- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 282
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-134
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008
_______
July 24, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kohl, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1859]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 0000) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for
other purposes, reports the same with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1859)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2008
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $90,605,092,000
Amount of 2007 appropriations........................... 97,425,472,000
Amount of 2008 budget estimate.......................... 89,736,689,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2007 appropriations................................. -6,820,380,000
2008 budget estimate................................ +868,403,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Reports to Congress.......................................... 5
Transparency in Congressional Directives..................... 5
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.............................. 7
Executive Operations................................. 8
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 10
Common Computing Environment......................... 11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights... 12
Office of Civil Rights............................... 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 12
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments........................................... 13
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 13
Departmental Administration.......................... 14
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.......................................... 14
Office of Communications............................. 15
Office of Inspector General.......................... 15
Office of the General Counsel........................ 16
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics........................... 16
Economic Research Service............................ 16
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. 17
Agricultural Research Service........................ 17
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service............................................ 22
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs................................ 49
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 50
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 63
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration..................................... 67
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........ 68
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 68
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.............................. 71
Farm Service Agency.................................. 72
Risk Management Agency............................... 75
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.............. 76
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.................... 77
Title II:
Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment............................................ 80
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 80
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 92
Rural Community Advancement Program...................... 93
Rural Housing Service.................................... 94
Rural Business--Cooperative Service...................... 102
Rural Utilities Service.................................. 107
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services...................................... 114
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 114
Title V:
Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural
Service.................................................... 125
Title VI:
Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 130
Independent Agencies:
Farm Credit Administration........................... 142
Title VII: General Provisions.................................... 143
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 146
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 146
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 147
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 147
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 151
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven
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.
[In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 Committee
2007 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... 34,030,339 24,590,017
Title II: Conservation programs... 852,555 972,853
Title III: Rural economic and 2,499,975 2,358,007
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 57,029,981 59,743,619
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,477,080 1,494,874
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies........ 1,574,194 1,760,085
Title VII: General provisions..... -38,652 -314,363
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 97,425,472 90,605,092
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 housing,
economic and community development, and telecommunication 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 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 2008.
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, and FCA. Details on each
of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for 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.
Reports to Congress
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report
request.
Transparency in Congressional Directives
On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a
vote of 96-2. While the Committee awaits final action on this
legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee
issued interim requirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1
are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008.
The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money. In
order to improve transparency and accountability in the process
of approving earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations
measures, each Committee report includes, for each earmark:
--(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where
appropriate, the President;
--(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if
there is no specifically intended recipient, the
intended location of the activity; and
--(3) the purpose of such earmark.
The term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision or
report language included primarily at the request of a Senator,
providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant,
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or
targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional
district, other than through a statutory or administrative,
formula-driven, or competitive award process.
For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a
certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse)
has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with
Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the
public at http://appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go
to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ``Members''.
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,097,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 18,355,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,309,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,309,000 for
the Office of the Secretary.
Animal Fighting.--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.
Budget Execution Report.--The Committee directs the
Department to submit quarterly budget execution reports showing
the status of obligations for all components of the Department.
The report should include the total obligational authority
appropriated (new budget authority plus unobligated carryover),
amount allotted to date, current year obligations, unobligated
authority (the difference between total obligational authority
and current year obligations), expenditures to date, and
unexpended obligations. This budget execution information is to
be provided at the account level of detail. The report shall be
submitted no later than 30 days after the close of each
quarter.
Greenbook Charges.--The Committee is concerned that charges
assessed to agencies by the USDA, known as greenbook charges,
have grown excessively over the last few years. The disclosure
of these charges to Congress is limited and may impact program
delivery. The Committee directs the Government Accountability
Office to review greenbook charges at USDA for all agencies
funded through the act accompanying this report. Additionally,
the Committee directs the USDA to explicitly present greenbook
charge information in future budget justifications, including
previous and current fiscal year charges and a description of
how the charges are assessed.
International Humanitarian Food Assistance.--The Committee
strongly supports programs that provide emergency food
assistance throughout the world and that also work to achieve
sustainable food security. Because of the differing nutritional
needs of populations, especially in areas with high incidents
of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, the composition and quality of
foods available through programs such as Public Law 480 and the
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program have become
increasingly important. The Secretary is directed to consult
with the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development and to provide a report to the Committee by March
1, 2008, on steps taken and plans formulated to improve the
quality of items provided through USDA food assistance
programs. In addition, the Secretary is encouraged to work
cooperatively with organizations that recognize leadership and
promote international anti-hunger education and related
efforts.
Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Businesses.--The
Committee strongly supports the Secretary's service-disabled
veteran-owned small business strategic initiative that supports
Executive Order 13360, signed by the President on October 21,
2004. The Committee directs the Secretary to work toward
attaining or exceeding the mandated 3 percent goal for
contracts awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses. The Committee encourages the Secretary to take
appropriate steps necessary to increase the participation of
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in all USDA
contracting efforts, including Natural Resources Conservation
Service and Farm Service Agency contracting for environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements, preparation of
reviews for Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs, on-going
National Environmental Policy Act training, and other
environmental programs. Additionally, the Committee encourages
the Secretary to review all applicable Information Technology
planned contract requirements to establish a goal of an
aggregate of 5 percent of the dollar value of these contracts
toward the participation of service-disabled veteran-owned
small businesses. The Secretary is to report to the Committee
no later than 120 days after the enactment of this act on the
steps taken to increase participation of service-disabled
veteran-owned small businesses in contracts at USDA.
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, 2007.................................... $10,487,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 11,347,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,847,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,847,000
for the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for preferred procurement
and labeling for biobased products.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $14,466,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 15,056,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,056,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,056,000
for the National Appeals Division.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $8,270,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 9,035,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,035,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,035,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $931,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 2,412,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,252,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,252,000 for
the Homeland Security Staff.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $16,361,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 17,024,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,723,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), 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,
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. 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.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,723,000
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Common Computing Environment
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $107,971,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) 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 does not recommend an appropriation for the
Common Computing Environment. The Committee recommendation
includes funding for Common Computing Environment activities in
the appropriate agency accounts.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,850,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 30,863,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,076,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,076,000 for
the Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $818,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 897,000
Committee recommendation................................ 861,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
established by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171), 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $861,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $20,020,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 23,147,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,706,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all departmentwide 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,706,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $673,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 739,000
Committee recommendation................................ 709,000
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, 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $709,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $185,919,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 216,837,000
Committee recommendation................................ 199,016,000
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.--
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building
Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in
leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area.
Annual appropriations finance payments to the General Services
Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services.
Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs
D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major
nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates
pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to
appeal. For the last several years the Department has
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $199,016,000
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2007 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 budget Committee
2007 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 146,257 156,590 156,590
Building Operations............................................. 39,662 60,247 42,426
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 185,919 216,837 199,016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $11,887,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 12,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,200,000
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 an appropriation of $5,200,000 for
Hazardous Materials Management.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $23,008,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 24,608,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,913,000
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, 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 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,913,000
for Departmental Administration.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $3,795,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 4,099,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,936,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,936,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
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, 2007.................................... $9,474,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 9,720,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,720,000
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 with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,720,000 for
the Office of Communications.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $80,052,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 83,998,000
Committee recommendation................................ 81,627,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978 (Public Law 95-452), 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,627,000
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee
recommendation includes the fiscal year 2007 level for OIG to
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $39,227,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 41,721,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,764,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,764,000
for the Office of the General Counsel.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $596,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 626,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $626,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $75,193,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 82,544,000
Committee recommendation................................ 76,532,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,532,000
for the Economic Research Service. The Committee directs that
no less than the fiscal year 2007 level be used to implement
the ``Organic Production and Market Data Initiative'' included
in section 7407 of Public Law 107-171.
Canned Fruits and Vegetables.--The Committee requests the
Economic Research Service to prepare and publish a report
regarding consumer perceptions and consumption of canned fruits
and vegetables.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $147,253,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 167,699,000
Committee recommendation................................ 167,699,000
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 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $167,699,000
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Included in
this amount is $54,325,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
Organic Data Collection.--The Committee is pleased that
NASS is working to expand the quantity of organic questions
included in the Census of Agriculture, and is aware that there
has been interest expressed in the need for a follow-up survey.
Therefore, the Committee encourages NASS to take all necessary
steps, including a follow-up survey, to collect in-depth
coverage on acreage, yield, production, inventory, production
practices, sales and expenses, marketing channels, and
demographics of the organics industry.
Potato Objective Yield Survey.--The Committee expects NASS
to continue the potato objective yield survey.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,128,943,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,021,517,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,154,174,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,154,174,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
The Committee recognizes the successful history of ARS, the
premier in-house USDA research agency, and strongly supports
ongoing research activities vital to protecting this Nation's
food supply, environment, rural communities, and to work toward
energy independence. The Committee is aware of the redirection
and modification of program resources implemented by the agency
during fiscal year 2007 and has no objection to such action
with the following exceptions.
The Committee does not agree with proposed redirection of
the following research activities and instead recommends
funding for specific items as described below:
Agricultural Law.--The laws and regulations impacting
agriculture are changing rapidly and farmers need access to
thoughtful analysis of the changing legal requirements they
face. The Committee recommendation includes $701,034 for
agricultural law (Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor/Iowa, Arkansas);
Agroforestry.--The goals of the Center for Agroforestry are
to create new income opportunities and markets for farm and
forest landowners; to protect the environment by reducing non-
point source pollution; to create and improve natural habitats
for wildlife; and to mitigate the impacts of periodic flooding
in rural and urban areas. The Committee recommendation includes
$707,706 for agroforestry (Bond/Arkansas);
Animal Health.--The Animal Health Consortium uses
stakeholder input to administer and fund investigations of a
wide range of livestock diseases important to the livestock
industry and homeland security. The Committee recommendation
includes $879,430 for animal health (Durbin/Illinois);
Aquaculture Research.--The mission of the Aquaculture
Systems Research Unit is to evaluate and develop new components
of aquaculture production systems to improve the efficiency of
freshwater fish farming including cultural and processing
methods to enhance and sustain product quality. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,048,000 for aquaculture research
(Lincoln, Pryor/Arkansas);
Biotechnology Research and Development Center.--There is a
need to facilitate the transfer and development of technologies
to the private sector that have been generated with public
funds. The Committee recommendation includes $2,684,737 for the
Biotechnology Research and Development Center (Durbin/
Illinois);
Delta Nutrition.--Further research is needed to understand
the linkage between food security, environmental factors, and
overall nutritional health. Continued research and intervention
mechanisms are especially critical to the Delta Region of the
Mid-South. The Committee recommendation includes $4,222,502 for
delta nutrition (Cochran, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor/Mississippi,
Louisiana, Arkansas);
National Corn to Ethanol.--A state-of-the-art pilot ethanol
plant is necessary to provide researchers the ability to
develop more efficient production of ethanol and to decrease
the cost of feedstock conversion. The Committee recommendation
includes $385,522 for national corn to ethanol (Durbin, Obama/
Illinois);
Tropical Aquaculture.--Research is needed to define
nutritional requirements and optimal feed management,
ingredients, and processing methods for cost-effective,
sustainable, and environmentally sound tropical aquaculture.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,541,561 for tropical
aquaculture (Inouye, Akaka/Hawaii).
In addition, the Committee does not agree with proposed
redirection of the following research activities and instead
does not recommend funding for specific items as described
below:
The Committee does not agree with funding for Chloroplast
Genetic Engineering Research; Medicinal and Bioactive Crops;
Lyme Disease 4 Poster Project; or Salmonella, Listeria, E coli
and other Food Pathogens.
The Committee also recommends the following amounts,
consistent with the President's budget, for increased funding
in fiscal year 2008:
Crop Protection.--U.S. agriculture is faced with
increasingly diverse and severe exotic emerging plant diseases
which, in many cases, can move swiftly, completely destroy
crops, and pose risks to a stable food supply. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for increased research in
this area.
Food Safety.--Accidental or intentional introduction of a
small number of contaminants into some part of the food chain
could seriously affect public confidence and harm the Nation's
economy. Regulatory agencies have identified areas of critical
importance for investigation relating to food safety that
include detection, prevention, response, and recovery. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,750,000 for increased
research in this area.
Human Nutrition.--Obesity is the Nation's fastest growing
public health problem, affecting every segment of the American
population. Two of three adults are overweight and the number
of overweight children has doubled in the past 20 years. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for increased
research in this area.
Livestock Protection.--Exotic and transmissible animal
diseases, such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Avian Influenza
hold potential for significant animal and human health risks
and economic disruption. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,250,000 for increased funding in this area and to work
toward meeting the 2015 goals outlined in a January 2005
Department of Homeland Security report.
Pollinator Recovery.--The Committee is extremely concerned
by widespread reports of Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD] and
other threats to bee colonies and other pollinators that could
seriously disrupt food production with implications for
national security. While the President's budget did not
expressly request funding for this research, the Committee
believes that such oversight was due to the recent development
of CCD and related threats. The Committee does believe that
this research is consistent with the ARS goal of protecting the
Nation's food supply and natural resources. The Committee also
believes that the Department is aware of this serious threat
and would have included funds in the budget if it had been
aware of the problem in advance of formulation of the fiscal
year 2008 budget. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$1,500,000 for CCD and related pollinator threats to be
directed to the best suited locations. In addition, due to the
seriousness posed by CCD, the Committee directs the Secretary
to provide a report within 30 days of enactment regarding the
use of these funds and an overall strategy by the Department
for protecting pollinator species in this country.
Renewable Energy.--America's dependence of foreign oil for
energy and chemical substances is a threat to the Nation's
security and adversely affects the country's economy. Research
is needed to identify feedstocks that can be produced
domestically to help offset the rising demand and costs of
energy. The Committee recommendation includes $1,750,000 to
increase research in this area.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee is aware
of the presence of VHS in the Great Lakes and the threat it
poses to aquatic species and to interstate and international
commerce. The Secretary is directed to provide a report on
steps taken by ARS to control and eradicate this disease from
American and international waters.
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.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... $16,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,100,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,100,000
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research
Service.
Modern research facilities are an important part of the
ability of ARS to meet the objectives of its mission purpose,
and the Committee recommends funding to ensure that
modernization and upgrades of facilities are achieved.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all
ongoing projects. The Committee recommends funds for the
following projects in fiscal year 2008:
Agriculture Research Center, Pullman, Washington.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,600,000 toward
construction of this center. (Murray, Cantwell)
Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, Alcorn
State, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 toward construction of this facility. (Cochran)
Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, Montana.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,600,000 toward
construction of this facility. (Baucus, Tester)
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green,
Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000
toward construction of this facility. (McConnell)
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, West
Virginia.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,200,000 for
facility renovations at this location. (Byrd)
ARS Agricultural Research Center, Logan, Utah.--The
Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for planning,
design, and construction of this center. (Bennett)
Dairy Forage Agriculture Research Center, Prairie du Sac,
Wisconsin.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,600,000
for planning and design of this center. (Kohl)
Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington,
Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000
toward construction of this facility. (McConnell)
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, Hagerman,
Idaho.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 toward
construction of this station. (Craig, Crapo)
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville,
Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000
toward the major modernization phase of this center. (Cochran)
National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia,
Missouri.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000
toward construction of this facility. (Bond)
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii.--
The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 toward
construction of this center. (Inouye, Akaka)
Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville,
Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000
toward construction of this replacement facility. (Cochran)
Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, Louisiana.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,600,000 toward
construction of this center. (Landrieu, Vitter)
Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for planning and
design of this facility. (Nelson, Ben; Hagel)
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
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, 2007.................................... $671,419,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 562,518,000
Committee recommendation................................ 700,849,000
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 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.); and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171). 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, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia
State 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $700,849,000
for research and education activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act............................... 214,924
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)....... 30,008
Payments to 1890 Institutions.......................... 40,680
Special research grants (Public Law 89-106)............ 67,734
================
Improved pest control:
Expert IPM decision support system................. 155
Integrated pest management......................... 2,396
IR-4 minor crop pest management.................... 10,896
Pest management alternatives....................... 1,422
----------------
Total, Improved pest control..................... 14,869
================
1994 institutions research program..................... 1,544
Agriculture and Rural Policy Research.................. 2,780
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving 3,218
institutions education grants.........................
Alternative crops...................................... 825
Animal health and disease (sec. 1433).................. 5,006
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)........................ 3,928
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions)........... 12,375
Critical Agricultural Materials Act.................... 1,091
Graduate fellowships grants............................ 3,701
Hispanic education partnership grants.................. 5,940
Institution challenge grants........................... 5,423
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM, TX, 990
MT)...................................................
Multicultural scholars program......................... 988
National Research Initiative........................... 244,000
Payments to the 1994 institutions...................... 3,342
Secondary agriculture education........................ 990
Sustainable agriculture research and education......... 15,000
Veterinary Medical Services Act........................ 750
Federal administration:................................ 20,843
----------------
Total, CSREES Research and Education Activities.. 700,849
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--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.
Agriculture and Rural Policy Research.--The Secretary is
authorized to make grants and take other actions under 7 U.S.C.
3155 for research and related activities concerning public
policy and trade agreements and their effect on the farm and
agricultural sector; the environment; rural families,
households, and economies; and consumers, food, and nutrition.
The Committee recommends $2,780,000 for activities under this
authority.
Of the amount available for Agriculture and Rural Policy
Research [ARPR], $1,600,000 is provided for the Food and
Agriculture Policy Institute [FAPRI]. Of the amount made
available for FAPRI, $240,000 shall be provided to continue a
cooperative agreement with the University of Wisconsin relating
to dairy policy and $200,000 shall be provided to the
University of Nevada at Reno relating to the marketing of
commodities produced in the Western United States. (Kohl,
Harkin, Bond, Reid, Grassley/University of Wisconsin, Iowa
State University, University of Missouri, University of Nevada
at Reno)
In addition, of the amount available for ARPR, $1,180,000
shall be available for the Rural Policies Research Institute.
(Harkin, Nelson, Ben, Hagel/Iowa State University, University
of Nebraska, University of Missouri)
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,218,000 for 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.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $825,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption
needs and encourages the Department to provide funds in a
manner that reaches those areas most likely to see expansions
in canola production.
Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural
Agricultural Communities.--The Committee is pleased to see that
the Department issued a request for proposals in the areas of
small and mid-sized farm profitability and rural economic
development pursuant to section 401 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C.
7621). The Committee encourages the Department to request
proposals specific to critical emerging issues related to farm
income, rural economic and business and community development
and farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability
and competitiveness of small and medium-sized dairy, livestock,
crop and other commodity operations.
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource
research were an integral part of NRI at its inception. As NRI
funding has grown, however, the allocation of NRI funds by
CSREES for research on forestry and related natural resource
topics has fallen behind. In the future, the Committee directs
the NRI program administrator to put a greater emphasis on NRI
funding for forestry and natural resources topics with a goal
of eventually providing at least 10 percent of the total funds
provided for NRI for forestry and natural resources related
research on topics including: woody plant systems, including
large scale efforts to sequence the genome for several
economically important tree species, technologies for enhanced
pest and disease resistance, and increased tree growth rates;
management of complex forest ecosystems, including issues of
forest health, productivity, economic sustainability, and
restoration; assessing alternative management strategies, with
emphasis on risk analysis, geospatial analysis including
landscape implications, consideration of ecological services,
providing decision support systems; and development of
nanotechnology and biorefining technologies for the forest
products sector as critical to enhancing global competitiveness
and energy security.
National Research Initiative.--The Committee recommends
$244,000,000 for the National Research Initiative [NRI] and
directs that specific programs previously funded under
Integrated Activities [IA] be included under the NRI for fiscal
year 2008, as proposed in the budget. The Committee notes that
the indirect cost limitations for programs funded under IA are
the same as under the NRI and expects that extension-led
activities will continue to be a central element once such
programs are incorporated into the NRI. The Committee further
expects that water quality activities should benefit from the
enhanced pool of funds made possible by these transfers.
National Veterinary Medical Services Act.--The Committee
remains concerned by the growing demand for large animal
veterinarians in many parts of the country and the vital role
they play in maintaining animal health and rural security. The
Committee continues to support the goals of the National
Veterinary Medical Services Act but is disappointed in the lack
of progress by the Department in implementing a program under
this authority. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide
a report on the status of and a timetable for implementation of
the act.
Special Research Grants.--The Committee recognizes the
vital relationships between Federal research activities and
land grant institutions and firmly supports the importance of
congressionally-recognized research priorities. The Special
Research Grants program was authorized by the Congress to
promote research among these partners in specific areas of need
to meet emerging and long-term national and regional
challenges.
The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible
institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as
Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the
purpose of conducting research and related activities to
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the
food and agricultural sciences of the United States. The
authorizing statute directs that these grants be provided
through State-Federal partnerships to promote excellence of
such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the
development of regional research centers, and to generally
support these activities among the States, the regions, and the
Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can
only be awarded if it the proposed activity has undergone
scientific peer review and that the grantee submit an annual
report to the Secretary describing the results of the research
or related activity and the merits of the results.
Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its
intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants
awarded under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included
requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth
explanations of prospective research objectives, and an
understanding that grantees should not expect indefinite fiscal
assistance from the Committee under this authority. In
addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that
ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to specific research
projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on emerging
important research priorities and result in a less efficient
Federal investment in agricultural and related research.
For fiscal year 2008, the Committee continues its
responsibility of expressing congressional interest and
intervention in setting research priorities through the
investment of Federal funds. As the Committee has expressed in
previous years, specific problems require specific objectives
and specific attention. Therefore, the individual research
activities described in this report are intended to accomplish
the objectives set forth in this report and are not intended to
extend into ongoing, long-term, indefinite research endeavors.
The Secretary is encouraged to work with grantees to ensure
that research conducted with these funds is set to achieve
specific objectives and to refrain from undertaking research of
an indefinite nature. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide a report by March 1, 2008 regarding the status of grant
awards for fiscal year 2008 and the specific objectives to be
sought in each case.
The following identifies and describes the Committee
recommendations:
Advanced Genetic Technologies.--The Committee
recommendation includes $645,000 to support high throughput
genetic research and to improve capacity for competitively
awarded grants related to genome sciences. (McConnell/
University of Kentucky)
Advancing Biofuel Production.--While production of ethanol
from corn is well understood, additional research is needed to
develop optimal cellulosic biofuel production technologies for
sorghum. The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 to
investigate the use of sorghum in production of cellulosic
biofuel. (Hutchison/Baylor University)
Aegilops Cylindrica/Biomass.--Aegilops cylindrica is a
grassy plant with potential as an alternative crop and a
suitable renewable fuel feedstock for biomass production,
especially in the Western region. The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 to develop the potential of this feedstock
which would require low inputs, be efficient in water usage,
and be resistant to pests and disease. (Murray, Cantwell/
Washington State University)
Agricultural Diversity.--The Northern Great Plains region
of North Dakota and Minnesota requires economic development and
diversity tied to its agricultural base to slow the trend of
out-migration and other economic and social conditions harmful
to the region. The Committee recommendation includes $500,000
to be used through the Red River Valley Research Corridor to
develop the region's capacity to produce and transmit renewable
energy to other markets, to improve the region's capacity to
meet the Nation's growing demand for organic products, and to
enhance the region's overall research and development
capabilities. (Dorgan, Conrad/University of Minnesota-
Crookston)
Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives for Small
Farmers.--The goal of the Entrepreneurial Alternatives program
is to help agricultural producers evaluate and implement new
business plans for existing business ventures or to transition
to new agriculture-related business opportunities. The
Committee recommendation includes $333,000 for this program.
