13,956
Administration.........
=========================================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading 85,426 88,435 90,435 +5,009 +2,000
Commission...................
Farm Credit Administration (38,400) (40,900) (40,900) (+2,500) ................
(limitation on administrative
expenses)....................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related 1,466,505 1,494,552 1,482,596 +16,091 -11,956
Agencies and Food and
Drug Administration....
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Hunger fellowships............ 2,981 ................. 2,981 ................ +2,981
National Sheep Industry 496 ................. 499 +3 +499
Improvement Center revolving
fund.........................
Child and adult care feeding 21,857 ................. ................ -21,857 ................
program......................
Public Law 480 Title II....... 248,375 ................. ................ -248,375 ................
Tree assistance (sec. 747).... ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
Northern Great Plains Regional ................ ................. 3,000 +3,000 +3,000
Authority....................
Denali Commission............. ................ ................. 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title VII, 273,709 ................. 8,480 -265,229 +8,480
General provisions.....
=========================================================================================================================
Grand total:
New budget 74,724,290 77,561,060 77,403,914 +2,679,624 -157,146
(obligational)
authority..........
Appropriations.. (74,724,290) (77,561,060) (77,403,914) (+2,679,624) (-157,146)
(By transfer)....... (787,619) (831,150) (804,144) (+16,525) (-27,006)
(Loan authorization) (14,309,782) (11,545,094) (14,202,426) (-107,356) (+2,657,332)
(Limitation on (147,482) (150,940) (150,940) (+3,458) ................
administrative
expenses)..........
=========================================================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs 25,458,395 26,770,842 26,776,681 +1,318,286 +5,839
Mandatory................. (19,186,010) (20,658,492) (20,658,492) (+1,472,482) ................
Discretionary............. (6,272,385) (6,112,350) (6,118,189) (-154,196) (+5,839)
Title II--Conservation 1,021,263 1,241,626 973,201 -48,062 -268,425
programs (discretionary).....
Title III--Rural economic and 2,777,020 2,292,641 2,587,826 -189,194 +295,185
community development
programs (discretionary).....
Title IV--Domestic food 41,890,607 44,245,361 44,088,309 +2,197,702 -157,052
programs (discretionary).....
Mandatory................. (36,889,861) (39,164,422) (39,164,422) (+2,274,561) ................
Discretionary............. (5,000,746) (5,080,939) (4,923,887) (-76,859) (-157,052)
Title V--Foreign assistance 1,836,791 1,516,038 1,486,821 -349,970 -29,217
and related programs
(discretionary)..............
Title VI--Related agencies and 1,466,505 1,494,552 1,482,596 +16,091 -11,956
Food and Drug Administration
(discretionary)..............
Title VII--General provisions 273,709 ................. 8,480 -265,229 +8,480
(discretionary)..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, new budget 74,724,290 77,561,060 77,403,914 +2,679,624 -157,146
(obligational)
authority..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to appropriation.