(Specter, Casey/Penn State University)
Agricultural Marketing.--Lucrative niche markets may be
promising opportunities, but limited access to markets, the
high cost of market intelligence, and scale-related
inefficiencies are inherent barriers to entry for small to mid-
sized value-added food enterprises. The Committee
recommendation includes $250,000 to develop and disseminate
marketing information technology for food and agricultural
entrepreneurs to identify and develop new and profitable
markets and improve the efficiency and profitability of food
systems in the United States and globally. (Durbin/University
of Illinois)
Air Quality.--Concentrated animal feeding operations in the
Southern Great Plains States currently face air quality
challenges and concerns related to odor, dust/particulate
matter, and gaseous emissions such as ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, volatile organic compounds, including reactive, non-
reactive, and greenhouse gases. The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 to carry out this research and to provide
science-based estimates and assessments by public agencies and
the private sector. (Hutchison, Roberts, Cornyn/Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University)
Alliance for Food Protection.--Changing trends in food
production and processing require advanced testing protocols to
ensure food safety. The Committee recommendation includes
$175,000 for research to support the development of new, highly
sensitive tests for allergens in food and enhanced grains and
to provide risk assessments of crops and livestock produced
through agricultural biotechnology. (Nelson, Ben; Hagel/
University of Nebraska, University of Georgia)
Alternative Salmon Products.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,099,000 for the development of alternative salmon
products, including nutritional supplements. (Stevens/
University of Alaska)
Animal and Poultry Waste Management.--Disposal of animal
wastes from concentrated animal agriculture production areas
poses serious challenges. Currently, implemented technologies
for animal waste management have drawbacks including odors,
acreage needed for disposal, air pollution, pathogens, and
potential water contamination due to rainfall and flooding. The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the development,
evaluation and testing of technologies that are environmentally
superior and more cost effective than current animal waste
management practices. Co-production of energy will also be
evaluated, as well as improving the cost and efficiency of
technologies currently available. (Burr, Dole/North Carolina
State University)
Animal Health.--Animal disease prevention and control is
crucial to the marketing of agricultural animals and the
protection of public health on local, State, national, and
global levels. The Committee recommendation includes $390,000
to develop electronic submission methodologies for animal
health events submitted to veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
(McConnell/University of Kentucky)
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium.--There is a serious
need to develop technology for faster identification of
infectious agents and toxins to achieve ``real time'' detection
of food-borne threats to the meat animal food supply. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to develop
statistical tools necessary to prioritize potential health
risks and provide economic information for implementation of
intervention strategies relating to microbiological or chemical
hazards; potential hazards in the distribution chain, and
develop better technology to reduce the hazards and improve the
quality of animal food products, which will complement the
development of HACCP programs by USDA. (Harkin, Grassley,
Roberts, Lincoln, Pryor/University of Arkansas, Iowa State
University, Kansas State University)
Apple Fire Blight.--Fire blight is a serious bacterial
disease of apples and pears and is one of the most damaging
diseases affecting apple trees across the Nation, with crop and
tree losses and related costs exceeding $100,000,000 annually.
The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 to understand
and manage the apple fire blight disease by investigating the
molecular basis of disease resistance in apples and developing
disease resistant apple varieties and rootstocks. (Clinton,
Levin, Schumer, Stabenow/Cornell University, Michigan State
University)
Aquaculture, Louisiana.--The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for research to improve production
efficiencies, fish health, water quality, and other aspects of
aquaculture production in Louisiana. (Landrieu, Vitter/
Louisiana State University)
Aquaculture, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation
includes $517,000 for research into optimum protein and vitamin
levels in practical fish feeds, identifying substitutes for
fishmeal in catfish feeds, enhancing phosphorus retention by
fish, and identifying cost-effective feeding strategies.
(Cochran/Mississippi State University)
Aquaculture, North Carolina.--The Committee recommendation
includes $325,000 to improve commercial aquaculture techniques
and introduce new species into the commercial aquaculture
sector in the Southeast. (Burr, Dole/North Carolina State
University)
Aquaculture Product and Marketing Development.--Areas of
Appalachia have great potential for aquaculture production.
There is a need to identify efficient production and delivery
systems and to develop effective marketing strategies. The
Committee recommendation includes $700,000 for research in this
area. (Byrd/West Virginia University)
Armillaria Root Rot.--Armillaria root rot permanently
renders orchards unsuitable for cherry production resulting in
reduced farm profitability, farmland conversion to non-
agricultural uses, and has the potential to devastate the fruit
industry of Michigan and other States. The Committee
recommendation includes $140,000 to conduct field tests and
research to speed detection of the fungus, and evaluate new
biological and chemical controls. (Levin, Stabenow/Michigan
State University)
Asparagus Technology and Production.--Half of the current
asparagus production costs are composed of labor costs
associated with the harvesting of the product. The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for research and development
of technologies to reduce the cost of asparagus production.
(Murray, Cantwell/Washington State University)
Avian Influenza.--The Delmarva Peninsula is an area of
significant poultry production and an area where avian
influenza outbreaks have occurred in the past. Work is needed
for the development of information systems and other mechanisms
to check any future outbreaks and to learn more about ways to
manage and control this serious disease. The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000 to carry out these activities.
(Biden, Carper/University of Delaware)
Barley Research.--Development of specialty barley varieties
for use in the human diet and animal feed will expand marketing
potential for producers. The Committee recommendation includes
$735,000 to produce specialty barley varieties. (Craig, Crapo/
University of Idaho)
Berry Research.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,300,000 for research into best crop management techniques,
basic biology and chemistry of berries, as well as basic berry
processing information. The Committee encourages the University
to partner with entities to train and educate rural areas on
efforts to create a viable and sustainable berry industry.
(Stevens/University of Alaska)
Biodesign and Bioprocessing Research Center.--The Biodesign
and Bioprocessing Research Center [BBRC] will enhance the
capabilities and economic viability of farmers by conducting
basic and applied research on the design, production, and
recovery of industrial enzymes, pharmaceuticals, and biofuels
from transgenic and alternative specialty crops, and for
conversion of agricultural wastes to value-added products. The
Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the BBRC.
(Warner, Webb/Virginia Tech)
Bioenergy.--The Committee recommendation includes $200,000
to conduct an inventory of potential bioenergy feedstocks,
including plant species and industrial byproducts, in the State
of Connecticut. (Lieberman/University of Connecticut)
Botanical Research Center.--The Utah Botanical Center
serves as a regional learning center and supports production
and integration of low water-use plants in sustainable home
landscapes for high-desert environments. The Center conducts
research by collecting native plant seeds, conducing trials of
promising species, including rare and endangered species, and
advancing nursery production methods. The Committee
recommendation includes $900,000 for this initiative. (Bennett/
Utah State University)
CAST.--The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
[CAST] develops a variety of food and agricultural publications
that are important for policy makers and the agricultural
sector. The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to
continue these activities. (Harkin/Iowa State University)
Cataloging Genes Associated With Drought and Disease
Resistance.--Drought episodes are increasing around the globe
and the availability of water is decreasing with increasing
human populations and development. The development of drought
resistant crops is necessary to ensure sufficient food
supplies. The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for
the discovery of genetic markers for use in breeding plants for
drought and disease resistance and for the characterization of
drought-adaptive mechanisms found in wild relatives of
cultivated plants. (Domenici, Bingaman/New Mexico State
University)
Center for North American Studies.--The growth in North
American trade and associated economic integration has created
the need and opportunity for cooperation to address pressing
agricultural trade and food issues. Examples include economic
and trade relationships for food and agricultural products,
international trade policies, assessing impacts of food and
agricultural bio-terrorism, natural resource and environmental
problems, food safety and nutrition, food marketing and
distribution, plant and animal production technology, and
potentially conflicting domestic farm policies. The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for research performed by the
Center for North American Studies. (Hutchison/Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station)
Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies.--The Center
for Public Lands and Rural Economies conducts research related
to the effects that public lands have on rural communities.
Research in the past has centered on the presence of public
land and its effect on services that rural communities provide
such as health care, education, and social services. The
Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to continue this
research. (Bennett/Utah State University)
Center for Rural Studies.--The sustainability of rural
communities requires information to assist regional planning
through the identification and prioritization of needs and for
improved application of resources. The Committee recommendation
includes $350,000 for research and data development related to
demographic changes in rural areas. (Leahy/University of
Vermont)
Childhood Obesity and Nutrition.--Rising national childhood
obesity rates result in significant illness and disabilities
for children. The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to
develop intervention strategies for use in day care centers
through a combination of basic research, health care, public
health, and educational initiatives focused on children,
families, and communities. (Leahy/University of Vermont)
Citrus Disease.--The Committee recommendation includes
$200,000 to develop methods to control and manage citrus canker
and citrus greening in the State of Florida. (Martinez; Nelson,
Bill/University of Florida)
Competitiveness of Agriculture Products.--Agriculture is
increasingly dependent on global markets, and improving the
competiveness of U.S. exports in the global marketplace is
important to the long-term health of the agricultural sector.
The Committee recommendation includes $350,000 for research to
better understand the changing global agricultural trade
environment. (Murray, Cantwell/Washington State University)
Cool Season Legume Research.--This research project focuses
on the genetic identification of superior characteristics in
legumes; nematode, insect, and disease management; soil erosion
and water quality; and market and product development. The
Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for legume research.
(Dorgan, Murray, Craig, Johnson, Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo/
University of Idaho, Washington Sate University, North Dakota
State University)
Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality.--The Committee
recommendation includes $494,000 for research that seeks to
reduce the impacts of cotton pests on cotton fiber quality.
(Chambliss, Isakson/University of Georgia)
Cranberry Research.--New methods for pest control in
cranberry bogs need to be developed to maintain production
levels and to maintain protection of the environment. The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for research for
this purpose. (Kennedy, Kerry/University of Massachusetts)
Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding.--Compounds in
blueberries and cranberries provide significant human health
benefits and have potential in treatments to help prevent
cancer, coronary heart disease and arthritis. The Committee
recommendation includes $550,000 for research to develop new
cultivars, identify health attributes, investigate new and
value-added uses, and provide new and improved blueberry and
cranberry varieties. (Lautenberg/Rutgers University)
Crop Integration and Production.--There is a need in the
upper plains States to develop production systems that allow
farmers to diversify the crops they produce and, thereby,
reduce production input costs. The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 to develop best management practices and
examine the feed value of pulse crops. (Johnson, Thune/South
Dakota State University)
Dairy and Meat Goat Research.--The primary objective of
this project is to generate and disseminate technical
information to improve the quantity of products derived from
goats. The program enables small goat producers to increase
their profitability through genetic mapping, conservation,
maintenance, enhancements and access to genetic resources. The
Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for dairy and meat
goat research. (Hutchison/Prairie View A&M; University)
Dairy Farm Profitability.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 for research to develop and disseminate
knowledge and technologies that increase efficiency and
profitability of dairy production. (Specter, Casey/Penn State
University)
Delta Revitalization Project.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 to create and implement innovative strategies
that will help advance the long-term economic and sustainable
development of the Mississippi Delta Region. (Cochran/
Mississippi State University)
Designing Foods for Health.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 to research the prevention of diseases
through fruits and vegetables by optimizing bioactive compounds
and conducting studies in cell cultures, animal studies, and
clinical trials. (Hutchison/Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station)
Detection and Food Safety.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,500,000 to research new technologies for real-time
bacterial, chemical, and surface contamination detection and
information technologies for traceability and inventory
control. (Shelby/Auburn University)
Displacing Imported Petroleum With Renewables.--The
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for research into
the conversion of renewable biomass into fuels. (Martinez;
Nelson, Bill/University of Florida)
Drought Management Initiative.--Utah and the Intermountain
West experience periodic drought that has severely limited
water supplies, damaged agriculture, and threatens future
economic growth. This initiative seeks to develop accurate
prediction of water yield, improved agricultural irrigation,
better management of urban water demand, and innovative water
policies. The Committee recommendation includes $900,000 for
this initiative. (Bennett/Utah State University)
Efficient Irrigation for Water Conservation.--The surface
flows of the Rio Grande are inadequate to meet growing demands
of agriculture, development growth, drought cycles, and compact
agreements. Agriculture is a major industry in most areas of
the Rio Grande basin, particularly the irrigated valleys.
Voluntary measures based on scientific knowledge will help
secure the agricultural economy and heritage of the basin. The
Committee recommendation includes $475,000 for New Mexico State
University and $100,000 for Texas A&M; University for research
and education activities that improve irrigation efficiency and
water conservation throughout the Rio Grande basin. (Domenici,
Hutchison, Bingaman, Cornyn/New Mexico State University, Texas
A&M; University)
Environmentally Safe Products.--Research is needed to
develop agriculturally-based products that have both economic
and environmental values. The Committee recommendation includes
$450,000 to carry out this activity. (Leahy/University of
Vermont)
Farmland Preservation.--Ohio is losing farm acreage to
development at a high rate. The Committee recommendation
includes $150,000 for research to determine the best policy
mechanisms to slow this trend. (Brown, Voinovich/Ohio State
University)
Floriculture.--The Hawaii tropical cut flower and foliage
industry is a major contributor to the State and national
economies and it faces many challenges from rising costs of
production, new invasive pests, and increased foreign
competition. The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to
carry out a competitive grants program to maintain and further
develop new anthurium, orchid and protea germplasm. (Inouye,
Akaka/University of Hawaii)
Food and Fuel Initiative.--An important element of the
biofuels industry is to find ways to make biofuel co-products a
preferred feed for livestock. The Committee recommendation
includes $400,000 for research to ensure feed and food safety
by removing potential accumulation of toxins, and protecting
the environment. (Harkin, Grassley/Iowa State University)
Food Safety.--Irradiation is currently being used to
destroy pathogens in food and destroy insect and pests in
fruits and vegetables. The Committee recommendation includes
$100,000 to continue the advancement of science and technology
in irradiation technologies. (Hutchison/Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station)
Fresh Produce Food Safety.--Recent incidents of E. coli
O157:H7 and other microbial contaminants in spinach and leafy
greens resulted in serious illnesses and several deaths, and
have shaken consumer confidence and cost growers millions of
dollars. The Committee recommendation includes $700,000 to
establish a competitive grants program to research the effects
of the recent E. coli outbreak, sources and channels of
contamination by pathogenic microbes, and other concerns
related to food safety. (Feinstein, Boxer/University of
California)
Functional Genomics in Nature.--This program expands the
study of functional genomics to determine genome regulation,
protein interaction, and metabolite flow as organisms interact
in the environment. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,600,000 for this research. (Bennett/Utah State University)
Future Foods.--Research is needed to promote optimal human
health by studying bioactive attributes of food. The Committee
recommendation includes $450,000 to determine the relationships
between functional compounds in foods and reduced incidence of
chronic diseases in humans. Outcomes will provide insight into
properties to serve as anticancer agents and to guard against
obesity. This research also has a significant global outreach
component, focused on food, nutrition, and health education in
developing countries and will assist in the fight against HIV/
AIDS. (Durbin/University of Illinois)
Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease.--This
research focuses on the use of genomics for the identification
of pathogens and stress resistance in Southern corn and soybean
crops. In particular for corn and soybeans, genetic stocks are
predominantly tested under Midwestern conditions and many
perform poorly in the South due to differing environmental
stresses and pathogens. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,140,000 for this research. (Cochran/Mississippi State
University)
Global Change/Ultraviolet Radiation.--High levels of
ultraviolet radiation from the Sun are known to have harmful
effects on agricultural crops, forest ecosystems, humans and
livestock. The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 to
measure ultraviolet and visible radiation across the entire
United States to help research that assesses the potential crop
and forests impacts from increasing levels of ultraviolet
radiation. (Johnson, Salazar/Colorado State University)
Grass Seed Cropping Systems.--The grass seed industry is
based in rural communities and contributes to the economic well
being of those communities, but the industry is facing some
critical environmental and economic challenges including:
public pressure to phase out open-field burning; and
alleviation of smoke, dust, and chemical trespass from crop
production areas. The Committee recommendation includes
$150,000 to develop new grass seed cropping systems that meet
environmental regulations and are economically viable for
farmers. (Murray, Craig, Cantwell, Smith, Wyden, Crapo/
University of Idaho, Oregon State University, Washington State
University)
Great Plains Sorghum Improvement and Utilization Center.--
The Committee recommendation includes $736,000 to conduct
research on improving the yields, quality, and uses of grain
sorghum. (Brownback, Hutchison, Roberts/Kansas State
University, Texas A&M; University, Texas Tech University)
Hardwood Scanning Center.--The sustainability of the
hardwood lumber industry depends on further improvements in
efficiency, primarily in terms of the volume of higher grades
of lumber produced from a given volume of logs. The next
technology needed to improve lumber-grade yield is log
scanning. This would help the ability of sawyers to ``see'' the
defects inside a log and convert logs into lumber, based on
knowing where the defects are located. Past studies indicate a
potential 30-40 percent increase in lumber-grade yield in the
conversion of tree trunks into logs and up to 30 percent in the
conversion of logs into lumber. The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 to develop and commercialize scanning
technology needed to improve hardwood lumber-grade yield.
(Lugar/Purdue University)
High Performance Computing.--This program will assist the
USDA with expanded capabilities in high performance computing
and numerical methods for agricultural and natural resources
management. The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for
this project. (Bennett/Utah State University)
Human Nutrition.--This research project tests the
hypothesis that individuals with a predisposition to becoming
obese have altered metabolic and genetic patterns of response
to diets high in fat or high in calories. The current research
objective is to characterize baseline biochemical, endocrine
and anthropometric predictors for fat storage in healthy men
and women eating diets altered in percent fat. The Committee
recommendation includes $706,000 to carry out this research.
(Landrieu, Vitter/Pennington Biomedical Research Center)
Improving Safety and Shelf Life of Agricultural
Commodities.--Bioelectronic detectors have the potential to be
highly sensitive, easy to use and manufacture, while also
providing near real-time diagnosis of food contamination. These
features will allow for the quick detection of microorganisms
thereby allowing for the development of new methods of shelf-
life preservation as well as preventing distribution of
contaminated food products. The Committee recommendation
includes $863,000 for the development of bioelectronic
detectors that can quickly detect the presence of microbial
pathogens in foods and food products. (Craig, Crapo/University
of Idaho)
Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and Extension.--In
collaboration with the Ministry of Science and Technology
[MOST] of the People's Republic of China, Utah State University
[USU] and Xiamen University have agreed to develop joint
research programs in animal models for the study of infectious
diseases, natural bioactive compound development, and cellular
communication networks. Also, MOST, USU, and the Northwest Sci-
Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry have agreed to
develop joint research programs in the biotechnology of forages
(especially alfalfa), livestock cloning and genetics, crop
production, and water resources and irrigation. Funding would
be used for professional exchanges, joint research programs,
intensive short courses, graduate training, and internships.
The Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for this
project. (Bennett/Utah State University)
Leopold Center Hypoxia.--One of the most effective ways to
reduce the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico is to increase
the acreage of perennial grasses in the Midwest. The Committee
recommendation includes $150,000 to investigate land use issues
that may have an impact of reducing the hypoxia zone. (Harkin/
Iowa State University)
Livestock and Dairy Policy.--The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for economic and policy analyses of programs
relating to dairy, beef cattle, sheep, and goat raisers.
(Hutchison/Texas Agricultural Experiment Station)
Livestock Waste.--Research is needed to investigate air
quality impairments from livestock and poultry operations in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.
The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 to carry out
these activities. (Harkin, Grassley/Iowa State University)
Low Bush Wild Blueberry.--The Committee recommendation
includes $246,000 for the development of integrated crop
management programs; research into the potential health
benefits of wild low-bush blueberries; determination of low
bush blueberry water requirements; and the improvement of
processed product quality and value-added food processing.
(Collins, Snowe/Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine)
Maple Research.--The process of making maple requires
research to avoid product contamination that either affects the
flavor or renders it unsafe for human consumption. The
Committee recommendation includes $130,000 to conduct research
for equipment and processing techniques to reduce exposure of
sap and syrup to contaminants. (Leahy/University of Vermont)
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing.--Research is needed to
improve food processes, safety, quality, and health benefits.
The Committee recommendation includes $490,000 for a
competitive grants program to carry out this research. (Nelson,
Ben; Hagel/University of Nebraska)
Midwest Poultry.--The recent price impacts on grain due to
increased renewable fuels production has negatively impacted
the profit margins for poultry producers. The Committee
recommends $250,000 for research to improve the sustainability,
efficiency, and profitability of poultry production. (Harkin,
Klobuchar, Grassley/Iowa State University)
Milk Safety.--This project focuses on enhancing the safety
of the dairy food supply. The Committee recommendation includes
$788,000 for peer reviewed research into milk and dairy
products safety. (Specter, Casey/Penn State University)
Missouri River Sedimentation.--Research is needed to
measure the effect of erosion along the Missouri River which is
affecting riparian properties. The Committee recommendation
includes $450,000 for this effort. (Johnson/South Dakota State
University)
Montana Sheep Institute.--Research is needed to develop a
ranging strategy whereby small ruminants such as sheep can be
used to control noxious weeds and return a profit to the
producer. The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for
this research. (Baucus, Tester/Montana State University)
National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium [NBCEC].--The
NBCEC is comprised of researchers from Colorado State
University, Cornell University, and the University of Georgia
who focus on the genetics of beef cattle. The Committee
recommendation includes $880,000 for the NBCEC to continue its
collection, interpretation, and distribution of genetic data to
beef cattle breeders to develop and enhance sound and
economically viable beef production systems. (Allard, Salazar,
Chambliss/Colorado State University, University of Georgia)
National Center for Soybean Biotechnology.--The Committee
recommendation includes $987,000 to better understand the
genetic control of yield, seed composition, environmental
stress tolerance, and disease resistance in soybeans. Funds
will also be used for the development of value-added soybeans
such as improved oil content/quality, enhanced nutritional
values, and biofuel uses. (Bond/University of Missouri-
Columbia)
National Drought Mitigation Center [NDMC].--The NDMC
conducts research and outreach activities on drought mitigation
and preparedness technologies; works to improve coordination of
drought-related activities between levels of government; and
assists in the development, dissemination, and implementation
of appropriate mitigation and preparedness technologies in the
public and private sectors. The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 for the NDMC to continue drought monitoring,
mitigation and planning. (Nelson, Ben; Hagel/University of
Nebraska-Lincoln)
Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering.--Development of
more efficient and less environmentally damaging methods for
controlling pests and diseases is essential for maintaining
agricultural production levels necessary to support the future
food and trade needs of the United States. The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 to limit agricultural
production losses caused by pests and disease through the
application of biotechnology. (Domenici, Bingaman/New Mexico
State University)
Nevada Arid Rangelands.--Nevada has a higher percentage of
arid rangeland than any other State and in recent years has
experienced severe wildfire, invasive species, prolonged
drought, and habitat decline. The Committee recommendation
includes $490,000 for rangelands restoration and protection
research. (Reid/University of Nevada Reno)
New Century Farm.--Corn alone cannot support all the
renewable energy requirements of the country. A variety of
annual and perennial cellulosic crops must be grown to
complement corn and soybean production. The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for research into integrated
and sustainable biofuel feedstock production, including: crop
production; germplasm development; environmental impact;
harvest, transport, and storage; and processing. (Harkin,
Grassley/Iowa State University)
New Crop Opportunities, Alaska.--The Committee
recommendation includes $443,000 for the development of new
opportunities and uses for Alaska grown crops and livestock.
(Stevens/University of Alaska)
New Crop Opportunities, Kentucky.--Agricultural production
is an important part of Kentucky's economy, and tobacco has
played a major role. With the termination of the Federal
tobacco program, there is a need for research to help Kentucky
farmers diversify their operations in order to survive. The
Committee recommendation includes $750,000 to accelerate the
transition from a tobacco-based farm economy through crop
diversification. The project provides production and marketing
information on new crops and value-added versions of current
crops. (McConnell/University of Kentucky)
New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for
Agriculture.--Significant progress has been made in numerous
areas of spatial technology and precision agriculture. Variable
rate technology research has shown the ability to significantly
reduce the volume of pesticides utilized, apply fertilizer
within highly variable fields to achieve maximum benefits, and
identify potential insect, disease, and environmental stress
problems well in advance of traditional scouting methods. The
Committee recommendation includes $936,000 for spatial
technology research. (Cochran/Mississippi State University)
Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research [NCSFR].--The
primary goal of the NCSFR is to enhance the profitability and
sustainability of the small fruits industry in the Pacific
Northwest. The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for
peer reviewed and competitively awarded small fruits research.
(Craig, Murray, Smith, Wyden, Crapo/Northwest Center for Small
Fruit Research)
Oil Resources from Desert Plants.--New Mexico State
University will conduct basic research to identify and
characterize plant genes involved in the synthesis of high
molecular weight oils and waxes. The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 to carry out this research. (Domenici,
Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Organic Cropping, Oregon.--Research is needed to assist
producers in Oregon with information necessary for optimal
production of organic crops. The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for that purpose. (Wyden, Smith/Oregon State
University)
Organic Cropping, Washington.--There is a rising demand for
organic products, but foreign competitors with lower labor
costs are putting organic producers at risk. The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for research, development and
dissemination of organic best management practices in the
Northwest and other steps to retain the U.S. competitive
advantage in this marketplace. (Murray, Cantwell/Washington
State University)
Organic Waste Utilization.--Heavy land applications of
dairy manure can cause significant problems, including
contamination of ground and surface water, spread of enteric
pathogens and weeds, noxious odors, and increased soil
salinity. The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 to
develop new ways of co-composting dairy waste with other
organic materials that may alleviate many potential problems
associated with land application of raw dairy waste. (Domenici,
Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Pasture and Forage Research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 to enhance private irrigated pasture land and
provide an alternative feed base to traditional public land
grazing. (Bennett/Utah State University)
Peach Tree Short Life Research.--The disease syndrome of
peach, nectarine, and plum trees in the southeastern United
States known as Peach Tree Short Life is characterized by
sudden collapse of otherwise apparently healthy trees just
before, during, or just after flowering. The Committee
recommendation includes $278,000 to further the understanding
and control of peach tree short life in southeastern peach
orchards. (Graham/Clemson University)
Peanut Research.--The Committee recommendation includes
$591,000 for research into soil fertility issues caused by
intensive tillage practices in the peanut growing regions of
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. (Shelby/Auburn University)
Phytosensors for Crop Security and Precision Agriculture.--
There are immediate needs for new technology and innovations
for monitoring crop diseases. This project seeks to combine
technologies in biotechnology and photonics to produce crop
plants that can be used directly as early warning sentinels for
the detection of plant diseases. The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 to support this research. (Alexander/
University of Tennessee)
Pierce's Disease.--Pierce's Disease, spread by the Glassy-
Winged Sharpshooter, threatens the grape industry. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for a competitive
grants program to eliminate this disease. (Feinstein, Boxer/
University of California)
Policy Analyses for a National Secure and Sustainable Food,
Fiber, Forestry, and Energy Program.--Currently, there is an
unbalanced approach to alternative fuels, which is leading to
food shortages, increased food costs, and negative
environmental impacts. The Committee recommendation includes
$200,000 to better understand the impacts renewable energy
feedstocks have on cropping patterns, balance of trade,
commodity prices, and economic activity. (Hutchison/Texas A&M;
University)
Potato Cyst Nematode.--The potato cyst nematode [PCN] was
recently discovered in Idaho, the first time for the United
States. The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for
research related to PCN, including population dynamics,
management, eradication, efficacy of pesticides, resistance of
potato varieties, and other critical issues. (Craig, Crapo/
University of Idaho)
Potato Research.--This research focuses on the development
of new potato varieties with better disease resistance,
enhanced nutrition, higher yields, and other improvements. The
Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for competitively
awarded potato research. (Craig, Murray, Cantwell, Wyden,
Collins, Crapo, Smith, Snowe/USDA CSREES]
Precision Agriculture.--Geospatial technologies developed
by the military and aerospace industries have the potential to
improve the profitability and efficiency of production
agriculture and forestry. The Committee recommendation includes
$599,000 for the development of geospatial tools to allow more
site-specific management of agriculture, forests, and other
natural resources at Auburn University and $675,000 at the
University of Kentucky to develop and assess precision
agriculture and natural resource management methods and
technologies. (McConnell/University of Kentucky, Shelby/Auburn
University)
Preharvest Food Safety.--The Committee recommendation
includes $202,000 for research into the identification and
mitigation of food-borne pathogens such as E. coli and
Salmonella, antibiotic resistance and food-borne disease, and
identification and tracking of food-borne and zoonotic
diseases. (Brownback, Roberts/Kansas State University)
Program for Economically Important Infectious Animal
Diseases.--Infectious animal diseases can have a substantial
impact on the economy and international trade. The Committee
recommendation includes $817,000 for research and outreach
activities into economically-critical infectious animal
diseases with the goal of preventing the introduction and
spread of such diseases. (Allard, Salazar/Colorado State
University)
Protein Utilization.--Soybeans, as an alternative feedstock
for renewable fuels, require additional research to expand
beyond bio-diesel to a broader range of bio-fuel options. The
Committee recommendation includes $600,000 to carry out this
research. (Harkin, Grassley/Iowa State University)
Regionalized Implications of Farm Programs.--The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000 for economic and policy
analyses of commodity programs. (Hutchison/Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station)
Renewable Energy Products.--Research is needed to identify
perennial grasses that can thrive in cool conditions yet
produce materials usable in the renewable fuels industry. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to conduct this
research. (Dorgan, Conrad/North Dakota State University)
Ruminant Nutrition.--Research is needed to develop value-
added feeds for certain livestock that would have profitability
and environmental benefits. The Committee recommendation
includes $625,000 for a competitive grants program to carry out
this activity. (Johnson, Thune/South Dakota State University)
Rural Development.--Demographics and geography pose unique
challenges for rural development activities in States like
North Dakota. The Committee recommendation includes $115,000
for research to develop strategies that best respond to that
unique environment. (Dorgan, Conrad/North Dakota State
University)
Russian Wheat Aphid.--The Committee recommendation includes
$306,000 to incorporate resistance to the new biotype of
Russian wheat aphid, which re-emerged in southeastern Colorado
as a virulent biotype; to improve tolerance for heat and
drought stress; and to reverse recent trends in declining hard
red winter wheat exports. (Allard, Salazar/Colorado State
University)
Seed Technology.--There is a growing void in the public
research sector for seed trait technologies. The Committee
recommendation includes $350,000 for research on seed traits
that can be made available publicly to producers. (Johnson,
Thune/South Dakota State University)
Shrimp Aquaculture.--New lines of shrimp promise faster
growth, greater harvest size, enhanced disease resistance, and
more rapid crop turnover. These, together with the fruition of
super-intensive shrimp farming systems, provide the tools
necessary to accelerate the expansion of the domestic shrimp
farming industry. The Committee recommendation includes
$300,000 for shrimp aquaculture research. (Cochran/University
of Southern Mississippi)
Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture.--
Phytophthora diseases are limiting factors to sustainable chile
production in the irrigated Southwest. The Committee
recommendation includes $250,000 for genetic improvement of
cultivars and research into the molecular basis of disease
resistance. (Domenici, Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Southeast Bioenergy Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for the development of
technology to produce alternative fuels from regionally
available biomass; feedstock sustainability; harvesting and
transport; and conversion technologies and efficiency.
(Sessions/Auburn University)
Soybean Research.--Diseases and threats such as soybean
rust and soybean cyst nematode are serious problems for
continued soybean production levels. The Committee
recommendation includes $750,000 for genomic and genetic
research to protect and improve soybean production. (Durbin,
Obama/University of Illinois)
Specialty Crops.--Producers need information to improve
production and processing systems for specialty crops,
especially producers who operate as small family-sized
operations. The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for
research in this area. (Lincoln, Pryor/University of Arkansas)
Sustainable Agriculture.--The Committee recommendation
includes $190,000 to support research focused on farm
profitability balanced by environmental responsibility.
(Specter, Casey/Penn State University)
Sustainable Beef Supply.--Research is needed to develop
sound supply chain management of beef producers, taking into
account factors such as consumer preference, consumer
confidence, quality assurance, and international trade. The
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 to conduct this
research. (Baucus, Tester/Montana State University)
Sweet Sorghum for Energy Production.--Sweet sorghum holds
great potential as a biofuels feedstock. The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for research to improve
production of this commodity on marginal lands and to develop
more efficient methods to convert biomass to ethanol. (Nelson,
Ben; Hagel/University of Nebraska)
Tick Borne Disease Prevention.--Tick-borne diseases poses a
serious health risk to Americans, especially to vulnerable
populations. The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to
develop information, which can be useful to the general public
and to develop strategies to combat the spread of these
diseases. (Reed, Whitehouse/University of Rhode Island)
Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management.--To address
critical environmental concerns in Louisiana, alternatives to
traditional tillage are needed to improve the quality of
floodwaters, reduce soil erosion, and to reduce production
costs. The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 to
develop best management practices to achieve these goals.
(Landrieu, Vitter/Louisiana State University)
Tropical and Subtropical Research.--Much of the Nation's
agricultural research resources are directed toward activities
in temperate zones and has little applicability to tropical and
subtropical regions where climatic differences require entirely
different strategies. The Committee recommendation includes
$800,000 for research this activity. (Inouye, Akaka/University
of Hawaii, University of Guam)
Uniform Farm Management.--Benchmarking databases are a new
and innovative management tool that farmers can use to measure
their financial success. This project has created the Nation's
largest and most comprehensive public database of actual farm
financial data. The Committee recommendation includes $295,000
to continue the development and improvement of benchmarking
databases. (Coleman, Klobuchar/University of Minnesota)
University Center for Biomass Based Energy.--Mississippi
State University and Oklahoma State University are developing a
unique gasification-fermentation process that utilizes all of
the plant biomass, including the lignin, to produce liquid
fuel. The Committee recommendation includes $1,200,000
bioenergy research. (Cochran, Inhofe/Mississippi State
University, Oklahoma State University)
Virtual Plant Database Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $840,000 to improve access, analysis,
and management of critical botanical information for botanists,
other scientists and users of plant data and to enhance access
to the data that can be used for conservation programs,
ecosystem monitoring, sustainable development projects, and law
enforcement. (Bond/ University of Missouri-Columbia)
Viticulture.--The Viticulture Consortium works on a wide
range of problems affecting grape growers on both the east and
west coast. The Committee recommendation includes $1,200,000
for a competitive grants program to carry out this work.
(Feinstein, Specter, Boxer, Clinton, Schumer/University of
California, Cornell University)
Water Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$100,000 for water conservation research in the Ogallala region
of Kansas. Research will specifically focus on improvements to
irrigation management; transition to dryland cropping systems
based on alternative crops and/or new uses for crops; and
improvements to rainfall harvesting and water recycling at
confined livestock feeding operations. (Brownback, Roberts/
Kansas State University)
Water Use Efficiency and Water Quality Enhancement Through
Advanced Technologies.--Integration of sensors and wireless
technologies into variable rate irrigation systems will allow
for automation and greatly increased efficiency. New
technologies will allow variable rate irrigation systems to
save billions of gallons of irrigation water each year, while
increasing agricultural productivity and improving water
quality. The Committee recommendation includes $494,000 for
research into the development of the next generation of
precision irrigation application technologies for large scale
irrigation users. (Chambliss, Isakson/University of Georgia)
Wetland Plants.--The Committee recommendation includes
$200,000 for the development of plant species to stabilize and
maintain Louisiana coastal wetlands. (Landrieu, Vitter/
Louisiana State University)
Wheat Genetic Research.--The free availability of
germplasm, genetic and genomic resources, and knowledge for
sustainable and profitable wheat crop production is crucial for
producers of one of the staple crops of the world. The
Committee recommendation includes $344,000 to collect,
conserve, and distribute wheat genetic and genomic resources;
develop improved germplasm; develop genetic stocks; and to
develop genomic resources. (Brownback, Roberts/Kansas State
University)
Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership.--The
Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for research on
diseases that affect both livestock and wildlife in Wyoming of
economic concern. These diseases include brucellosis, chronic
wasting disease and pasteurellosis. (Enzi, Thomas/University of
Wyoming)
Wine Grape Foundation Block.--For national and
international markets it is critical that vineyards are virus
free. The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for
research to reduce the likelihood of virus transmission within
the industry. (Murray, Cantwell/Washington State University)
Wood Utilization.--This program includes research regarding
harvesting, wood properties, manufacturing and processing,
products and testing, and economics and marketing. The
Committee recommends $6,500,000 to address these needs on a
national scale. (Byrd, Cochran, Craig, Landrieu, Stevens,
Klobuchar, Levin, Stabenow, Wyden, Alexander, Coleman, Collins,
Crapo, Smith, Snowe, Vitter/West Virginia University,
Mississippi State Univesity, University of Idaho, Louisiana
State University, University of Alasaka, University of
Minnesota, Michigan State University, University of Tennessee,
University of Maine, Oregon State University)
Wool Research.--Research with wool and other animal fibers
is needed to increase profitability of domestic sheep, goat,
and camelid industries while providing manufacturers,
consumers, and the military with high quality animal fibers.
The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for wool
research. (Hutchison/Texas Agricultural Experiment Station)
The following identifies and describes the Committee
recommendations for Federal Administration:
Agriculture Development in the American Pacific.--The
location of research universities in the American Pacific
provides an opportunity to study the movement of infectious
disease, invasive pests, and other items related to the
shipment of materials from the Asia toward the U.S. mainland.
The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to conduct this
research. (Inouye/University of Hawaii)
Agriculture-based Industrial Lubricants.--The bio-based
lubricants industry is an area with the potential to add
enormous growth to depressed rural economies. The Committee
recommendation includes $480,000 for further research needed
for the development of bio-based products and marketing
opportunities. (Harkin, Grassley/University of Northern Iowa)
Agriculture Waste Utilization.--Conversion of livestock
wastes into usable fertilizers and other measures to better
utilize wastes would reduce their threat to the environment.
The Committee recommendation includes $650,000 to conduct
research on technologies to reduce or eliminate harmful
nutrients and pathogens. (Byrd/West Virginia State University)
Agricultural Literacy.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 to enhance agricultural understanding among
educators, K-12 students, and consumers utilizing teacher
created learning units that infuse accurate agricultural
concepts into the curriculum and enhance technology skills.
(Bond/ Missouri Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture)
Applied Agriculture and Environment Research.--Food safety
concerns can cause economic disruption and unclear signals in
the marketplace. The Committee recommendation includes $250,000
to identify and develop new technologies and best management
practices that will result in higher consumer confidence in
food safety. (Feinstein/California State University)
Aquaculture Research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $220,000 for urban aquaculture, aquaponics, and fish
nutrition/physiology research. (Specter/Cheyney University of
Pennsylvania)
Aquatic Veterinary Pathology.--Resources are needed in the
State of Rhode Island to keep up with the growing demand for
disease screening and other tests so that the State's aquatic
production can move freely in interstate commerce. The
Committee recommendation includes $800,000 to provide the State
of Rhode Island the capability of providing veterinary
expertise for aquatic species. ( Reed/Roger Williams
University)
Biotechnology.--The Committee recommendation includes
$687,000 for research on genetic marker identification and
mapping of sweet potatoes; genetic modification of starch in
sweet potato storage roots; genetic transformation and
development of sweet potato cultivars with enhanced disease
resistance; and related plant breeding research to support
small and disadvantaged farmers. (Cochran/Alcorn State
University)
Center for Dairy Excellence.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 to help dairy producers improve productivity
and profitability. (Specter, Casey/Penn State University)
Cotton Research.--The Committee recommendation includes
$300,000 for the research and development of new technologies
to increase cotton and textile production. (Hutchison, Cornyn/
Texas Tech, Texas A&M; University)
Ethnobotanical Studies.--The gathering of wild herbs and
plants in the Appalachian region has long been a source of
income throughout the region. However, many plants look similar
and gatherers and consumers lack a reliable source of
information to differentiate potentially useful herbs from
poisonous plants. The Committee recommendation includes
$500,000 for research in this area. (Mikulski, Cardin/Frostburg
State University)
Feed Efficiency.--There is a need for research on feed
efficiency in bulls to improve genetics in the cattle industry
and lower the cost of production. The Committee recommendation
includes $150,000 for research to enhance the efficient
production of lean meat from beef cattle. (Byrd/West Virginia
Department of Agriculture)
MATRIC.--Research is necessary to improve the
competitiveness and marketability of Midwest agricultural
products. The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 to
carry out these activities through the Midwest Agribusiness
Trade and Information Center [MATRIC]. (Harkin/Iowa State
University)
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops.--The Committee
recommendation includes $400,000 for bioactive/pharmaceutical
crop research and the identification of novel anti-cancer and
antiviral agents. (Hutchison/Stephen F. Austin University)
Mississippi Valley State University.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,433,000 to promote research and
education at the university. (Cochran/Mississippi Valley State
University)
PM-10 Air Quality.--Air quality impairments related to
agriculture can result in health risks for individuals and
economic hardships for producers. Soils in the Columbia Plateau
have considerable quantities of very small particles that may
become suspended in air, making the air quality issues more
severe. The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to help
develop farming systems to reduce the threat of these
particles. (Murray, Cantwell/Washington State University)
Polymer Research.--The Kansas Polymer Research Center
conducts research on bio-based polymeric material which have
the potential to replace 3,300,000 barrels of oil per year in
the U.S. market alone. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 for polymer research. (Brownback/Pittsburg State
University)
Rural Systems.--The primary purpose of this project is the
early detection of significant human and animal health events,
especially those arising in rural America, through basic and
applied research. The Committee recommendation includes
$308,000 to carry out this project. (Cochran/Jackson State
University)
Shellfish Research, Rhode Island.--Research is needed to
evaluate the environmental impacts of shellfish planting and
harvesting, develop rapid bacteria tests, and evaluate mercury
and cadmium levels in shellfish tissues. The Committee
recommendation includes $350,000 to carry out this work. (Reed/
East Coast Shellfish Research Institute)
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--VHS is a new strain of
virus responsible for massive fish kills in the Great Lakes and
threatens the region's aquaculture sector. The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for research on this deadly
disease. (Brown, Voinovich/University of Toledo)
Water Pollutants.--An extensive database of DNA profiles is
needed to identify sources of bacteria in waters. The Committee
recommendation includes $550,000 for idenfication of particular
sources of fecal pollution that can then be eliminated or
reduced as a pollution source. (Byrd/Marshall University)
Water Quality.--Climate change and other factors are
putting more pressure on water resources and the need to
develop sound and wide-ranging watershed planning strategies.
The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to carry out
these activities. (Dorgan, Conrad/Energy and Environmental
Research Center; Grand Forks, North Dakota)
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 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.
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $450,346,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 431,125,000
Committee recommendation................................ 458,537,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $458,537,000
for extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)..................... 285,762
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety........................................ 4,517
Food and nutrition education (EFNEP)............... 63,538
Indian reservation agents.......................... 3,000
New technologies for extension..................... 1,485
Pest management.................................... 9,860
Sustainable agriculture............................ 5,000
Youth at risk...................................... 7,651
Youth farm safety education and certification...... 440
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia 35,205
State University Colleges.............................
1890 facilities grants................................. 16,777
Extension services at the 1994 institutions............ 3,321
Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA)............... 4,019
Rural health and safety education...................... 1,946
Federal administration:................................ 15,916
----------------
Total, CSREES Extension Activities............... 458,537
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag in the Classroom.--The Committee recommends $700,000 for
Ag in the Classroom.
Childhood Farm Safety.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 for outreach activities to reduce the
incidence of childhood injury. (Harkin/Farm Safety Just 4 Kids;
Ames, Iowa)
Conservation Technology Transfer.--Resources are needed to
conduct demonstrations on working farms to encourage more sound
conservation practices and reduce environmental harm. The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for this purpose.
(Kohl/University of Wisconsin--Extension)
Dairy Education.--The national demand for milk and dairy
products continues to rise. The Committee recommendation
includes $225,000 for education, applied research, and
demonstration to help new and veteran dairy producers. (Harkin,
Grassley/Iowa State University, Northeast Iowa Community
College)
Disseminating Priority Programs Through New Technologies.--
The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to expand access
to information technologies and the training needed for
citizens in small rural communities. (Cochran, Inhofe/
Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State University)
Efficient Irrigation for Water Conservation.--The surface
flows of the Rio Grande are inadequate to meet growing demands
of agriculture, development growth, drought cycles, and compact
agreements. Agriculture is a major industry in most areas of
the Rio Grande basin, particularly the irrigated valleys.
Voluntary measures, based on scientific knowledge will help
secure the agricultural economy and heritage of the basin. The
Committee recommendation includes $475,000 for extension
activities that improve irrigation efficiency and water
conservation throughout the Rio Grande basin. (Domenici,
Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Extension Specialist.-- Agricultural weather data is needed
by producers, researchers, and policy makers to make decisions.
Producers utilize the data for critical management decisions
about tillage, planting, crop protection applications,
irrigation, fertilization, and harvesting. The Committee
recommendation includes $132,000 to provide basic weather data,
products, and expertise to the Mississippi Delta. (Cochran/
Mississippi State University)
Farm Safety.--Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $4,517,000 for the
AgrAbility project.
Health Education Through Extension Leadership.--This
project links the access of the cooperative extension service
to the expertise of the health professions and effectively
delivers programs. The Committee recommendation includes
$843,000 to support extension activities that improve health
outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease. (McConnell/
University of Kentucky)
Iowa Vitality Center.--There is a growing trend of wealth
transfers from rural into urban areas, with serious
consequences for the economies of rural communities. The
Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to develop
strategies to help sustain critical community assets. (Harkin,
Grassley/Community Vitality Center; Ames, Iowa)
National Center for Farm Safety.--Farm-related accidents
are responsible each year for an alarming number of deaths and
serious injuries. The Committee recommendation includes
$225,000 to carry out training and educational activities to
improve safety for members of the farming profession. (Harkin,
Grassley/Northeast Iowa Community College)
Nutrition Enhancement.--Wisconsin has among the lowest
school breakfast participation rates in the Nation. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to assist in
supporting childhood nutrition. (Kohl/University of Wisconsin--
Extension, Wisconsin Department of Public Institutions)
Ohio-Israel Agricultural Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $665,000 to improve agricultural ties
between Ohio and Israel. To date, this project has resulted in
exports of Ohio-bred beef calves to Israel, export of Ohio beef
genetics, sharing of agricultural bio-security expertise,
soybean purchases, drip irrigation improvement, greenhouse
development, and scientific exchanges in a variety of
agriculture and aquaculture disciplines. (Voinovich/Negev
Foundation; Cleveland, Ohio)
Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables.--More information is
needed for producers of vegetable crops to understand the
optimum rate of pesticide use in order to prevent public health
issues or environmental problems. The Committee recommendation
includes $400,000 for this purpose. (Kohl/University of
Wisconsin--Extension)
Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight.--The
Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to track potential
pest outbreaks, including potato blight, and provide potato
growers and industry professionals with current information on
specific and timely treatments, which can be used to minimize
pesticide applications and maximize potato yield and quality.
(Collins, Snowe/University of Maine)
Range Improvement.--Concerns about the condition and health
of range resources have been heightened in recent years. Local
governments, management agencies, and policy makers require
accurate estimates of range conditions in a timely manner. The
Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to continuously
update, compile pertinent data and information, and identify
and perform the needed research to provide comprehensive and
cumulative impact assessments of Federal land management
actions and regulations upon the rural economic communities of
New Mexico. (Domenici, Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Rural E-Commerce.--The Committee recommendation includes
$331,000 to help small, micro, and entrepreneurial businesses
learn and adopt the effective use of e-commerce strategies.
(Cochran/Mississippi State University)
Rural Health and Safety Education.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,946,000 for rural health and safety
education. The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out
this program in a manner similar to fiscal year 2006.
Rural Technologies.--Rural and cultural barriers have in
some circumstances, limited opportunities for certain people to
enter careers in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for
activities to make those opportunities more available. (Inouye/
Maui Economic Development Board)
Urban Horticulture.--The development of urban horticulture
can provide fresh produce for people in non-rural areas through
the use of urban gardens. The Committee recommendation includes
$465,000 to carry out these activities. (Kohl/University of
Wisconsin--Extension, Growing Power; Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
Urban Horticulture and Marketing.--The development of an
urban horticulture and marketing program, with an emphasis on
raising organic crops and the wholesale/retail sale of crops,
can provide job training and jobs. The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 to carry out this program. (Durbin/Windy City
Harvest; Chicago, Illinois)
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $55,234,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 20,120,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,948,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,948,000
for integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical issues......................................... 737
Homeland security....................................... 9,900
International science and education grants.............. 990
Regional rural development centers...................... 1,321
---------------
Total............................................. 12,948
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,940,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,930,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,940,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(7 U.S.C. 2279). 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, West Virginia State University, Indian tribal
community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary
education facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,940,000 for
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $721,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 792,000
Committee recommendation................................ 759,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $759,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $846,230,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 945,550,000
Committee recommendation................................ 911,742,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $911,742,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
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 2008 budget Committee
2007 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI)................. 27,531 26,548 28,557
Cattle Fever Ticks....................................... 7,653 9,674 8,416
Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease............ 8,695 13,306 9,637
Fruit Fly Exclusion & Detection.......................... 59,723 74,734 62,616
Import/Export............................................ 11,697 11,771 11,867
Screwworm................................................ 27,753 30,721 27,839
Trade Issues Resolution & Management..................... 12,505 14,841 13,480
Tropical Bont Tick....................................... 424 431 429
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion................... 155,981 182,026 162,841
==================================================
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING:
Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance.................. 143,211 154,822 136,808
Animal & Plant Health Reg. Enforcement................... 10,396 12,728 12,728
Biosurveillance.......................................... 1,991 2,541 2,001
Emergency Management Systems............................. 13,623 21,611 15,834
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza........................ 47,200 57,044 47,514
Pest Detection........................................... 26,471 41,212 31,437
Select Agents............................................ 3,501 6,666 4,544
Wildlife Disease Monitoring & Surveillance............... ............... 1,950 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring........... 246,393 298,574 250,866
--------------------------------------------------
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT:
Aquaculture.............................................. 1,255 1,274 3,069
Biological Control....................................... 9,581 9,935 9,833
Boll Weevil.............................................. 38,619 ............... ...............
Brucellosis.............................................. 8,909 9,092 9,874
Chronic Wasting Disease.................................. 16,645 12,320 18,268
Contingency Funds........................................ 4,113 4,163 4,149
Cotton Pests............................................. ............... 16,098 43,807
Emerging Plant Pests..................................... 98,541 124,003 126,514
Golden Nematode.......................................... 807 830 824
Grasshopper.............................................. 5,531 4,505 7,474
Gypsy Moth............................................... 4,803 4,920 4,887
Imported Fire Ant........................................ 1,898 2,150 1,908
Johne's Disease.......................................... 12,080 3,266 13,140
Low Pathogen Avian Influenza............................. 13,721 16,800 13,807
Noxious Weeds............................................ 1,441 1,146 1,908
Pink Bollworm............................................ 5,188 ............... ...............
Plum Pox................................................. 2,199 3,214 2,710
Pseudorabies............................................. 4,374 2,471 4,443
Scrapie.................................................. 18,487 17,320 18,676
Tuberculosis............................................. 14,897 16,844 16,050
Wildlife Services Operations............................. 74,852 76,950 76,762
Witchweed................................................ 1,515 1,526 1,523
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management.................. 339,456 328,827 379,626
==================================================
ANIMAL CARE:
Animal Welfare........................................... 17,473 21,126 21,126
Horse Protection......................................... 497 496 501
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Animal Care.................................. 17,970 21,622 21,627
==================================================
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES:
Biosecurity.............................................. 1,952 3,452 1,952
Biotechnology Regulatory Services........................ 10,533 14,141 13,122
Environmental Compliance................................. 2,645 2,712 2,693
Plant Methods Development Labs........................... 8,550 11,932 9,828
Veterinary Biologics..................................... 15,658 19,867 18,156
Veterinary Diagnostics................................... 22,496 32,944 23,556
Wildlife Services Methods Development.................... 15,900 17,932 18,279
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services............ 77,734 102,980 87,586
==================================================
MANAGEMENT:
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure.............. 4,506 5,029 5,006
Physical/Operational Security............................ 4,190 6,492 4,190
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Management................................... 8,696 11,521 9,196
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, APHIS........................................... 846,230 945,550 911,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is unable to recommend the full increases
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. However, the Committee does
recommend 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
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes an appropriation of $28,557,000 for the AQI
appropriated account 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.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees.--The Committee is
concerned by the recent interim final rule to remove the
exemptions from user fees from commercial conveyances entering
the United States from Canada. As of June 1, 2007, commercial
trucks transiting non-stop through Canada from the State of
Alaska to the continental United States, and vice versa, are
subject to AQI fees. APHIS does not charge AQI fees for
commercial trucks that transport goods between the contiguous
States, putting commercial shippers transiting through Canada
at a disadvantage. The Committee recommends APHIS address this
issue and provide regulatory relief for commercial trucks
transiting non-stop through Canada. The Committee will continue
to monitor APHIS' progress toward implementing this change and
requests regular updates on the agency's progress.
Interline Activities.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,772,000 for interline activities in Hawaii. The
State of Hawaii is currently under a Federal quarantine for
fruit flies. This quarantine requires the predeparture
inspection of all airline passengers and luggage departing
Hawaii for the U.S. mainland. Although APHIS currently provides
funding to pay for inspections at the Honolulu airport, this
funding will pay for federally required inspections for flights
originating at neighbor island airports and connecting in
Honolulu. (Inouye, Akaka/APHIS Hawaii)
National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,498,000 for ongoing
activities at the National Germplasm and Biotechnology
Laboratory.
Phytosanitary Standards.--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 also urges the Department to follow the
same scientific principles used to justify rules for foreign
imports in promulgating rules for exports from Hawaii to the
U.S. mainland.
Washington Clean Plant Program.--Viruses and virus-like
agents cause a variety of diseases in perennial fruit crops,
including tree fruits, nut trees and grape vines. Once the
plant material is in the field, viral diseases cannot be
chemically controlled or eliminated from the plants. In order
to prevent these diseases from ever entering the field, plant
stocks must be quarantined to ensure they are virus free. The
Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the Washington
Clean Plant Program, to allow the existing quarantine facility
in Prosser, Washington, to retain the unique personnel
expertise necessary to stay open and continue to accept plant
material as it transitions into the National Clean Plant
Network. (Murray/Washington State University)
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $62,616,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection
program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2007 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
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $136,808,000 for the animal health monitoring and
surveillance program.
Animal Identification.--The Committee recommendation
includes $19,827,000 to continue implementation of the National
Animal Identification System [NAIS]. The Committee notes that
APHIS carried over $25,697,000 of NAIS funds into fiscal year
2007, increasing the amount of funds available for NAIS. The
Committee is aware of the strong interest among livestock
producers, processors, and the public in the NAIS. Although the
Department has worked on the development of such a system for a
number of years, the direction of this system remains unclear.
The Committee notes that the Government Accountability Office
[GAO] is currently conducting a review of NAIS. The Committee
looks forward to reviewing GAO's findings.
Bio-safety.--The Committee recommendation includes $322,000
to address bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant
strains of bacterial pathogens in the State of Vermont. (Leahy/
University of Vermont)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee
recommendation includes $17,395,000 to continue the ongoing BSE
surveillance program. The Committee also includes $2,475,000
for the Comprehensive Surveillance System which will further
enhance animal surveillance.
Conservation Science.--The Committee recommendation
includes $49,000 for the Conservation Science Department at
Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, Illinois. The intent of this
funding is for the science centers at Lincoln Park Zoo to
collaborate with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums to
improve and monitor the techniques, processes, and systems to
prevent disease transfer and ensure sustainability and
maintenance of health in zoo populations nationwide, as well as
in endangered species in managed populations around the world.
(Durbin/Lincoln Park Zoological Society)
Disease Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,818,000 to work with North Dakota State University
and Dickinson State University to develop, test, and implement
the use of RFID tags for animal identification, strengthening
pathogen diagnostic and identification capabilities and
pinpointing problem areas in the traceback systems and methods
to resolve them. (Dorgan, Conrad/North Dakota State University
and Dickinson State University)
National Animal Health Laboratory Network.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,498,000 for National Animal Health
Laboratory Network cooperative agreements.
National Farm Animal Identification and Records.--The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to allow additional
producers to participate in the National Farm Animal
Identification and Records Project, which electronically
identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from
birth to slaughter within 48 hours in order to combat animal
disease outbreaks. (Leahy/Holstein Association)
New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $542,000 for the New Mexico
Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection
and reporting system for infectious animal diseases. (Domenici,
Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,980,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection to continue work carried out by the
Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium. The Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium serves as a national model
and laboratory for premise registration, a critical first step
for nationwide animal identification efforts. This work is key
to national efforts to improve the traceability of livestock
and manage potential animal diseases thereby protecting public
health and safety. (Kohl/Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection)
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $12,728,000 for the animal and plant health regulatory
enforcement program to support Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.
Emergency Management Systems
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $15,834,000 for emergency management systems. This
includes an increase of $1,000,000 to increase emergency
coordination capacity and to expand emergency response planning
efforts, and an increase of $1,000,000 to build capacity
dedicated to planning, coordinating, and effectively responding
to federally-declared disasters and emergencies that threaten
the safety and well-being of animals.
National Veterinary Stockpile.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,977,000 for the National Veterinary
Stockpile.
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza [HPAI]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $47,514,000 for highly pathogenic avian influenza. In
addition, the Committee notes that APHIS carried $28,527,000 of
the fiscal year 2006 supplemental funds for HPAI into fiscal
year 2007. Further, the Committee expects the Secretary, if
appropriate, to transfer additional funds from the Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza program making a total of
$61,321,000 available for avian influenza activities for fiscal
year 2008. The potential for the introduction and spread of
HPAI into the United States is taken very seriously by the
Committee and full recognition is given to the important role
of USDA in meeting the animal surveillance and health
responsibilities associated with the threat to both agriculture
and human health. The Committee encourages the Department to
consider the need to adequately stockpile supplies necessary to
stop the spread of the disease and to ensure adequate training,
outreach and communication resources are in place to maximize
the efficiency of response capabilities.
Delmarva Peninsula.--The Committee is aware of the large
poultry industry on the Delmarva Peninsula and the presence of
live poultry markets in the Mid-Atlantic region. In preparation
for a possible introduction of highly pathogenic avian
influenza into the United States, the location and
concentration of this industry, and its proximity to high human
population centers and the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds,
require serious response capabilities. Accordingly, the
Committee encourages the Secretary to work with appropriate
Delaware State officials and with the University of Delaware,
to develop proper surveillance, diagnostic, and response
systems.
Pest Detection
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $31,437,000 for pest detection. This includes
increases of $1,200,000 to enhance survey infrastructure,
$800,000 for additional Cooperative Agricultural Pest Surveys,
and $800,000 to expand a formal international information
collection program. 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.
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $831,000 to continue the
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program, which is
a statewide network of insect traps and other detection tools
to serve as an early warning system against serious
agricultural pests in the State of California. (Feinstein,
Boxer/California Department of Food and Agriculture)
Import Inspection.--California's agricultural industry is
highly susceptible to exotic pests due to its international
border and as home to some of the Nation's busiest seaports.
The California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program is
operated at points of entry in California to prevent the
establishment of serious agricultural and environmental
invasive pests and diseases. This funding will address the
growing of interstate shipments from international ports of
entry in other States, where inspectors are not monitoring for
the pests that could devastate California agriculture. The
Committee recommendation includes $990,000 for this program.
(Feinstein/California Department of Food and Agriculture)
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT
Aquaculture
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,069,000 for the aquaculture program.
Cormorant and Pelican Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $573,000 to continue telemetry and
population dynamics studies and operations to develop
environmentally and economically sustainable methods to help
catfish farmers manage cormorant and pelican populations.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,800,000 for the control of VHS in
the Great Lakes States, and to assist with compliance of the
Federal order issued in October 2006, which stopped the
interstate movement of more than three dozen species of live
fish that are susceptible to VHS unless they are certified to
be free of VHS.
Boll Weevil
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for the boll weevil program under the newly
established cotton pests program. The amount available for the
boll weevil program in the cotton pests program is $38,619,000.
Brucellosis Eradication
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,874,000 for brucellosis eradication.
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee.--The
Committee recommendation includes $929,000 for the Greater
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to continue
brucellosis prevention, surveillance, control, and eradication.
The Committee 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.
(Craig, Baucus, Enzi, Thomas/Idaho State Department of
Agriculture, Montana Department of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock
Board)
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $18,268,000 for 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
recommendation includes $1,732,000 for the State of Wisconsin
(Kohl/Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection), $244,000 for the State of Utah (Bennett/Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food), and $50,000 for the State
of Colorado (Allard, Salazar/Colorado Department of
Agriculture).
Cotton Pests
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $43,807,000 for the cotton pests program, of which
$38,619,000 is for boll weevil and $5,188,000 is for pink
bollworm.
Emerging Plant Pests
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $126,514,000 for the emerging plant pests program. The
Committee expects the Secretary to make funds available from
the CCC for activities related to plant pests in fiscal year
2008, as necessary.
Asian Long Horned Beetle.--The Committee recommendation
includes $20,007,000 for Asian long horned beetle, including
$470,000 for Illinois. (Durbin/City of Chicago and Illinois
Department of Natural Resources)
Citrus Health Response Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $34,409,000 for the citrus health
response program.
Citrus Long Horned Beetle.--The Committee notes that APHIS
signed a cooperative agreement with the Washington State
Department of Agriculture to survey and eradicate the citrus
long horned beetle. The Committee recognizes that the citrus
long horned beetle presents a severe threat to hardwood trees
and tree fruit crops, and urges APHIS to direct the resources
necessary to eradicate the citrus long horned beetle.
Emerald Ash Borer.--The Committee recommendation includes
$25,862,000 for emerald ash borer, including $2,000,000 for
Illinois. (Durbin/Illinois Department of Natural Resources).
This invasive species has been found in Illinois, Indiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Committee
recognizes that the emerald ash borer, which poses a
significant threat to the Nation's population of ash trees, has
the potential to cause significant economic and ecological
damage, and that further efforts are required to manage the
spread of emerald ash borer and develop techniques and
technologies to eradicate this species.
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,175,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter.
Karnal Bunt.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,507,000 for karnal bunt.
Light Brown Apple Moth.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for Light Brown Apple Moth.
Potato Cyst Nematode.--The Committee recommendation
includes $12,800,000 for potato cyst nematode.
Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramora).--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,111,000 for sudden oak death. The
Committee encourages APHIS to use this funding to promote the
research, development and testing of new systems of nursery
pest and disease management and programs of inspection and
regulation to prevent the introduction of and spread of plant
pests and diseases; for sampling of high risk plant material in
commercial nurseries outside those states regulated under the
Emergency Order for P. ramorum; and, for diagnostic tools to
minimize the problem of false-positive results. The Committee
requests a report, within 120 days of the enactment of this
act, that examines the effectiveness of current regulatory and
inspection efforts; delivers an assessment of the potential
risk from infected plant material shipped prior to the
Emergency Order; and the risk posed by the importation into the
United States of P. ramorum host and associated host plants and
the interstate movement of such plant material.
Grasshopper
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $7,474,000 for the grasshopper program.
Mormon Crickets.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the
State of Utah (Bennett/APHIS Utah) to prepare necessary
environmental documents and continue control measures, and
$1,500,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the
State of Nevada (Reid/APHIS Nevada), including survey, control,
and eradication of crickets.
Johne's Disease
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $13,140,000 for Johne's disease to expand APHIS'
efforts to coordinate State certification programs for herd-
testing, and to provide assistance to States to develop herd
management plans that comply with APHIS' 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. The Committee recommendation includes $1,244,000
for Johne's activities in the State of Wisconsin. (Kohl/
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection)
Low Pathogen Avian Influenza [LPAI]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $13,807,000 for Low Pathogen Avian Influenza. The
Committee notes an additional $12,000,000 is available to
indemnify poultry producers that experienced losses due to
avian influenza. The Committee also notes that this funding has
not been obligated and will be available for fiscal year 2008.
Noxious Weeds
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,908,000 for the noxious weeds program.
Cogongrass Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$297,000 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. (Cochran/Mississippi Department of
Agriculture)
Nevada Weed Management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $49,000 for a weed management program with the State
of Nevada to control invasive weeds on rangelands that threaten
the viability of Nevada's agricultural economy. (Reid/Nevada
Department of Agriculture)
Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to
increase the availability and distribution of biological
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system.
(Craig, Crapo/Nez Perce Tribe)
Pink bollworm
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for the pink bollworm program under the newly
established cotton pests program. The amount available for the
pink bollworm program in the cotton pests program is
$5,188,000.
Tuberculosis
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $16,050,000 for the tuberculosis program, including an
increase of $1,000,000 to enhance surveillance and testing.
Bovine Tuberculosis in New Mexico.--The Committee is aware
of an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in New Mexico. In
response, a memorandum of understanding has been executed
between USDA and the State. The Committee urges the Secretary
to use authorities and resources of the Department to provide
testing, monitoring, surveillance, and other services, as
needed, toward the control and eradication of this disease.
Tuberculosis Transmission.--The Committee is concerned
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the
agency to continue 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.
Wildlife Services Operations
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $76,762,000 for wildlife services operations. The
Committee does not concur with the budget 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
provides 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.
Beaver Management and Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $633,000 for beaver management and
control in the state of Mississippi (Cochran/APHIS
Mississippi). The Committee expects the agency to make the
fiscal year 2008 level of funding available to all counties in
the State. 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
recommendation also includes $297,000 for beaver management and
control in the State of North Carolina (Dole/APHIS North
Carolina).
Blackbird Management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $378,000 to conduct methods development and continue
control measures for minimizing blackbird damage in North and
South Dakota (Dorgan, Johnson, Conrad/APHIS North and South
Dakota). The Committee recommendation also includes $134,000
for blackbird management activities in Louisiana (Landrieu,
Vitter/APHIS Louisiana) and $170,000 for Kansas (Roberts/APHIS
Kansas).
Cooperative Livestock Protection Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for the Cooperative Livestock
Protection Program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
provide technical and operational assistance in identifying,
controlling, and abating damage, animal health problems, and
economic losses caused by black vultures, Canadian geese,
European starlings, coyotes, and other wildlife. (Specter/APHIS
Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture)
Cormorant Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$664,000 for cormorant management and control, which includes
$198,000 for the State of Michigan (Levin, Stabenow/APHIS
Michigan), $148,000 for the Lake Champlain basin (Leahy/APHIS
Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department), and $318,000
for Delta States' operations. (Cochran/APHIS Mississippi)
Integrated Predation Management Activities.--The Committee
recommendation includes $400,000 for integrated predation
management activities in the State of West Virginia. (Byrd/
APHIS West Virginia)
Oral Rabies Vaccination.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,513,000 for rabies control activities. The
Committee expects a portion of the program increase to be
available for rabies activities in the Appalachian region and
to further progress already made along the Appalachian Ridge to
control this disease.
Tri-State Predator Control.--Due to the increase in
federally listed endangered species and the reintroduction of
wolf populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, State operation
accounts for wildlife services have suffered financially,
therefore the Committee recommendation includes $1,324,000 for
the tri-State predator control program in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming to respond to wolf depredation and monitor wolf
populations. (Craig, Enzi, Thomas/APHIS Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming)
Western States.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,700,000 to continue wildlife control activities in Western
States.
Wildlife Services, Hawaii.--The Committee recommendation
includes $400,000 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 recommends $940,000 for activities
in Hawaii and Guam to prevent movement of brown tree snakes
from Guam to Hawaii, which would be a major ecological disaster
for Hawaii, and for expanding efforts to control coqui frog
infestations. (Inouye, Akaka/APHIS Hawaii)
Wildlife Services South Dakota.--The Committee
recommendation includes $742,000 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. (Johnson/South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks)
ANIMAL CARE
Animal Welfare
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $21,126,000 for the animal care unit for enforcement
of the Animal Welfare Act.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
Biotechnology Regulatory Services
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $13,122,000 for biotechnology regulatory services.
Genetically Modified Products.--The Committee
recommendation includes $371,000 for a national institute at
Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation,
and communication for genetically modified agricultural
products. (Harkin, Grassley/Iowa State University)
Plant Methods Development Laboratories
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,828,000 for the Plant Methods Development
Laboratories Program. This includes an increase of $1,000,000
for the development of detection and control tools to contain
and eradicate the emerald ash borer.
Sericea Lespedeza.--The Committee recognizes both the
importance of sericea lespedeza as a field crop in the
Southeastern United States and the environmental challenges
sericea lespedeza poses to ecosystems in tallgrass prairielands
in the Great Plains region. The Committee recommends that APHIS
provide Federal field crop designations for serices lespedeza
on a regional basis so that conservation programs in tallgrass
prairie regions where sericea lespedeza is an invasive species
can partner with USDA to find economically and ecologically
appropriate controls.
Veterinary Diagnostics
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,556,000 for veterinary diagnostics.
Disease Prevention.--The Committee recommendation includes
$100,000 to develop diagnostics, treatment and prevention for
diseases, including West Nile Virus, infecting farm-raised
reptiles. Research has confirmed that reptiles are a major
vector for West Nile Virus, and the spread of this disease
appears to be escalating, posing a significant human health
risk and a great economic cost to the farming industry.
(Landrieu, Vitter/Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries)
National Agriculture Biosecurity Center.--The Committee
recommendation includes $371,000 for the National Agriculture
Biosecurity Center in the State of Kansas to help protect
agricultural infrastructure and economy from endemic and
emerging biological threats. (Brownback, Roberts/National
Agriculture Biosecurity Center Kansas State University)
Wildlife Services Methods Development
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $18,279,000 for wildlife services methods development.
Berryman Institute.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 to continue the existing program at the Jack
Berryman Institute for addressing wildlife damage management
issues, including wildlife disease threats and wildlife
economics. This amount includes $664,000 to continue the
cooperative relationship with the Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station and $836,000 for the Jack Berryman
Institute in Utah. (Bennett, Cochran/Jack Berryman Institute
and the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment
Station)
National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi.--The
Committee recommendation includes $343,000 to continue existing
research efforts in aquaculture at the National Wildlife
Research Center field station in the State of Mississippi.
(Cochran/Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment
Station and Mississippi State University)
National Wildlife Research Station, Texas.--The Committee
recommendation includes $415,000 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. (Hutchison/National
Wildlife Research Station and Texas A&M;)
Predator Research Station, Utah.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,386,000 for ongoing activities at
the Utah Predator Research Station, including research on the
ecology of wildlife depredation, reproductive intervention
strategies for managing wildlife depredation, and sensory and
behavioral methods for managing wildlife depredation on
livestock. (Bennett/APHIS Utah, Utah State University, Colorado
State University)
Rodent Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$231,000 to continue the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control in active
agricultural areas to contain and prevent the damage caused to
Hawaii's agriculture. (Inouye, Akaka/APHIS Hawaii) The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for rodent control
on the Aleutian Islands to restore seabird nesting habitats.
(Stevens/APHIS Alaska)
COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES
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, 2007.................................... $4,946,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 8,931,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,946,000
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,946,000 for
buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $74,937,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 74,988,000
Committee recommendation................................ 80,145,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by more than 50 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 (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders,
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market
protection and promotion activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,145,000
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Farmers' Market Promotion Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the Farmers' Market
Promotion Program, as requested in the budget.
Horticulture Marketing.--The Committee is aware of an
innovative urban horticulture planning, development, and
marketing project in the State of Illinois. The Committee
encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and
financial assistance to the Windy City Harvest initiative.
Meat Marketing Program.--The Committee is aware of the
growing number of goat herds in the Western United States, and
encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and
financial assistance to Eastern Oklahoma State College's Meat
Goat Management program.
Organics.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,180,000
for the National Organic Program [NOP]. The Committee is aware
that an audit performed by the American National Standards
Institute [ANSI] in 2004 and by the USDA Office of Inspector
General [OIG] in 2005 made strong recommendations about changes
needed in the administration of the NOP, and expects the agency
to provide a written report to the Committee by December 31,
2007, regarding the progress in implementing these
recommendations. In addition, the Committee expects a report
regarding the complaints that the NOP has received about
violations of the organic standards, and the progress of the
agency in investigating and responding to those complaints. The
Committee further expects the NOP to work closely with the
National Organic Standards Board to implement the Peer Review
Panel requirements of Organic Foods Production Act and USDA's
organic regulations. Finally, the Committee is aware of a
Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] between the Risk Management
Agency and AMS regarding the collection of organic price data
on certain commodities, and supports continuation of this MOU.
Specialty Crop Block Grants.--The Committee recommendation
includes $7,000,000 for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.
The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program was authorized in 2004
to provide state assistance for specialty crops, defined as
fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery
crops. According to USDA, to be eligible for a grant, a project
must enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops, through
activities including, but not limited to research, promotion,
marketing, nutrition, trade enhancement, food safety, food
security, plant health programs, education, ``buy local''
programs, increased consumption, increased innovation, improved
efficiency and reduce costs of distribution systems,
environmental concerns and conservation, product development,
and developing cooperatives.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2007........................................ $62,211,000
Budget limitation, 2008................................. 61,233,000
Committee recommendation................................ 61,233,000
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 (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $61,233,000 on
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $16,425,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 16,798,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,798,000
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 2006-2008:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2006-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............ $6,481,777,400 $7,029,269,059 $7,563,683,777
Rescission............................................ -37,601,000 -37,601,000 -65,452,000
Supplemental Appropriation............................ ................ ................ ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service............................ -5,187,621,000 -5,731,073,000 -6,235,057,000
Commerce Department................................... -79,284,400 -82,817,059 -84,594,777
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -5,266,905,400 -5,813,890,059 -6,319,651,777
=====================================================
Budget Authority.......................................... 1,177,271,000 1,177,778,000 1,178,580,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year.............. 286,159,865 146,760,123 262,399,000
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................... 60,039,191 100,000,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Available for Obligation.................................. 1,523,470,056 1,424,538,123 1,440,979,000
Less Obligations:
Commodity Procurement:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commod- 463,792,156 465,000,000 465,000,000
ities)...........................................
12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement............ 86,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000
State Option Contract............................. ................ 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities.................. ................ 1,000,000 1,000,000
Emergency Surplus Removal......................... 81,010,295 65,114,820 ................
Direct Payments................................... 700,000,000 110,000,000 ................
Disaster Relief................................... 1,900,880 25,000,000 5,000,000
Estimated Future Needs............................ ................ 242,970,303 416,325,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement.................... 1,332,703,331 1,114,085,123 1,092,325,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support........................ 28,865,511 31,629,000 21,856,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders................... 15,141,091 16,425,000 16,798,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds..................... 44,006,602 48,054,000 38,654,000
=====================================================
Total Obligations............................... 1,376,709,933 1,162,139,123 1,140,979,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................ 146,760,123 262,399,000 310,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $16,798,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders.
Commodity Purchases.--The Committee is aware that red
raspberry imports from Chile have displaced domestic red
raspberry producers, particularly in Washington State, and have
created a domestic surplus. The Committee encourages the
Department to use all existing authorities under the section 32
program and other programs to purchase surplus domestic red
raspberries.
Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing
power of producers. This practice has been used on various
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this
authority, but believes that communication between the
Department and the Congress should be improved when this
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,334,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,334,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,834,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,834,000 for
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities. The Committee directs that $2,500,000
be provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection for the development of specialty
markets. This funding is used by the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, which provides
business consulting, market evaluation, and strategic planning
assistance to cheese makers who are starting out or
contemplating expansion. Funds are also used to provide
competitive grants for producer modernization and grazing
transition, and for value chain and commodity innovation grants
for dairy processors. Federal funds for these efforts are
supplemented with an equal dollar match from the State and non-
Federal public and private sponsors. (Kohl/Wisconsin Department
of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $37,785,000
Budget estimate, 2008x.................................. 44,385,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,115,000
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 (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) 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 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,115,000
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
Marketing of Grain.--The Committee understands that GIPSA
is assessing how to facilitate the efficient marketing of grain
by augmenting, not supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The
Committee encourages the Department to continue the cooperative
relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the
Illinois Corn Growers Association, including the ongoing study
of process verification systems and protocols.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2007........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2008................................. 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 limitation of $42,463,000 on
inspection and weighing services expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $600,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 659,000
Committee recommendation................................ 632,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $632,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $892,136,000
Budget estimate, 2008x.................................. 930,120,000
Committee recommendation................................ 930,620,000
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 (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $930,620,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Baseline Studies.--The nationwide microbiological baseline
studies of raw beef, pork, chicken, turkey, and ground products
conducted by FSIS are designed to provide an unbiased and
representative estimate for the prevalence and levels of select
foodborne pathogens and process control indicators, important
in ensuring that any risk-based inspection system is effective.
Baseline studies, when repeated over time, provide valuable
information on the effectiveness and progress made as a result
of FSIS implemented risk based food safety policies and
initiatives. Therefore, the Committee directs that no less than
$2,000,000 be used for baseline studies.
Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$3,737,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex
office including international outreach and education.
Controlled Atmosphere Stunning [CAS].--The Committee is
aware of a new technology known as Controlled Atmosphere
Stunning, in which a mixture of gasses can be used to render
poultry unconscious before slaughter. The Committee understands
that two major retailers have established a purchasing
preference for suppliers who utilize CAS, and other industry
leaders have expressed interest. The Committee directs FSIS to
investigate the humaneness of this approach as compared to
other methods of stunning poultry and report back to the
Committee within 120 days on its evaluation of CAS. The report
shall also include an analysis of food safety, FDA-regulatory
issues, international trade issues, estimated costs for full
scale implementation of CAS in the poultry industry, and
implementation feasibility.
Cost of Living.--The Committee recommendation includes an
increase of $27,331,000 for cost of living increases, as
requested in the budget. This includes $19,178,000 for pay
costs, $5,353,000 for two extra work days in 2008, and
$2,800,000 for Federal employee benefits. The Committee
understands that 80 percent of the FSIS budget is spent on
salaries and expenses, and the mandate to provide continuous
inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products makes salary
costs inflexible. Further, the Committee provided necessary
funding in fiscal year 2007 for FSIS to hire an additional 78
front-line inspectors and an additional 13 investigative staff.
The Committee understands that the funding level provided is
sufficient to fully fund all required pay and benefit costs for
FSIS in fiscal year 2008 at the increased staff level.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee is pleased that the budget
request included $3,000,000 for maintenance of the Humane
Animal Tracking System [HATS]. The Committee recommendation
includes full funding, and notes that maintenance of this
system will include costs such as monthly access fees, hardware
servicing, remote maintenance charges, and any additional
personnel costs. The additional personnel costs could include
staff support required to configure and service equipment, as
well as personnel to provide technical support via the help
desk.
The Committee recommends the amount requested in the budget
to maintain the 83 full-time equivalent positions which have
been increased for this purpose above the fiscal year 2002
level. The Committee strongly feels that a portion of that FTE
increase should be used to allow additional FSIS personnel to
continue to work cooperatively with the existing District
Veterinary Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose duties are
specifically tied to HMSA enforcement, in order to increase the
number of facility visits by FSIS personnel with special
expertise in HMSA enforcement, and to allow each DVMS better
opportunities to visit facilities in other FSIS districts to
enhance communication and problem solving among all districts.
Regulatory and Scientific Training.--The Committee
recommendation fully funds scientific and regulatory training
at no less than $20,653,000. The Committee reminds FSIS that
training of inspectors is a cornerstone of public health
protection and directs the agency to continue to provide
training for all levels of inspectors from initial training for
new inspectors to advanced training for more senior inspectors.
Risk-Based Inspection System [RBI].--The Committee is aware
of FSIS' intentions to implement a risk-based inspection system
for processing at 30 prototype locations. The Committee is
further aware that under the proposed risk-based inspection
system, FSIS intends to allocate resources at each processing
establishment based upon the inherent risk of product produced
at the establishment and a measure of the amount of actual risk
control achieved by each processing establishment. There have
been significant concerns raised regarding the type and amount
of data FSIS is collecting and will have at its disposal upon
implementation of RBI, and the Office of the Inspector General
is currently studying the RBI proposal. The Committee directs
FSIS to provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the
implementation of risk-based inspection, and to carry out a
full evaluation of the pilot program before expanding to any
locations beyond the 30 prototype locations.
State Equal to Status.--The Committee recommendation
includes $63,947,000 for State meat inspection costs, which is
$500,000 more than the administration's request. About 2,100
meat and poultry establishments are inspected under State Meat
and Poultry Programs, and many of these establishments are
small or very small. FSIS reimburses States up to 50 percent of
the estimated costs of administering State inspections, and has
historically provided the full 50 percent of States' documented
need. In fiscal year 2006, FSIS reimbursements to the States
fell below 50 percent for the first time in nearly 30 years,
and it is the Committee's understanding that the funding level
provided will allow FSIS to resume providing 50 percent of the
documented need by the States.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2007 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2008 budget Committee
2007 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food safety inspection:
Federal..................................................... 793,738 831,490 831,490
State....................................................... 61,906 63,447 63,947
International............................................... 17,862 18,472 18,472
Codex Alimentarius.............................................. 3,680 3,737 3,737
PHDCIS.......................................................... 14,950 12,974 12,974
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 892,136 930,120 930,620
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $632,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 695,000
Committee recommendation................................ 666,000
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
economic 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $666,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
Export Credit.--The Committee supports the General Sales
Manager [GSM] export credit program, including the
implementation of effective regional GSM programs, and expects
USDA to fully utilize this program to expand markets for U.S.
agricultural goods. The Committee expects USDA to set risk-
based fees to cover, and not exceed, long-term operating costs
and losses of the program. USDA should be flexible and
implement adjustments to risk-based fees as necessary to ensure
program effectiveness and enhance the competitiveness of U.S.
exports. The Committee expects that USDA will seek input from
the private sector when evaluating country risk. The Committee
believes fee schedules and country risk determinations should
be reviewed regularly and modified in response to material
changes in country risk conditions.
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, 2007......................................... 1,030,193 306,859 1,337,052
Supplemental appropriation, 2007............................. 37,500 ............... 37,500
Budget estimate, 2008........................................ 1,228,662 319,517 1,548,179
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,160,662 317,992 1,478,654
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,160,662,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
recommends that funds be allocated to purchase high resolution
satellite imagery data or products to meet programmatic
requirements. The acquisition of high resolution satellite
imagery will also encourage the development of second
generation imagery satellites, which is key to preparing our
Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace with 21st century
technological innovation.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $4,208,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,750,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
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
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. The authorization for this program was extended
through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109-17. Grants are made
to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the
FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of
the State's agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,750,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $3,713,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 3,713,000
This program is authorized under section 2502 of Public Law
107-171. It is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,713,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $100,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 for
the Dairy Indemnity Program.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to provide direct and guaranteed 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.
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:
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by
providing FSA loans.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
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. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
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.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
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 (Public Law 93-638) 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of
$3,450,903,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program Account.
Emergency Loan Program.--The Committee recommends no new
budget authority for the emergency loan program. Currently,
this loan program has over $60,000,000 available for eligible
producers. Based on historical loan activity, this amount
should meet all needs for emergency loans in this fiscal year.
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
2007 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2007 enacted 2008 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................... 207,642 223,857 223,857
Guaranteed............................................... 1,386,000 1,200,000 1,247,400
Farm operating:
Direct................................................... 643,500 629,595 579,150
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 1,138,500 1,000,000 1,024,650
Guaranteed subsidized.................................... 271,886 250,000 271,886
Indian tribe land acquisition................................ 2,000 3,960 3,960
Boll weevil eradication...................................... 100,000 59,400 100,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans...................................... 3,749,528 3,366,812 3,450,903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed Transfer to Total ACIF
Direct loan loan Total Appropriations FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007........... 86,248 63,539 149,787 311,229 303,309 461,016
Budget estimate, 2008.......... 89,983 62,350 152,333 319,657 311,737 471,990
Committee recommendation....... 83,581 66,057 149,638 318,150 310,230 467,788
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
2007 enacted 2008 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 8,700 9,962 9,962
Guaranteed........................................... 8,039 4,800 4,990
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 75,225 79,896 73,494
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 28,121 24,200 24,797
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 27,379 33,350 36,270
Indian tribe land acquisition............................ 423 125 125
Boll weevil eradication.................................. 1,900 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................ 149,787 152,333 149,638
ACIF expenses................................................ 311,229 319,657 318,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $76,658,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 79,062,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,833,000
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, 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,833,000
for the Risk Management Agency.
Data Mining.--The Committee includes bill language, as
requested by the administration, to allow up to $11,166,000 of
the unobligated funds of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Fund to be used for program compliance and integrity purposes,
including the data mining projects, and for the Common
Information Management System.
Risk Management Education Program.--The Risk Management
Education Program was established under section 133 of the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. This program operates
through the four regional Risk Management Education Centers to
educate agricultural producers on the full range of risk
management strategies and tactics, including futures, options,
agricultural trade options, crop insurance, cash forward
contracting, debt reduction, production diversification, farm
resources risk reduction, and other risk management strategies.
The Committee notes that $5,000,000 is made available annually
to both RMA and CSREES for this program.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2007 \1\................................ $4,379,256,000
Budget estimate, 2008 \1\............................... 4,818,099,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 4,818,099,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $4,818,099,000 for the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
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 (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) (2002 Act),
enacted May 13, 2002.
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.
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, 2007 \1\................................ $23,098,328,000
Budget estimate, 2008 \1\............................... 12,983,000,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 12,983,000,000
\1\ Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2008 to be
$12,983,000,000 for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
CCC Inventories.--The Committee is aware that certain CCC
surplus commodities have been used to supplement various
programs, including support for domestic nutrition assistance.
In those instances where surplus nonfat dry milk stocks have
been used, information relating to the amount available and the
quality of those stocks is important for program planning. The
Committee directs the Department to provide monthly reports to
the Committee regarding ending monthly stocks of nonfat dry
milk. This report should include the amount of nonfat dry milk
in stock at the end of each month; the quality of those stocks,
including the quantity suitable for human consumption; detailed
information on how the nonfat dry milk was distributed during
the month; and the plans for distribution during the next
month.
The Committee directs the USDA through the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide, as stocks become available, 15 million
pounds of nonfat dry milk unsuitable for human consumption, to
the U.S. farm-raised catfish industry for evaluation as a
catfish feed ingredient. This product shall be provided at
prices and terms consistent with existing programs supporting
other U.S. agricultural industries.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2007........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 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 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). 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
The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for
Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste management.
FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... $4,660,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,660,000
The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program [FSFL], originally
established in 1949, was discontinued in the early 1980's
pending adequate capacity, and re-established in fiscal year
2000 to address current storage space shortages. Federal
Government subsidy costs supporting this program are estimated
pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA] of 1990
(Public Law 101-508, sec. 13201, et seq.) (2 U.S.C. 661, et
seq.). The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
directed the CCC to establish a Sugar Storage Facility Loan
Program to provide financing for domestic processors to
construct and improve sugar storage and handling facilities.
Administrative expenses for this program have been included in
the Salaries and Expenses account of the Farm Service Agency
[FSA], which administers the program. Following OMB guidance
(Circular A-11), FSA recently moved these expenses to the FSFL
account to comply with FCRA section 504(g) direction that all
funding for an agency's administration of a direct loan or loan
guarantee program shall be displayed as distinct and separately
identified subaccounts within the same budget account as the
program's cost (2 U.S.C. 661c).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,660,000 for
administration of the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $742,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 822,000
Committee recommendation................................ 781,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $781,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of
Maine. This project will restore nearly 1,000 miles of habitat
in the Penobscot watershed for endangered Atlantic salmon and
six other species of sea-run fish and 100 percent of the
historic habitat in Maine's largest river system for four
additional species. The Committee encourages NRCS to improve
migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including the
purchase of dams and the removal of impediments to passage, by
utilizing all appropriate funding sources.
Wetlands Reserve Program.--The Committee strongly
encourages the NRCS to establish a demonstration pilot program
utilizing rapid growth reforestation technology.
Wetlands Reserve Program Assessments.--In February 2006,
the Secretary announced a change in the Wetlands Reserve
Program that would take into account the value of recreational
and similar uses in determining the appraised value of
easements offered under this program. The Committee directs the
Secretary to minimize the effect this change will have in
regard to geographical participation in the Wetlands Reserve
Program and report to the Committee within 120 days of
enactment of this act on the impact this policy change may have
on utilization of this program in all regions of the country
and the steps taken to minimize such change.
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). The
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and
Federal and State agencies 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 flood damage and sedimentation.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $763,360,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 801,825,000
Committee recommendation................................ 862,996,000
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.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
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.
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $862,996,000
for Conservation Operations.
For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to continue a
community-based agricultural development and resource
conservation program with the four RC&D; Councils in Hawaii.
(Inouye, Akaka/Hawaii RC&D; Councils)
Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center [AWCC].--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the AWCC. The
AWCC is part of NRCS and supports the development of wildlife
habitat technology through a competitive grants program
available to many cooperative conservation partners, including
fish and wildlife conservation groups, universities, and State
agencies. The AWCC will ensure new technology is available to
farmers and ranchers nationwide through NRCS field offices.
(Cochran/Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center)
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.--The
Committee recommendation includes $916,000 for conservation
efforts in the State of Alaska. This project assists
conservation district cooperators and other land users in the
planning and application of conservation treatments. (Stevens/
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts)
Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed Inventory and Analysis.--The
Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for the Big Sandy
Watershed. This project will initiate watershed inventory and
analysis activities, which include identifying abandoned mine
lands, assessing associated water quality impacts, and
coordinating with partners to complete the master plan. (Byrd/
West Virginia Conservation Agency)
Carson City Erosion Control.--The Committee recommendation
includes $400,000 for the Carson City erosion control project
in the State of Nevada. In July 2004, Carson City suffered a
wildfire that burned over 8,700 acres. The purpose of this
project is to develop a plan for preventing future wildfires,
manage erosion control, and reforestation. (Ensign, Reid/Carson
City, Nevada)
Certified Environmental Management Systems for
Agriculture.--The Committee recommendation includes $400,000
for Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture.
This project guides the producer through planning,
implementing, evaluating and reviewing business decisions that
affect the environment. (Harkin, Grassley/Iowa Soybean
Association)
Conservation Education.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 for conservation education in the State of
Alabama. This project emphasizes the economic value of
improving wildlife habitat in the State. (Shelby/Alabama
Wildlife Federation)
Conservation Internship.--The Committee recommendation
includes $120,000 for conservation internships. Together with
State and local resources, these funds provide internships for
college students preparing for careers in natural resource
management. This real world training helps these emerging
natural resource professionals navigate the day-to-day
challenges faced by farmers and Federal, State, and local
natural resource planners. (Kohl/Wisconsin Land and Water
Conservation Association)
Conservation Planning.--The Committee recommendation
includes $600,000 for cranberry conservation work in the States
of Wisconsin and Massachusetts. The purpose of this project is
to help farmers increase cranberry production while reducing
the effects on the environment. Cranberry growers can develop
conservation plans to ensure that cranberry cultivation is done
in a manner that protects water quality, prevents soil erosion
and manages nutrient and pesticide use. (Kohl, Kennedy, Kerry/
NRCS Wisconsin/Massachusetts)
Conservation Technical Assistance.--The Committee
recommendation includes $350,000 for conservation technical
assistance in the State of New Jersey. These funds will address
water quality issues and small farm operations. In addition,
funding will provide technical assistance towards agricultural
operation in the New Jersey Highlands. (Lautenberg, Menendez/
NRCS New Jersey)
Conservation Technology Transfer.--The Committee
recommendation includes $700,000 for conservation technology
transfer in the State of Wisconsin. This program brings
together NRCS, the University of Wisconsin Extension, and the
University of Wisconsin Platteville in a collaborative effort
to demonstrate effective conservation practices. Working on
real farms under a variety of cropping and land use systems,
they help farmers adopt effective conservation practices that
have been tested under their local conditions. (Kohl/University
of Wisconsin)
Dairy Business Association.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 for environmental compliance in the State of
Wisconsin. This project helps agriculture producers comply with
Federal, State and local land use and environmental protection
initiatives. Together they will develop a model ``one stop''
program which will help producers efficiently navigate these
changing and multi-faceted requirements. (Kohl/ Wisconsin Dairy
Business Association)
Delta Conservation Demonstration.--The Committee
recommendation includes $600,000 for a demonstration project in
Washington County, Mississippi. This project will develop an
education and training program for the short and long term
natural resources conservation training needs of the NRCS, the
Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the
Soil and Water Conservation Districts. (Cochran/Washington
County, Mississippi)
Delta Water Study.--The Committee recommendation includes
$250,000 to address water supply and water quality concerns in
the Mississippi Delta. This project will address declining
groundwater supplies and low flows in streams as identified in
the Mississippi State Water Management Plan. (Cochran/NRCS
Mississippi)
Driftless Area Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $350,000 for conservation in the driftless area in the
States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. This project will help to
reduce the significant soil erosion, sedimentation, and run-off
affecting water quality in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Excess sediment and nutrients severely damage local rivers and
wetlands, and are being washed down the Mississippi River to
the Gulf of Mexico. (Kohl, Klobuchar/NRCS Wisconsin)
Farm Viability Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $350,000 for a farm viability program in the State of
Vermont. This program helps producers assess the long-term
viability of their farming operation by implementing plans to
improve their long-term business prospects. (Leahy/Vermont
Housing and Conservation Board)
Fort Hood Range Revegetation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 for range revegetation in the State of Texas.
This project addresses the removal of nutrients from the Bosque
watershed and application of those nutrients to promote
revegetation efforts on impacted Fort Hood training areas.
(Hutchison/Fort Hood, Bell County, Texas)
Geographic Information Systems Center of Excellence.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for the National
Geospatial Development Center in the State of West Virginia.
The center provides expertise in geographic information science
and remote sensing using a team of scientists, engineers, and
geographers that support conservation operations across the
country. (Byrd/National Geospatial Development Center)
Georgia Soil and Water Commission.--The Committee
recommendation includes $800,000 for a cooperative agreement in
the State of Georgia. This project provides agricultural water
storage facilities for irrigation of cropland and improves the
efficiencies of existing irrigation systems. (Chambliss,
Isakson/Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission)
Geospatial Framework for Water Management.--The Committee
recommendation includes $500,000 for comprehensive geospatial
framework for the State of New Mexico. This project will
acquire color infrared imagery and complete the comprehensive
geospatial framework of the entire State of New Mexico. This
should provide accurate information to manage New Mexico's
water resources. (Domenici/State of New Mexico, Office of the
State Engineer)
Grazing Land Conservation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $950,000 for grazing land conservation activities in
the State of Wisconsin. This project supports applied research,
on-farm demonstrations, education activities, and technical
services through the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection [DATCP] to support producers wishing to
switch to a grazing system or wanting to enhance their existing
systems. (Kohl/NRCS Wisconsin)
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $27,799,000 for the grazing lands
conservation initiative.
Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $600,000 for Great Lakes basin soil and
erosion control. Sediment from agriculture is a major
contaminant in drinking water. The goal of this program is to
prevent soil, nitrogen, and phosphorus from entering the Great
Lakes and regional waters by reducing soil erosion and
controlling sedimentation. (Clinton, Klobuchar, Levin, Schumer,
Stabenow/Great Lakes Commission)
Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity
Project.--The Committee recommendation includes $125,000 for a
cooperative agreement in the State of Kentucky. The goal of
this project is to monitor the water quality and biological
diversity of the Green River and surrounding watershed to
evaluate the effectiveness of state conservation efforts to
limit erosion in the watershed and mitigate pesticide and
nutrient loading from nearby agricultural operations.
(McConnell/Western Kentucky Research Foundation)
Houlka Master Water Management District.--The Committee
strongly encourages the Chief of the NRCS to settle claims
associated with the Houlka Master Water Management District.
Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for the Illinois
River Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of
Illinois. The goal of this ongoing project is to conduct
wetland demonstration projects to protect against flood damage,
reduce soil erosion and improve water quality associated with
the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers; and to facilitate
landowner adoption of multi-purpose soil, water and wetland
conservation practices in cooperation with local soil and water
conservation districts. (Durbin/Illinois Department of Natural
Resources)
Irrigation System Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $350,000 for an irrigation system program in the State
of Delaware. This project will provide better and current
technology for irrigation systems which is crucial to the
continued improvement of existing irrigation systems. This is
necessary both from agricultural viability and improved
environmental perspective. (Biden, Carper/Delaware Department
of Agriculture)
Kentucky Soil Erosion Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,075,000 for soil erosion control in
the State of Kentucky. The goal of this project is to plan,
design, construct, and implement best management practices to
protect the resource base and provide environmental benefits.
(McConnell, Bunning/NRCS Kentucky)
Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure
Delivery System.--The Committee recommendation includes
$200,000 for a gravity delivery system in the State of Idaho.
This project will convert an open canal gravity delivery system
to a closed gravity pressurized system which will result in
energy and water savings. (Craig/ Little Wood Irrigation
District, Carey, Idaho)
Loess Hills Soil Erosion.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 to address soil erosion in the Loess Hills
area in the State of Iowa. Streambed degradation in the loess
soils of western Iowa has caused damage to infrastructure and
loss of land. The goal of this project is to provide financial
and technical assistance for streambed stabilization projects;
to conduct research in effective methods of streambed
stabilization; and to provide demonstration of streambed
stabilization projects. (Harkin, Grassley/ Hungry Canyons
Alliance)
Mississippi Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,650,000 for the Mississippi
Conservation Initiative. This project assists several cities
and towns in Mississippi with drainage improvements. The
improvements consist of water retention ponds, de-snagging,
repair and technical assistance of existing dams, and
assistance with project development on several sites. (Cochran/
NRCS Mississippi)
Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource
Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes $100,000
for agriculture development and resource conservation on the
Island of Molokai, Hawaii. (Inouye, Akaka/Molokai RC&D;)
Native Plant Commercialization.--The Committee
recommendation includes $184,000 for native plant
commercialization in the State of Alaska. The goal of this
project is to produce and provide an adequate amount of native
plant materials for construction development projects, as
required by law. This program distributes plants to growers and
contributes plant materials for many conservation projects.
(Stevens/NRCS Alaska)
Natural Resources Inventory.--In previous fiscal years the
Committee has provided funding for a Natural Resources
Inventory pilot project in Alaska. The Committee requests a
report on the results of the pilot project. The report should
include a listing of areas inventoried during the project and
those areas yet to be inventoried.
Nitrate Pollution Reduction.--The Committee recommendation
includes $230,000 for nitrate pollution reduction in the State
of Rhode Island. This project would permit NRCS to work with
the University of Rhode Island, agricultural producers, and
rural residents to develop nitrate control strategies that
reduce nitrate contamination in aquifers and watersheds. (Reed/
NRCS Rhode Island)
On-Farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.--The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for an On-Farm
Management Systems Evaluation Network. The purpose of this
project is to coordinate a statewide network of growers using
GPS, yield monitors, and remote sensing technologies to improve
nitrogen management in corn. (Harkin, Grassley/Iowa Soybean
Association)
Operation Oak Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 for the Operation Oak Program. This program
supplies oak and other mast producing hardwood species
seedlings to landowners to meet the needs of timber production
and wildlife management and to reverse the decline of hardwood
regeneration in the South. (Chambliss, Graham, Lincoln, Pryor/
National Wild Turkey Federation)
Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain.--The Committee
recommendation includes $250,000 to reduce phosphorous loadings
to Lake Champlain in the State of Vermont. The phosphorous
levels in parts of Lake Champlain are so high that they cause
excessive algal growth. The goal of this project is to find new
agricultural and wastewater management technologies to reduce
phosphorous in the lake. (Leahy/Poultney Conservation District)
Plant Material Centers.--The Committee recommendation
includes $12,365,000 for NRCS plant material centers.
Potomac River Tributary Strategy.--The Committee
recommendation includes $250,000 for Potomac River tributary
strategy in the State of West Virginia. This project will
assist agriculture producers in the Potomac Highlands to
develop Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans to address
water quality issues in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed. (Byrd/NRCS West Virginia)
Rangeland Conservation and Fuels Management.--The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for rangeland conservation in
the State of Nevada. This project will provide assistance to
efficiently and effectively reduce the wildfire risks in
Nevada's wildland-urban interface communities. (Reid/Nevada
Fire Safety Council)
Riparian Restoration.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 for riparian restoration along the Rio
Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers in the State of New Mexico.
This project emphasizes restoration of areas affected by
invasive species. (Bingaman/New Mexico Association of Soil and
Water Conservation Districts)
Risk Management Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for a risk management initiative in the
State of West Virginia. This project provides on-farm technical
assistance to educate producers about planning better pasture
and livestock management to enhance economic development and
protect the environment. (Byrd/NRCS West Virginia)
Sand County Foundation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for the Sand County Foundation. This
project is operating a multi-year, multi-State experiment to
demonstrate, test, and evaluate the cost effectiveness of
techniques to reduce runoff of nitrogen from agricultural
practices. (Kohl/Sand County Foundation)
Small Farm Outreach.--The Committee recommendation includes
$200,000 for the Small Farm Outreach Wetlands Management
Center. Through this program, technical assistance is provided
in research, development and technology transfer of projects in
irrigation water management; groundwater preservation and
monitoring; soil conservation; rural natural resource
conservation and community development; wetlands; wildlife
habitat; and traditional and alternative crop production.
(Lincoln, Pryor/University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff)
Soil Phosphorus Studies.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 for soil phosphorus studies in the State of
West Virginia. This project supports farm operators,
particularly poultry and beef, to meet environmental
regulations regarding the management of phosphorus on their
lands by conducting soil analysis and building technical
information specific to the state. (Byrd/NRCS West Virginia)
Snow Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,950,000 for snow surveys.
Soil Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes
$92,148,000 for nationwide soil surveys. In addition, $200,000
is included for soil surveys in the State of Rhode Island
(Reed/NRCS Rhode Island) and $200,000 for soil surveys in the
State of Wyoming (Enzi, Thomas/NRCS Wyoming)
Technical Assistance Grants.--The Committee recommendation
includes $580,000 for technical assistance grants to Kentucky
Soil Conservation Districts. These funds will assist landowners
with the planning, design, and implementation of best
management practice to protect natural resources and ensure
that producers participating in farm bill conservation programs
receive adequate technical assistance. (McConnell, Bunning/
Kentucky Division of Conservation)
Union-Lincoln Parish Regional Water Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for a water
conservation project in the State of Louisiana. Because of
dependence on and depletion of the Sparta Aquifer in north
Louisiana and south Arkansas, it is necessary to consider
limitations on its continued use. The goal of this project is
to develop an alternative water supply for Union and Lincoln
Parishes. (Landrieu, Vitter/Union and Lincoln Parishes,
Louisiana)
U.S. Cold Regions Botanical Research Network.--The
Committee recommendation includes $184,000 for cold regions
botanical research in the State of Alaska. This project allows
the purchase, storage, and evaluation of plant material and the
seed of plants indigenous to cold regions. (Stevens/NRCS
Alaska)
Utah Conservation Initiative.--The committee recommendation
includes $3,650,000 for the Utah Conservation Initiative. This
project funds conservation projects throughout Utah, including
work focusing on water quality and quantity; invasive species;
and range, riparian, and wildlife habitat restoration.
(Bennett/NRCS Utah)
Water Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$500,000 for a water conservation project in the State of
Colorado. Because of declining water availability in the South
Platte River basin, combined with increasing demand for water
by competing interests, the implementation of new conservation
technologies is necessary. The goal of this project is to allow
the resumption of use of irrigation wells for agriculture and
continued water management for competing users. (Allard,
Salazar/Central Colorado Water Conservancy District)
Water Conservation and Efficient Irrigation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for a water conservation and
efficient irrigation project in the State of California. The
goal of this project is to conserve 30,000 acre-feet of water
in Orange County, California. (Feinstein, Boxer/Municipal Water
District of Orange County, California)
Water quality.--The Committee recommendation includes
$350,000 to improve water quality through the Utah confined
animal feed operation/animal feeding operation pilot project.
(Bennett/Utah Farm Bureau)
Watershed Demonstration Project.--The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for a watershed demonstration
project. The goal of this project is to document and
demonstrate progress in meeting national water quality
objectives for agriculture at a watershed level. The means to
accomplish this involves a partnership effort with local
producers, industry, researchers, and government agencies.
(Harkin, Grassley/NRCS Iowa)
Wildfire Support.--The Committee recommendation includes
$150,000 for wildfire support in the State of Nevada. This
project will conduct site-specific wildfire planning and
implementation assistance on private lands susceptible to
wildfire throughout the Winnemucca District of Nevada. (Reid/
Wildfire Support Group)
Wildlife Habitat Improvement.--The Committee recommendation
includes $150,000 for ongoing wildlife habitat improvement in
the State of Illinois. Wildlife professionals are concerned
about the rapid decline of prairie-dependent wildlife and
plants. This ongoing project would allow for hundreds of
thousands of additional acres of wildlife habitat to be
improved creating miles of corridors of natural prairie.
(Durbin/Illinois Department of Natural Resources)
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $6,056,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
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
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for
Watershed Surveys and Planning.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $33,450,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,450,000
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $31,309,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 5,807,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
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 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2505 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-171).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
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, 2007.................................... $51,088,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 14,653,000
Committee recommendation................................ 53,150,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,150,000
for Resource Conservation and Development.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $2,476,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 2,476,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,476,000
The healthy forests reserve program [HFRP] was authorized
by title V of Public Law 108-148 (16 U.S.C. 6571-6578). The
purpose of the HFRP is to restore and enhance forest ecosystems
to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
to improve biodiversity; and to enhance carbon sequestration.
The program operates on a voluntary basis with private
landowners utilizing cost-share agreements or easements of
varying duration. The Federal Government assists participating
landowners with the cost of the approved conservation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,476,000 for
the Healthy Forest Reserve Program.
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, 2007.................................... $632,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 695,000
Committee recommendation................................ 666,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $666,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
Program Outreach.--The Committee recognizes unique program
outreach challenges the Department faces to apprise rural
Hispanic residents and communities of the opportunities
available through Rural Development programs and technical
assistance. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to consider a cooperative agreement with the
Self Reliance Foundation, for the National Hispanic Rural
Communications Initiative.
Renewable Energy.--The Committee is concerned about the
effects high corn prices, due in large part to the use of corn
in ethanol production, are having on other areas of
agriculture, namely increased livestock feed prices, reductions
in the effectiveness of food aid resources, and increased costs
associated with domestic nutrition programs such as the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
[WIC]. The Committee encourages the Department to focus on a
broad range of renewable fuel feedstocks as part of their
various renewable fuel programs to the extent practicable.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee recognizes that the
community of Tchula, Mississippi, has requested technical and
programmatic assistance for housing, business,
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve
funds.
Rural Community Advancement Program
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $737,135,000
Budget estimate, 2008 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Proposed to be disaggregated and displayed under the Rural Community
Program Account, the Rural Business Program Account, and the Rural Water
and Waste Disposal Program account.
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP] was
authorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127), to consolidate 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.
Over time, as additional programs have been added, the RCAP
account display has become unwieldy. To improve clarity,
enhance understanding, and expedite budget processes the
administration proposed revising the presentation to place the
programs associated with each funding stream with its agency.
No changes are proposed to program operations or
implementation, including the ability to reallocate funds
within each stream as authorized under RCAP.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee accepts the proposal to display Rural
Community Advancement programs with their associated agencies.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 2008 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................ 161,298 208,194 175,302
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ 452,927 434,890 462,521
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 38,623 37,009 39,405
Program Account.........................................
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.............. 4,774 4,576 4,861
--------------------------------------------------
Total, RD salaries and expenses........................ 657,622 684,669 682,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $682,089,000 for salaries and
expenses of Rural Development, including a direct appropriation
of $175,302,000.
Inherent Function of Government.--The Committee expects
that none of the funds recommended 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.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the
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 a loan and grant level of
$5,748,613,000 for the Rural Housing Service housing programs.
Section 502 Single Family Housing Programs.--The Committee
recommends $1,129,391,000 for Direct Single Family Housing
loans and $3,561,111,000 for Unsubsidized Guaranteed Single
Family Housing loans. The Committee rejects the
administration's comprehensive Single Family Housing overhaul.
Termination of the flagship direct loan program with its long
history of unqualified success is unwarranted. Coupled with
this termination is a severe reduction in Mutual and Self Help
Housing grants, and elimination of the Self Help Land
Development loan program. The ensuing shortfall in low income
housing assistance would be made up by increasing unsubsidized
guaranteed loans, with a 50 percent guarantee fee increase, and
the promise of a legislative proposal for a subsidized
guaranteed program. No funding was sought for the subsidized
loan proposal, and no legislative proposal has been submitted.
The Committee is concerned with the lack of empirical
grounding for this plan. In spite of repeated requests, no
evidence was offered to demonstrate that adequate assistance
would be available for the low and very low income rural
residents who rely on existing programs. Absent verification
that guaranteed programs can reach the income levels existing
programs serve, the Committee rejects these radical changes.
Section 515/Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.--
The Committee recommends $33,423,000 to continue the
Department's efforts to address the preservation of the section
515 portfolio through financial options to project owners,
including vouchers. The Committee provided funding and this
authority in separate accounts in fiscal year 2007. The
Committee recommends $15,500,000 for rural housing vouchers,
$2,923,000 for the multi-family revolving loan demonstration
program, and $15,000,000 to restructure existing section 515
loans. The Committee provides statutory language to allow the
Secretary to transfer funding among the programs to meet
existing need. The Committee recognizes that the Department has
authorizing language currently under consideration by Congress
and provides the Secretary, upon enactment, the authority to
transfer funds made available under this heading to carry out
such legislation with prior approval of the Committee on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the section 515
program. In recent years a substantial amount of the section
515 appropriation has been used for needed repairs and
rehabilitation in the portfolio. The Committee believes project
rehabilitation can be more effectively performed through the
revitalization initiative. To that end, funding that would have
been used for section 515 repair and rehabilitation is provided
directly to the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program
Account.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2007 levels and the 2008 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2007 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct.................................................. 1,129,391 .............. 1,129,391
Unsubsidized guaranteed................................. 3,644,224 4,848,611 3,561,111
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................... 34,652 22,855 34,652
Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538)................... 99,000 200,000 150,000
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................... 99,000 .............. 70,000
Site loans (sec. 524)....................................... 5,000 5,045 5,045
Credit sales of acquired property........................... 11,485 11,408 11,485
Self-help housing land development fund..................... 4,998 .............. 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, RHIF (excluding multifamily housing preservation).. 5,027,750 5,087,919 4,966,684
===============================================
Farm Labor Program:
Farm labor housing loan level............................... 38,117 13,520 27,739
Farm labor housing grants................................... 13,860 4,000 10,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Program................................. 51,977 17,520 37,739
===============================================
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program: \1\
Rural housing voucher program............................... 15,840 27,800 15,500
Multifamily housing preservation............................ 94,989 .............. 146,850
Revolving loans demo........................................ 6,301 .............. 6,300
-----------------------------------------------
Total Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.......... 117,130 27,800 168,650
===============================================
Mutual and self-help housing.................................... 33,660 9,500 38,000
Rental assistance............................................... 616,020 567,000 496,950
Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG] (excluding multifamily 40,590 39,000 40,590
housing revolving loan fund)...................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing loans and grants..................... 5,887,127 5,748,739 5,748,613
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2007 housing vouchers were provided under the rural housing voucher program account,
multifamily housing preservation was provided under the rural housing insurance fund, and the revolving loans
demo was provided under rural housing assistance grants.
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
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), 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 terms up to 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.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the RHIF 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 2008, as well as for administrative expenses. The
following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to
the 2007 levels and the 2008 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 113,278 ............... 105,824
Unsubsidized guaranteed.............................. 42,641 10,070 42,495
Housing repair (sec. 504)................................ 10,240 6,461 9,796
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)............... 7,663 18,800 14,100
Rental housing (sec. 515)................................ 45,213 ............... 29,827
Site loans (sec. 524) \1\................................ ............... ............... ...............
Credit sales of acquired property........................ 721 523 552
Multifamily housing preservation \2\..................... 8,910 ............... ...............
Self-help housing land development fund.................. 123 ............... 142
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 228,789 35,854 202,736
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 452,927 434,890 462,521
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are calculated for this program.
\2\ Reflected under the multifamily housing revitalization program account in fiscal year 2008.
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Loan level level Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007.................. 38,117 18,277 13,860
Budget estimate, 2008................. 13,520 5,849 4,000
Committee recommendation.............. 27,739 12,000 10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,000,000
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... $27,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 33,423,000
The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been
prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the
difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent
prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in
existing projects or move to other rental housing.
The Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account
includes funding for housing vouchers, a multifamily revolving
loan demonstration program, and a demonstration program for the
preservation and revitalization of affordable multifamily
housing projects. Rural Development's multifamily housing
portfolio faces dual pressures for loan prepayments and repair/
rehabilitation stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in
deferred property maintenance. A recent study revealed that the
section 515 portfolio could be partitioned into three
components: properties in growing markets where it is
economically feasible for owners to prepay and leave the
program (about 10 percent of the portfolio); properties in
extremely depressed markets with substantial vacancies and
diminishing demand in which continuation is neither viable nor
needed (about 10 percent of the portfolio); and the balance (80
percent of the portfolio) that continues to provide essential
affordable rental housing but face varying degrees of deferred
maintenance and need for preservation and revitalization
assistance.
Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished
more economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather
than funding new construction. The Multifamily Housing
Revitalization Program Account includes revitalization tools
for maintenance of existing units and vouchers to protect
tenants in those projects that prepay. Flexibility is provided
to allow Rural Development to utilize funding among vouchers
and the two demonstration programs to meet the most urgent
local needs for tenant protection and project revitalization.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,423,000
for the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $616,020,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 567,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 496,950,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1490a) 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $496,950,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The
Committee includes statutory language requiring rental
assistance to be held in 514/516 projects for a minimum period
of time.
Due to difficulties in accurately estimating the number of
expiring rental assistance contracts each year, the Committee
includes language reducing the contract length for new rental
assistance contracts to 1 year. Recently contracts have ranged
from 2 to 5 years in length, but outside costs such as higher
insurance and energy costs have made the process to estimate
the number of expiring contracts very unreliable. Because of
this, unbudgeted expenditures have arisen over the past few
years to cover an increasing number of expiring contracts,
forcing various courses of action to cover the lack of funds.
The Committee feels shortening the contract term to 1 year will
allow the Department to more accurately anticipate the number
of expiring contracts, therefore making the budgetary
estimation and subsequent appropriation more accurate. The
Committee is aware of the increase in annual appropriations
which will be necessary in subsequent years to support this
change and will act accordingly.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $33,660,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 9,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,000,000
The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants 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 an appropriation of $38,000,000
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $43,603,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 39,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,590,000
The Rural Housing Assistance Grants 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 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,590,000
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2007 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 29,601 30,000 29,601
Supervisory and technical assistance......................... 990 ............... 990
Rural housing preservation grants............................ 9,900 9,000 9,900
Compensation for construction defects........................ 99 ............... 99
Multi-family housing preservation............................ 3,013 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 43,603 39,000 40,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL COMMUNITY PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2007..................................... $97,743,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 24,512,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 67,422,000
\1\ Committee recommendation does not reflect High Energy Cost grants,
which appear in Rural Utilities Services.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) 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,
healthcare, 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. Healthcare 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,422,000
for the Rural Community Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2007 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 2008 budget Committee
appropriation \1\ request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community facility direct loans............................. 19,038 16,784 16,484
Community facility guaranteed loans......................... 7,609 7,728 7,651
Community facility grants................................... 16,830 .............. 17,000
Economic impact initiative grants........................... 17,820 .............. 16,000
Rural community development initiative...................... 6,287 .............. 6,287
Tribal college grants....................................... 4,419 .............. 4,000
High Energy Cost grants..................................... 25,740 .............. ...............
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 97,743 24,512 67,422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 appropriation provided under RCAP.
Consideration to Applications.--Community Facilities loans
and grants provide financial assistance to construct, enlarge,
or otherwise improve essential community facilities for health
care, public safety and other essential public services. The
Committee has been made aware of and encourages the Department
to give consideration to applications relating to essential
community facilities for the following: Alpine County
Communications Infrastructure (California); Angel Fire Village
Plaza (New Mexico); Central Michigan University Center for
Children with Low-Incidence Disabilities (Michigan); city of
Beattyville/Lee County Emergency Operations Center (Kentucky);
city of Munising Fire and Police Building (Michigan); Claiborne
Parish Fire District 3 (Louisiana); Deer Creek Center (Oregon);
Delta Health Alliance (Mississippi); Deyo Reservoir (Idaho);
Eastern Oregon University Regional Center (Oregon); Fort
Edwards Health Center (New York); Germfask Township Community/
Senior Center Renovations (Michigan); Health Quest, Inc. (New
York); Japonski Island Infrastructure (Alaska); Lafourche
Parish Government Emergency Generators (Louisiana); Lake
Okeechobee Regional Hospital Flood Mitigation (Florida); Rural
Education Transportation Demonstration Project (Nevada);
village of Calumet Building Renovation (Michigan); and the
Weber County Communications System (Utah).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
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 BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2007..................................... $84,399,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 43,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,200,000
The Rural Business and Industry Loan 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 (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) 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 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $86,200,000
for the Rural Business Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2007 and budget
request levels:
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 2008 budget Committee
appropriation \1\ request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and industry guaranteed loans...................... 39,849 43,200 43,200
Rural business enterprise grants............................ 39,600 .............. 38,000
Rural business opportunity grants........................... 2,970 .............. 2,000
Delta Regional Authority grants............................. 1,980 .............. 3,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 84,399 43,200 86,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 appropriation provided under RCAP.
Rural Business Program Account.--The Committee recommends
$495,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs that of the $3,996,000 recommended
for grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, $248,000 be used to implement an American Indian and
Alaska Native passenger transportation development and
assistance initiative.
Consideration to Applications--Rural Business Opportunity
Grants, Rural Business Enterprise Grants, and Business and
Industry Guaranteed Loans.--The Committee has been made aware
of and encourages the Department to give consideration to
applications for rural business opportunity grants, rural
business enterprise grants, and business and industry
guaranteed loans for the following: Bio-Renewal Ethanol and Co-
Generation Plant (Louisiana); Center for Producer-Owned Energy
(Minnesota); Lake Providence Dry Ethanol Plant (Louisiana);
Northeast Organic Farmers Association (Vermont); the
Northeastern Vermont Development Association (Vermont); Odessa
Biodiesel and Oilseed Crushing Facility (Washington); Penobscot
Bay Commercial Kitchen (Maine); the Port of Umatilla Biodiesel
Plant (Oregon); the REI Rural Business and Resource Center at
Seminole State College (Oklahoma); Rhode Island RDC (Rhode
Island); the San Louis Valley Sustainable Environment and
Economic Development Park (Colorado); Snohomish County
Agricultural Industrial Park (Washington); the SUNY Fredonia
High Tech Incubator (New York); and Women in Technology
(Hawaii). In addition, the Committee encourages the Department
to consider applications for grants to rural public television
broadcasting systems.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 33,870 33,772 33,870
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 14,926 14,485 14,527
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,774 4,576 4,861
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2008, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,527,000
for Rural Development (intermediary relending) loans.
Consideration to Applications--Intermediary Relending
Program.--The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to give consideration to an application for the
intermediary relending program for the REI Rural Intermediary
Relending Program, (Oklahoma).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... 24,752 33,077 33,077
Direct loan subsidy \1\...................................... 5,406 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offset in 2007 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 (Act of May 20, 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 accepts the administration's proposal to fund
rural economic development loans from interest earnings on
cushion of credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $26,718,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 20,928,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,403,000
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 of 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 an appropriation of $26,403,000
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $3,000,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate
Technology (Kohl, Harkin, Johnson, McConnell, Specter, Leahy,
Baucus, Lincoln, Pryor, Tester/National Center for Appropriate
Technology, Butte, Montana).
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,473,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
Value Added.--The Committee recommends $17,475,000 for
value-added agricultural product market development grants.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $11,088,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants,
with the funds to be made available in the same manner and with
the same priorities as in fiscal year 2007.
Outmigration.--The Committee is concerned that rural
empowerment zones, particularly zones selected because of
outmigration, are having a difficult time successfully
competing for USDA Rural Development programs due primarily to
the fact that many programs are tied to household income
levels. Often, household income levels have very little to do
with the reasons for outmigration. Economic development efforts
in these zones cannot advance without additional funding from
competitive grant programs to supplement the funding that the
Committee has earmarked for the zones for the last several
years. USDA is directed to provide a report to the Committee
with suggestions on how to revise competitive grant-making
criteria to take into consideration outmigration when making
awards to rural empowerment zones.
Renewable Energy Program
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $22,841,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 33,941,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,489,000
The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency
Improvements Program 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 an appropriation of $28,489,000
for the Renewable Energy Program.
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 WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2007..................................... $554,994,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 502,779,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 550,469,000
\1\ Committee recommendation includes High Energy Cost grants.
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $550,469,000
for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
The Committee, again, rejects the administration's proposal
to: revise direct loan interest rates, increase loan levels,
diminish grants, and require communities to rely more heavily
on borrowing rather than grants. The Committee is not convinced
that this proposal will provide assistance needed to the
poorest and most remote rural communities currently served. As
submitted, the proposal would also allow communities with
projects approved in prior years to take advantage of
substantially lower interest rates while retaining the grant
package previously approved. In spite of numerous requests for
clarification, the agency appears unable to identify the total
costs of its proposal. The Committee believes these additional
(but unknown) costs would better serve rural America in the
form of grants provided through the traditional program.
The Committee recommends $65,835,000 for water and waste
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native
Alaskans, and the Colonias, allocated in a manner consistent
with the fiscal year 2007 allocations. The Committee recognizes
the special needs and problems for delivery of basic services
to these populations. The Secretary is directed to provide a
report to the Committee that identifies the specific areas in
which water and waste disposal program resources have been
provided, where additional resources are most needed, and the
relative costs of program delivery to the various areas and
regions covered by the authorities identified for use of these
specific funds. The Committee expects from the Secretary a
spending plan of how the funds will be used, quarterly
notification on grant obligations, and a year end summary
report. In addition, the Committee makes up to $13,612,500
available for the circuit rider program.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2007 and budget
request levels:
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 2008 budget Committee
appropriation \1\ request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and waste disposal direct loans....................... 98,604 153,394 73,564
Water and waste disposal grants............................. 437,748 344,920 437,748
Solid waste management grants............................... 3,465 3,465 3,465
Emer. community water assistance grants..................... 13,692 .............. 13,692
Water well system grants.................................... 990 1,000 ...............
Water and waste water revolving funds....................... 495 .............. ...............
High energy cost grants..................................... ................. .............. 22,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 554,994 502,779 550,469
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 appropriation provided under RCAP.
Consideration to Applications.--Water and Waste Disposal
loans and grants provide financial support and technical
assistance for development and operation of safe and affordable
water supply systems and waste disposal facilities. Funds may
be used to construct, repair, expand or otherwise improve water
supply and distribution, and waste collection and treatment
systems. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to consider applications for water and waste
disposal loans and grants for the following projects: Bladen
Bluffs Regional Surface Water System (North Carolina), Caddo
Regional Water Supply Initiative (Louisiana); City of
Battleground Water Reclamation Facility (Washington); City of
Coburg Wastewater System (Oregon); City of Grambling Sewer
Project Phase II (Louisiana); City of Port Allen Sewer
Treatment (Louisiana); City of Santa Paula (California); EOSC
Lagoon Environmental Cleanup/Utilities (Oklahoma); Eunice
Wastewater System Upgrade and Water Systems Improvements (New
Mexico); Franklin Township Wastewater Project (Michigan);
Gadsden County Rural Utilities Improvement (Florida); Guernsey
County Water Plant (Ohio); Jal Water and Sewer Improvements
(New Mexico); Japonski Island Infrastructure (Alaska); Johnson
Canyon Project (Utah); Leesville Sewer Expansion (Louisiana);
Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water (Minnesota), Western Prairie
Rural Water (Minnesota); Long Valley Water Distribution Project
(Utah); Lovington Water Systems Improvements (New Mexico); Mt.
Victory Road Water Project (Ohio); National Drinking Water
Clearinghouse (West Virginia); Neah Bay Water (Washington);
Newton Water Users Association Pipeline (Utah); Pascoag Utility
District Potable Water (Rhode Island); Red Rock Rural Water
(Minnesota); Iowa Lakes Rural Water (Minnesota), South
Mansfield Elevated Water Tank Rehabilitation (Louisiana);
Strawberry Zions Flat Project (Utah); Town of Greenwood Water
Line (Louisiana); Union Rome Wastewater Treatment (Ohio);
Village of Downsville Wastewater Infrastructure (Louisiana);
Village of Sterlington Potable Water (Louisiana); Village of
Vanlue Water System (Ohio); the Village of Williamsburg Sewer
System Upgrade (Ohio); and West Corrine Waterline Upgrade
(Utah).
Water and Waste Technical Assistance and Training Grants.--
The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to provide
support for the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse through
the water and waste technical assistance and training grant
program.
Solid Waste Management Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,465,000 for grants for solid waste management.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
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 (Public Law 101-508)
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 fiscal year 2008, 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 2007 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 99,000 100,000 100,000
Direct, Muni......................................... 100,764 ............... ...............
Direct, FFB.......................................... 2,700,000 4,000,000 6,500,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 990,000 ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. 1,500,000 ............... 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 5,389,764 4,100,000 7,600,000
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 419,760 250,000 250,000
Direct, FFB.......................................... 125,000 295,000 295,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 689,760 690,000 690,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorizations......................... 6,079,524 4,790,000 8,290,000
==================================================
Loan Subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 2,119 120 120
Direct, Muni......................................... 1,522 ............... ...............
Direct, FFB.......................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed, Underwriting............................. ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 3,641 120 120
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 537 116 116
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 126 1,675 1,675
Direct, FFB.......................................... ............... 1,829 1,829
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 663 3,620 3,620
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 4,304 3,740 3,740
==================================================
Administrative expenses...................................... 38,623 37,009 39,405
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 42,927 40,749 43,145
Loans Programs Account................................
==================================================
(Loan authorization)............................... 6,079,524 4,790,000 8,290,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loans......................................... ............... ............... ...............
Grants............................................... 29,700 24,750 34,750
Broadband Program:
Direct 4 percent loans............................... ............... ............... ...............
Treasury rate loans.................................. 495,000 300,000 495,000
Guaranteed loans..................................... ............... ............... ...............
Grants............................................... 8,910 ............... 8,910
--------------------------------------------------
Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations......... 533,610 324,750 538,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 level 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... ............... ............... ...............
Grants................................................... 29,700 24,750 34,750
Broadband Program:
Direct 4 percent loan subsidies.......................... ............... ............... ...............
Treasury subsidies....................................... 10,643 6,450 10,643
Guaranteed subsidies..................................... ............... ............... ...............
Grants................................................... 8,910 ............... 8,910
--------------------------------------------------
Total, grants and loan subsidies....................... 49,253 31,200 54,303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). 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.
The Committee is concerned with the longstanding, unmet
health care needs in the Mississippi Delta and encourages the
Department to work with the Delta Health Alliance, a nonprofit
alliance of academic institutions and economic development
entities, through existing programs to promote increased health
access, education, and research in the Mississippi Delta to
address the growing health care needs of the region.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $54,303,000
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations. Fiscal year 2008 is the last
appropriation that can effectively make funding available prior
to the statutory February 2009 conversion deadline. The
Committee expects that the $10,000,000 provided will be
sufficient to meet digital conversion needs in rural areas, and
future funding is not anticipated.
Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended,
$8,910,000 in grants shall be made available to support
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for
rural areas.
Consideration to Applications--Broadband and Distance
Learning, Telemedicine Loans and Grants.--The Committee has
been made aware of and encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for broadband and distance
learning, telemedicine loans and grants for the following:
Batavia WIFI Project (New York); CO and Western Region
Telemedicine Infrastructure Upgrades (Colorado); Eastern Shore
Broadband Buildout (Virginia); Enhancing Rural Economies
through Wireless Technologies (Georgia); Gilmer/Braxton
Research Technology Institute Project (West Virginia);
Monongahela Valley Hospital (Pennsylvania); Nichols State
University Geospatial Technology Center (Louisiana); and the
Otsego County Telecommunications Plan (New York).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $597,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 655,000
Committee recommendation................................ 628,000
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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $628,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
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, American Samoa, 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
[TEFAP].
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for 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 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, 2007......... 7,614,523 5,731,073 13,345,596
Budget estimate, 2008........ 7,592,797 6,304,475 13,897,272
Committee recommendation..... 7,662,215 6,235,057 13,897,272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$7,662,215,000, plus transfers from section 32 of
$6,235,057,000, for a total of $13,897,272,000 for the Child
Nutrition Programs.
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 2007 estimate 2008 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 7,958,912 8,180,933 8,180,933
School Breakfast Program..................................... 2,241,210 2,389,988 2,389,988
State administrative expenses................................ 163,792 175,636 175,636
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 293,739 310,634 310,634
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 2,172,460 2,288,838 2,288,838
Special Milk Program......................................... 14,133 14,618 14,618
Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support...... 484,990 518,061 518,061
Coordinated review system.................................... 5,302 5,505 5,505
Team nutrition............................................... 10,051 10,037 10,037
Food safety education........................................ 1,007 1,022 1,022
CACFP Training and Technical Assistance...................... ............... 2,000 2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $10,037,000 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 $3,237,000 for
other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
Farm to Cafeteria.--The Committee is aware of interest in
the Farm to Cafeteria program, which links farms and schools to
bring locally-grown food into the school lunch program. This
program was authorized in the Child Nutrition Reauthorization
Act of 2004. However, no funding was provided then, and funding
has not yet been requested in the administration's budget. The
Committee supports the intent of this program, and strongly
encourages USDA to work to identify funding sources through
which Farm to Cafeteria grants can begin to be made. The
Committee notes growing interest in local procurement among
school food service systems across the country. Local
procurement can help farmers capture a bigger share of food
expenditures and strengthen local food systems. The Committee
encourages the Department to work with school lunch
administrators and local food advocates to identify
opportunities for growth in local procurement, and directs FNS
to study ways to enhance local procurement in school food
service and report back to the Committee within 120 days of
enactment of this act.
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program.--The Committee has
included language that will allow States that received funding
for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program through Public Law
109-97 to continue participation at a level not to exceed
$500,000 per State. (Kohl, Bennett, Bingaman, Crapo/State of
Wisconsin, State of Utah, State of New Mexico, State of Idaho)
The Committee understands that there are adequate funds
provided through the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act that remain available to allow States that
received funding through Public Law 109-97 to continue
participation until the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 is reauthorized, without negatively impacting other
participating States. Further, the Committee strongly
encourages the appropriate authorizing committees of the House
and Senate to determine whether expansion to all 50 States is
appropriate, and if so, to provide the necessary mandatory
funding.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,204,430,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 5,386,597,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,720,000,000
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 8.8
million participants at an average food cost of $39.34 per
person per month in fiscal year 2008.
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,720,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].
The Committee recommends no less than $15,000,000 for
breastfeeding support initiatives, and $30,000,000, depending
upon use of the contingency fund, for State management
information systems.
Estimates.--The Committee recommendation of $5,720,000,000
takes into account several changes from the budget request.
First, the Committee recommendation does not include a
limitation on State nutrition services and administration [NSA]
grants as proposed in the budget. The budget request included a
reduction of $145,000,000 associated with this limitation. The
Committee does not agree that reducing support for critical WIC
services including nutrition education, obesity prevention,
breastfeeding promotion and support, healthcare referrals, and
immunization screening is a wise and acceptable method of
finding budget savings.
Second, since the budget request was submitted in February
2007, the estimates for food costs and participation are
trending upward. For example, food costs are estimated to be
higher in fiscal year 2008 because at least 23 States will be
entering into new infant formula contracts, which have
historically increased WIC costs. In addition, USDA's Economic
Research Service has recently forecast an increase in the cost
of dairy products that was not included in the President's
budget request.
The Committee notes with concern that the current estimate
to meet WIC program needs is $333,403,000 over the President's
budget request. The Committee has followed the increases in WIC
program costs very closely. The Committee is disappointed that
the administration has not provided an official estimate or
notification for the dramatic increase in WIC food costs and
participation. Beginning on the date of enactment of this act,
and thereafter, the Committee directs the Department to provide
quarterly reports on the program performance and estimated
funding requirements to fully fund the WIC program. Timeframes
addressed in these estimates should include the prior year,
current year and budget year of the President's budget
submission currently under consideration by the Congress and
should separately address baseline program performance from the
impact of current law and legislative budget proposals. The
Department shall consider, and include in these reports,
current participation trends and current Economic Research
Service food cost estimates in developing updated WIC
estimates.
The Committee recommendation for WIC is currently estimated
to be sufficient to meet program needs. The Committee will
continue to monitor food costs, participation and carryover
funds, and take additional action as necessary to ensure that
funding provided in fiscal year 2008 is sufficient to serve all
eligible applicants.
Health Care Services Referral.--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.
food stamp program
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity CSFP Total
reserve Samoa purchases expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007........ 33,464,137 3,000,000 1,557,397 140,000 ............ 38,161,534
Budget estimate, 2008....... 35,053,973 3,000,000 1,621,250 140,000 23,000 39,838,223
Committee recommendation.... 35,017,973 3,000,000 1,621,250 140,000 ............ 39,779,223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (Public Law 88-525), 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.
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 benefits, 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 Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended by the Mickey Leland
Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66), 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$39,779,223,000 for the Food Stamp Program. Of the amount
recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency
reserve. The Committee recommendation includes language that
permits the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct studies and
evaluations consistent with the budget request.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommendation does not include a provision, requested in the
budget, that would provide transitional benefits to Commodity
Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] participants. The Committee
recommends an appropriation for CSFP in the Commodity
Assistance Program which makes the provision in the Food Stamp
Program unnecessary.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--Included
in the recommended level for FDPIR is $35,206,000 to support
additional administration funding in the program to address
current inequities among tribes in the allocation of funds and
to address pressing needs to improve warehousing and other
administrative costs associated with commodity distribution.
The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct an assessment of
equipment and facility needs in FDPIR and to report on the
findings within 120 days of enactment of this act.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the
purchase of bison from producer-owned and Native American owned
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been
important for the Native American population both economically
and nutritionally.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $177,572,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 70,370,000
Committee recommendation................................ 199,070,000
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 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), 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.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, 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 and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), 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.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 permits
State and local agencies 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 increases
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from
$100,000,000 to $140,000,000. In addition to the commodities
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under
agriculture support and surplus removal 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.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $199,070,000
for the Commodity Assistance Program. 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.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommends $128,000,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition 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 recommends $20,000,000 for the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--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 recommends $50,000,000 for TEFAP administrative
funding. In addition, the Committee recommendation grants the
Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional $10,000,000
from TEFAP commodities for this purpose.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $140,252,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 148,926,000
Committee recommendation................................ 147,426,000
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]; 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 Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $147,426,000
for Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee
recommendation includes $2,500,000 to carry out the Bill
Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships. These fellowships
send young people to sites throughout the United States and
abroad in order to work to develop the skills, knowledge and
experience to become effective anti-hunger leaders in the
domestic and international arenas. Both programs are carried
out by the Congressional Hunger Center. (Kohl, Harkin/
Congressional Hunger Center)
Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--The Committee
directs the Food and Nutrition Service to determine the CACFP
reimbursement needed to serve meals and snacks consistent with
the Dietary Guidelines.
Childhood Obesity.--The Committee is concerned about the
rapidly growing rate of childhood obesity. Further, the
Committee is aware that a predominance of food advertising to
children is aimed at the purchasing and consumption of food
products. While the Committee recognizes the efforts of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration to increase public awareness of health, such as
MyPyramid and the Children's Food Pyramid, the Committee
believes that to effectively aid the public in improving child
nutrition and overall health, there should be a uniform
scientifically based set of nutrition guidelines to better
equip the public when making consumer food choices. Therefore,
the Committee encourages USDA and FDA to create an inter-agency
working group, consisting of all Government institutions with
jurisdiction over health and nutrition policy. Through this
collaboration, a set of clear, concise and uniform health
standards for children such as proper portion sizes, healthy
versus unhealthy nutritional content, and daily recommended
amounts can be established and made easily available to the
American public.
Nutrition Initiatives.--The Committee is aware of the
important work being undertaken by numerous State, local and
private organizations in order to reduce hunger and increase
nutrition education throughout the United States. The Committee
applauds these efforts, and encourages USDA to work with
interested organizations throughout the country, including the
Salvation Army Bed and Bread Program in Detroit, Michigan; the
YWCA Family Center in Franklin County, Ohio; and the Vermont
Foodbank Farm to provide technical and financial assistance
where appropriate, to help these organizations further their
goals. The Committee further encourages USDA to provide funding
to carry out existing Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Nutrition Education and Promotion Program cooperative
agreements for national Hispanic outreach efforts.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
Appropriations from loan Total
accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007.......... 156,220 3,599 159,819
Budget estimate, 2008......... 168,209 4,985 173,194
Committee recommendation...... 167,391 4,985 172,376
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 77 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
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.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $172,376,000 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of
$167,391,000.
Biotechnology.--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.
Capital Security Cost Sharing.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,334,000 for Capital Security Cost
Sharing [CSCS], as proposed in the budget. The Committee funds
the fiscal year 2008 CSCS assessment at the level requested by
FAS with the understanding that space assignments made by the
Department of State in newly constructed embassies will meet
current and projected FAS space requirements.
Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $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.
Currency Exchange Rates.--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.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2007 level.
Specialty Crops.--The Committee is aware of FAS activities
to provide technical assistance for the promotion of specialty
crop exports, consistent with section 3205 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Committee recommendation
includes $2,000,000 to support these activities.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007......................................... ............... ............... 3,373
Budget estimate, 2008........................................ ............... ............... 2,761
Committee recommendation..................................... ............... ............... 2,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 title I authorizes the 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 (7
U.S.C. 1704), 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
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for
Public Law 480, title I. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $2,749,000 for administrative expenses to
continue servicing existing agreements.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,214,711,000
Supplemental appropriation, 2007........................ 450,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,219,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,219,400,000
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a program level of $1,219,400,000
for title II.
Monetization.--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.
Non-emergency Assistance.--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, which leads to weakened immune
systems, higher rates of chronic disease and poverty, and the
inability of entire populations to achieve economic and social
independence. 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.
MC GOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $99,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels \1\ subsidy \1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007......................................... 1,990,000 60,893 5,260
Budget estimate, 2008........................................ 2,440,000 64,077 5,344
Committee recommendation..................................... 2,440,000 64,077 5,334
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
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] (Public Law 105-115)
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
(Public Law 108-365). 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 Animal clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user device drug user inspection certification Total
fees user fees fees fees fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007......................................... 1,569,244 352,200 43,726 11,604 17,522 8,481 2,002,777
Budget estimate, 2008........................................ 1,635,709 339,195 47,500 13,696 18,398 9,500 2,063,998
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,755,135 459,000 48,431 13,696 18,398 9,500 2,304,160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,755,135,000
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends
$459,000,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee
collections, of which $14,000,000 is for proposed Direct-to-
Consumer Advertising user fees; $48,431,000 in Medical Device
User Fee and Modernization Act user fee collections;
$13,696,000 in Animal Drug User Fee Act user fee collections;
$18,398,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee
collections; and $9,500,000 in export and certification fees,
as assumed in the President's budget. The Committee
recommendation includes bill language which prohibits FDA from
developing, establishing, or operating any program of user fees
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The Committee notes that PDUFA and MDUFMA user fees need to
be reauthorized for fiscal year 2008. PDUFA and MDUFMA
legislation is currently being negotiated by the appropriate
authorizing committees. The Committee has included amounts that
represent the current administration proposal for PDUFA and
MDUFMA user fees. The Committee will follow the reauthorization
of these fees and adjust the fee collection amounts if
necessary.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2007 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 enacted 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods.................................................... 457,105 466,726 522,453
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]. 159,114 154,588 173,842
Field activities..................................... 297,991 312,138 348,611
==================================================
Human drugs.............................................. 315,138 324,438 354,706
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]....... 230,757 242,950 266,069
Field activities..................................... 84,381 81,488 88,637
==================================================
Biologics................................................ 144,547 155,073 158,588
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].. 116,005 125,763 128,708
Field activities..................................... 28,542 29,310 29,880
==================================================
Animal drugs............................................. 94,749 94,809 98,513
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]................. 58,355 59,035 60,646
Field activities..................................... 36,394 35,774 37,867
==================================================
Medical and radiological devices......................... 230,683 240,122 243,255
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].... 172,258 178,265 182,112
Field activities..................................... 58,425 61,857 61,143
==================================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........ 42,056 36,455 46,104
==================================================
Other activities............................................. 90,541 88,577 102,007
--------------------------------------------------
Rent and related activities.................................. 67,554 97,976 97,976
==================================================
Rental payments to GSA....................................... 126,871 131,533 131,533
==================================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority. 1,569,244 1,635,709 1,755,135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation includes the following
increases in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses
activities: $55,443,000 for cost of living adjustments;
$48,407,000 for food safety; $33,200,000 for critical path and
drug safety; $7,561,000 for generic drug review; $4,000,000 for
pandemic influenza preparedness; $1,000,000 for the Office of
Women's Health; $13,256,000 for FDA's consolidation at the
White Oak campus; and $21,828,000 for other rent and rent
related costs and rental payments to the General Services
Administration. The Committee recommendation does not include
base program reductions assumed in the budget request.
Active Ingredients.--The Committee is concerned about
recent reports that some human drugs are produced using active
ingredients from countries that may have regulatory safeguards
less stringent than the United States. The Committee requests
that the Food and Drug Administration issue a report, using
available data sources, within 120 days of enactment of this
act, that outlines the location of the manufacturer of all
drugs approved since January 1, 2000; the location of the
manufacturer of the active ingredient in each of those drugs,
only as submitted in the original application; the extent to
which drugs manufactured overseas and commercially distributed
in the United States are subject to different regulation than
drugs manufactured and distributed in the United States; and
the procedures taken when a manufacturer changes the
procurement of active ingredients for their drugs. The
Committee further directs that the FDA present this information
in such as way as to not violate any commercial confidential,
trade secret, or proprietary information.
Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,359,000 for the FDA's
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
provides technology deployment, modeling, and data analysis for
food safety and product safety, including advanced risk-based
systems for screening and inspection, to facilitate FDA's
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
(Domenici, Bingaman/New Mexico State University)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.--The Committee
recommendation includes $29,260,000 for Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy [BSE]. The Committee understands that this
funding will be used to conduct yearly inspections of all
renderers and feed mills processing products containing
prohibited materials; extend BSE inspections into targeted
segments of industries subject to the BSE Feed regulation but
previously minimally inspected; validate test methods for the
detection of bovine-derived proteins in animal feed; and
continue to conduct research on Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies in FDA's product centers.
Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the agency to
submit the fiscal year 2009 budget request in a format that
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2008
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
Childhood Obesity.--The Committee is concerned about the
rapidly growing rate of childhood obesity. Further, the
Committee is aware that a predominance of food advertising to
children is aimed at the purchasing and consumption of food
products. While the Committee recognizes the efforts of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration to increase public awareness of health, such as
MyPyramid and the Children's Food Pyramid, the Committee
believes that to effectively aid the public in improving child
nutrition and overall health, there should be a uniform
scientifically based set of nutrition guidelines to better
equip the public when making consumer food choices. Therefore,
the Committee encourages USDA and FDA to create an inter-agency
working group, consisting of all government institutions with
jurisdiction over health and nutrition policy. Through this
collaboration, a set of clear, concise, and uniform health
standards for children such as proper portion sizes, healthy
versus unhealthy nutritional content, and daily recommended
amounts can be established and made easily available to the
American public.
Chloramphenicol.--The Committee continues to have serious
concerns regarding seafood safety issues posed by banned
antibiotic contamination in farm-raised shrimp imports. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that the FDA inspects less
than 2 percent of shrimp being imported into the United States.
Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the FDA to
develop, in cooperation with State testing programs, a program
for increasing the inspection of imported shrimp, possibly
including cold-storage inventories, for banned antibiotics,
including chloramphenicol.
Codex Alimentarius.--Within the total funding available, at
least $2,495,000 is for FDA activities in support of Codex
Alimentarius.
Collaborative Drug Safety Research.--The Committee
recommendation includes $750,000 to continue the collaborative
research agreement on cardiac biomarkers between FDA, the
Critical Path Institute, and the University of Utah. The
Committee notes that this research project has been extremely
successful and has developed a genetic test that will help
guide warfarin, a commonly prescribed blood thinner, dosing. It
is estimated that integrating genetic testing into warfarin
therapy could allow Americans to avoid 85,000 serious bleeding
events and 17,000 strokes annually, reducing health care
spending by approximately $1,100,000,000 annually. (Bennett/
Critical Path Institute and University of Utah)
Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.--The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $33,200,000 for FDA's
critical path and drug safety initiatives. Included in this
amount is $17,000,000 for critical path and $16,200,000 for
modernizing drug safety.
The Committee expects that the critical path funding will
be used to further the agency's work on the 76 critical path
opportunities published in 2006 and promote collaborations with
other government agencies and academia. Of the $17,000,000
increase provided for critical path, $5,000,000 shall be
available, on a competitive basis, for contracts or grants to
universities and non-profit organizations to support individual
critical path projects. The Committee expects that the critical
path funding will make the development and review of drug,
device, and biologics more efficient, help advance discoveries
through the development pipeline, and reduce the risks to
patients who use medical products. The Committee understands
that FDA is already engaged in 40 critical path projects that
this funding will help further, including identifying gender-
specific biomarkers and biomarkers for diabetes, pre-diabetes,
cancer, and cardiac, metabolic, and neurological disease;
developing reliable disease simulation methods for Parkinson's,
diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease; improving methods
for evaluating vaccines and other complex biological products;
and identifying optimum dosing strategies for drugs such as
warfarin, which will improve patient safety and save health
care dollars.
The Committee expects that the drug safety funding will be
used to enhance FDA's ability to identify safety issues with
products already on the market and communicate those safety
issues to health professionals and the public as well as
enhance the agency's ability to identify safety issues for
products under review. The Committee understands that FDA will
use this funding to upgrade and modernize the Adverse Events
Reporting System [AERS]; access additional databases for drug
and biologic safety surveillance and analysis; hire additional
scientists to evaluate safety information in these databases;
strengthen the involvement of safety experts throughout the
drug lifecycle by identifying safety data needs prior to
product approval and during the design and review of post
marketing studies; and hire additional experts to review
proposed risk management plans and evaluate the effectiveness
of existing risk management plans.
Dietary Supplements.--The Committee recommendation includes
$5,360,000 for the CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting System
[CAERS], of which approximately $1,500,000 is for dietary
supplements.
The Committee is encouraged by FDA's activities to enforce
provisions contained within the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act of 1994 [DSHEA] (Public Law 103-417). The
Committee has recommended funding to continue enforcement of
the provisions contained in DSHEA. It is the Committee's intent
that these funds be prioritized by the agency to step up
activities against products that are clearly in violation of
DSHEA.
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
recommendation includes $2,300,000 for review of botanicals in
dietary supplements. This work is being carried out by FDA in
collaboration with the National Center for Natural Products
Research, Oxford, Mississippi. (Cochran/University of
Mississippi)
The Committee encourages FDA to dedicate appropriate
resources to fully implement Public Law 109-462, the Dietary
Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.
The Committee believes the law, scheduled to take effect on
December 22, 2007, will enhance FDA's efforts to identify
potential public health issues associated with the use of
dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs and will enable
the government, manufacturers, and retailers to respond more
quickly to potential public health issues.
Expedited Consideration.--The Committee directs the FDA to
provide a report within 120 days of enactment of this act on
the initiatives undertaken by the agency to expedite and
support the filing of new drug applications seeking approval of
new combinations of drug products, whose active ingredients
have all previously been approved as safe and effective drugs
under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, or novel single agents that would provide a replacement
for or other therapeutic alternative to a drug currently on the
market which is regulated by The Combat Methamphetamine
Epidemic Act.
Folic Acid Fortification.--The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention [CDC] estimates that up to 70 percent of neural
tube defects [NTDs], such as spina bifida, could be prevented
if all women of childbearing age consume 400 micrograms of
folic acid daily, beginning before pregnancy. About 10 years
ago, FDA revised several standards of identity for enriched
cereal-grain products to require the addition of folic acid and
the rate of NTDs has decreased significantly. A recent analysis
by the CDC found that folate concentrations in the blood among
non-pregnant women of childbearing age declined slightly from
1999-2000. This slight decline follows a substantial increase
in folate concentrations following the initiation of the
fortification program. The decline has not been associated with
an increase in rates of NTDs. However, the Committee is
concerned that some women may not be receiving an adequate
level of folate to prevent NTDs, and some studies conducted
since the FDA fortification program began have suggested that
the current levels of folic acid in enriched cereal-grain
products should be increased and that such an increase might
achieve a higher rate of birth defect prevention. The Committee
is interested in having FDA review the folic acid fortification
level for enriched grain products and the fortification of corn
products with folic acid. The Committee requests a report,
within 120 days of the enactment of this act, on FDA's current
folic acid fortification standards, the need to review, and
possibly revise, folic acid standards, and the aspects of the
fortification issue that FDA would consider in revising the
standards.
Food Safety.--The Committee is very concerned that the
administration's budget requests have not kept up with the
increasing responsibilities faced by the Food and Drug
Administration in the area of food safety. The FDA Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field positions
regulates $417,000,000,000 worth of domestic food and
$49,000,000,000 in imported foods, and is responsible for
ensuring that the U.S. food supply is safe, secure, sanitary,
wholesome, and honestly labeled. As the food supply becomes
more global, the challenges faced by the FDA increase
significantly. However, although the number of imported food
lines subject to FDA review has more than quadrupled since
1999, FDA is able to inspect less than 2 percent of imported
foods, the number of field inspectors at the FDA has declined
by 230 in less than 4 years, and food inspections have also
dropped nearly in half during that time. The Committee believes
that this trend is unacceptable. Therefore, the Committee
recommendation includes $48,407,000 in increases for food
safety initiatives, which is $37,763,000 above the
administration's request for food safety. The Committee directs
FDA to provide detailed quarterly reports on the expenditure of
these funds, including the numbers of additional staff hired
and research contracts let.
Of the increases provided, the Committee directs that no
less than $21,000,000 should be used to immediately begin to
reverse the current decline in field inspectors, and to ensure
that the FDA food safety inspection system is streamlined,
complementing and expanding coordination efforts both with
States and with foreign countries that import food into the
United States. This should include hiring inspectors assigned
solely to foreign inspection, as well as inspectors assigned
solely to domestic inspection.
The Committee further directs that no less than $11,000,000
should be used to create both Federal and State rapid response
teams to respond to food safety problems throughout the United
States. These teams should consist of staff trained
specifically to rapidly trace back an outbreak to its root
cause and stationed in significant produce growing areas in the
United States, so that any time an outbreak occurs, the source
can be identified as quickly as possible, preventing further
distribution of the contaminated product. Further, when these
teams are not actively responding to a food safety occurrence,
they should be working with growers, processors, packers and
State and local officials to ensure that FDA guidelines for
safe food production are understood and implemented.
The Committee also directs that the FDA should use no less
than $6,000,000 for increased research on food safety issues,
including the reduction of microbial contamination of produce
and new rapid screening methods to identify pathogens in food
samples as quickly as possible, and as early in the food chain
as possible. This funding should be used by CFSAN and the
National Center for Toxicological Research, and should also be
used to contract with other government and non-governmental
entities, including academia, to ensure collaboration,
information-sharing, and to prevent duplicative research so as
to yield results that will be applicable to growers and
processors in the shortest timeframe possible.
Of the additional funding provided for increased research,
the Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to create a
Western Region FDA Center of Excellence at the University of
California at Davis [UCD]. California and the western States
provide the majority of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and
specialty crops, and lead the Nation in import and export of
food products. This will be the first FDA Center of Excellence
to be located in the Western United States. This Center will be
a cooperative research center with FDA and UCD and will address
food safety and security areas of focus identified by FDA to be
of greatest need in the Western United States. (Feinstein,
Boxer/FDA and University of California at Davis)
The Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to
enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences,
specifically with the Institute of Medicine and the National
Research Council, for a comprehensive study on gaps in the
public health protection provided by the food safety system and
opportunities to fill those gaps. This study should identify
and analyze specific gaps in protection to illustrate the
causes of foodborne illness and cost-effective preventive
measures and be based on credible estimates (using available
data and analyses) of the incidence, severity, and direct costs
and economic consequences of foodborne illness. The study
should include consultation with high-level representatives
from the government, food industry, consumer groups and other
stakeholder groups, and should include legislative, regulatory
and administrative recommendations and estimates of costs of
such recommendations. The Committee directs that this report be
completed within one year of funds being made available to the
National Academy of Sciences.
Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommendation includes no
less than $77,161,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of
which $42,461,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs. This is
an increase of $7,561,000 above fiscal year 2007. During the
past 6 years, applications for generic drugs have increased by
158 percent, from 307 applications in fiscal year 2002 to 793
applications in fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2008, FDA
estimates it will receive 857 applications. Generic drugs cost
anywhere between 20 and 70 percent less than their brand name
counterparts. This increase will allow FDA to hire
approximately 18 additional reviewers.
Legacy Drugs.--The Committee supports the FDA's review of a
means by which drugs marketed outside the present approval
process, which have been in clinical use for the past 25 years,
and have no safety concerns, may be more efficiently vetted by
the agency. Also known as ``Legacy Drugs'', these medicines are
manufactured in FDA licensed and inspected facilities that
utilize current Good Manufacturing Practices, are composed of
FDA approved ingredients, and have been prescribed by doctors
for decades to alleviate common ailments at a fraction of the
cost to patients and government programs such as Medicare and
Medicaid. The Committee encourages FDA to work toward the
development of a system to certify this unique class of drugs.
Mammography.--The Committee recommends no less than the
fiscal year 2007 level in appropriated funds for activities
related to the Mammography Quality Standards Act.
Appropriations for this program fund research grants and
various activities to develop and enforce quality standards for
mammography services, including a Federal advisory committee,
accreditation bodies, inspections of government entities and
facilities that provided 50 percent or more mammography
screenings with grants provided through the Center for Disease
Control's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Program, issuance and renewal of certificates, appeal
procedures, certification of personnel, and imposing sanctions
for noncompliance.
The Committee directs the FDA to provide a report within
120 days of enactment of this act detailing how the
administration will implement the recommendations made in the
Institute of Medicine report entitled ``Breast Imaging Quality
Standards''--released on May 23, 2005, and the congressionally
mandated Government Accountability Office [GAO] report
entitled, ``Mammography: Current Nationwide Capacity is
Adequate, but Access Problems May Exist in Certain Locations''
(GAO-06-724)--released in July 2006.
MedGuide.--The Committee is concerned that FDA's MedGuide
program is not adequately assisting patients in understanding
the risks associated with certain medications. The Committee
also notes that the FDA initially intended the program to
produce MedGuides for a limited number of prescription products
every year. However, according to FDA, 240 prescription
products have MedGuides as of March 2007. This unanticipated
volume of Medguides creates significant administrative burdens
for pharmacy providers and has the potential to diminish the
usefulness of the program by overwhelming patients with
multiple pages of written material. In order to address these
concerns, the Committee urges FDA to work with patient groups,
manufacturers and national pharmacy groups to address
improvements in the program. Such improvements should include
procedures to ensure the efficient distribution of MedGuides
from manufacturers to community pharmacies, flexibility in
providing MedGuides to patients (including electronic mail
delivery), formatting modifications to assist with the
electronic printing of MedGuides, measures to avoid duplicative
and excessive MedGuides (including the use of a single uniform
MedGuide for a class of drugs), and other steps to enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of the program for patients and
pharmacies. The Committee urges FDA to submit a report on the
progress it is making toward these improvements within 120 days
of enactment of this act, including whether any legislative
action is needed to enhance the efficiencies in the
distribution of written prescription information to patients.
Medical Device Identification.--Currently, there is no
standardized, unique identifying system for medical devices.
This gap makes it difficult to recognize compatibility and
interoperability issues for medical devices, to conduct device
recalls, and to identify specific devices in adverse event
reports. The rising number of medical device recalls as well as
the rapid development of new, complex medical devices, speaks
to the need to develop a unique device identification system.
The Committee notes that FDA is exploring implementation of a
unique device identification [UDI] system. FDA published a
Request for Comment on August 11, 2006, on how a national UDI
system should be structured and how it will improve patient
safety, reduce medical errors, facilitate device recalls, and
improve device adverse event reporting. The Committee also
recognizes that because devices are quite different in their
use and distribution from drugs, the UDI system needs to
include information to adequately identify the device through
distribution and use. The Committee is also aware of interest
in the development of a public-accessible UDI database. The
Committee encourages FDA to continue to work on the development
of an appropriate method of identifying medical devices to
ensure patient safety throughout the life cycle of the device.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--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 recommendation includes
$2,970,000 for NCFST to continue the important work done there.
This funding should be exclusive of any initiative funds which
the FDA may provide in addition to NCFST. (Durbin/National
Center for Food Safety and Technology)
Nutrition Information.--The Committee directs FDA to gather
information on the various guidance systems, including
nutritional criteria currently in use by the food industry,
trade organizations, and nonprofit organizations, that use
front-label logos, such as symbols, signs, emblems or other
graphic representations that are intended to provide simple,
standardized nutrition information to the public in graphic
form. Further, the Committee directs FDA to provide a report,
within 120 days of the enactment of this act, that describes
the nutrition symbols and accompanying guidance systems for
consumers and the current scientific and consumer research on
the use and effectiveness of such symbols.
Office of Regulatory Affairs Reorganization.--The Committee
is aware of FDA's proposal to reorganize the Office of
Regulatory Affairs' field laboratories. As part of this
reorganization, the FDA has proposed to close seven
laboratories, and move the personnel, equipment and other
resources from those laboratories into six other existing
laboratories. The Committee is aware of significant concern
surrounding these proposed laboratory closures, including the
potential loss of field staff, whose numbers have already
decreased in recent years, and the loss of laboratory
capabilities for analyzing food and drug samples. For example,
several of these laboratories perform specialized functions not
currently performed at any other FDA labs. The Committee
directs FDA to work with all interested parties, including FDA
employees and local, State and Federal officials, as well as to
hold public meetings on each proposed closure if requested by
State or local officials, prior to implementing this
reorganization, and to report to the Committee, prior to the
laboratory closures, on efforts at each laboratory to both
retain staff and to ensure that specific laboratory
capabilities are not diminished or eliminated.
Pharmacy.--The Committee encourages the FDA to work with
the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy to develop and
implement strategies for the integration of pharmacy faculty
and Doctor of Pharmacy students into patient safety initiatives
including post-market surveillance, counterfeit drug detection,
and medication risk/benefit communication.
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
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the Office of Women's
Health. 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.
Orphan Products Grants.--The Committee recommendation
includes $16,772,000 for the Orphan Products Grants Program
within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Premarket Reviews.--The Committee is aware that FDA has
begun to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's
device requirements, including premarket review, for diagnostic
multivariate index assays for breast cancer and other diseases.
The Committee encourages FDA to work to ensure that the
transition to enforcing the act's requirements does not inhibit
development of products that are important to public health.
Seafood Economic Integrity.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that
FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity
issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species,
weights, country of origin, and treatment. The Committee
encourages FDA to work with States to more aggressively combat
fraud in parts of the seafood industry.
Seafood Products.--The Committee is concerned that certain
imported cockle-based seafood products being marketed in the
United States are mislabeled for species to the detriment of
U.S. based firms that label correctly and according to FDA
guidance. The Committee encourages the FDA to enforce their
guidance to prevent cockles from being imported into the United
States mislabeled as clams or clam chowder.
Seafood Safety.--The Committee supports the ongoing work of
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference [ISSC] and its
joint efforts with the FDA and the shellfish industry to
formulate shellfish safety regulations through the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee recommendation
includes $198,000 for the Office of Seafood Inspection to
continue these activities and $248,000 be directed to the ISSC
for the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program. (Cochran/
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission)
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. The Committee remains concerned with
FDA's current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as
it relates to the potential use of milk protein concentrate in
standardized cheese and the labeling thereof.
Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes.--The Committee commends the
FDA for including the development of therapies for type 1
diabetes in its Critical Path Initiative, and recognizing major
advances that have given new hope for the rapid development of
innovative devices and drugs for the management and treatment
of type 1 diabetes. A fully automated artificial pancreas has
the potential to alleviate the burden of daily diabetes
management, and greatly improve patients' health and quality of
life. Promising new drugs are in clinical trials that, for the
first time, might halt the progression of new-onset diabetes.
The Committee strongly encourages the FDA to continue
collaborative, open discussions with public and private
stakeholders committed to accelerating the discovery and
development of therapies to prevent, manage, and cure type 1
diabetes to ensure that new therapies are made available to the
public in a timely manner.
Unified Financial Management System.--The Committee
recommendation includes no more than $5,729,000 for the Unified
Financial Management System. The Committee reminds FDA that
this amount is subject to the reprogramming requirements
outlined in the general provisions of this act.
Waste Management Education and Research Consortium.--The
Committee recommendation includes $98,000 for the FDA to
continue its support for the Waste Management Education and
Research Consortium and its work in food safety technology
verification and education. (Domenici, Bingaman/Waste
Management Education and Research Consortium)
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $4,950,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 4,950,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,950,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including 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
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,950,000 for
FDA buildings and facilities.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2007........................................ $44,250,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 46,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,000,000
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 $46,000,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. The Committee recommendation that the limitation does
not apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section makes funds available for the
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section makes funds for certain accounts
within the Department of Agriculture available until expended.
Section 703. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the
Working Capital Fund.
Section 704. This section limits the funding provided in
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 705. This section limits negotiated indirect costs
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
Section 706. This section limits indirect costs charged to
certain grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service to 20 percent of total Federal
funds.
Section 707. This section makes appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for
certain Rural Development programs.
Section 708. This section makes funds available for the
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 709. This section prohibits the use of funds to
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 710. This section requires Department of
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for
longer than 30 days.
Section 711. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
Section 712. This section prohibits the purchase of new
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information
Officer.
Section 713. This section prohibits the reprogramming of
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 714. This section provides funding for the Lost
River Watershed Project (Byrd/NRCS West Virginia); the Lower
Hamakua Ditch Watershed Project, the Upcountry Maui Watershed
Project (Inouye, Akaka/NRCS Hawaii); and authorized watershed
projects in the State of Missouri. (Bond/NRCS Missouri)
Section 715. This section prohibits the closing of the Food
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
Section 716. This section permits 30 percent of the funds
available for competitive research grants to be used to carry
out a competitive grants program under section 401 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998.
Section 717. This section provides a funding limitation for
the environmental quality incentives program.
Section 718. This section provides a funding limitation for
the Dam Rehab Program.
Section 719. This section limits the amount of funding
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust.
Section 720. This section modifies the guaranteed
underwriting loan program.
Section 721. This section provides $437,000 for the Denali
Commission to address deficiencies in solid waste management in
the State of Alaska. The Committee directs the Commission to
work with the State of Alaska to develop a legal framework for
a solid waste management authority that can become self-
sustaining and is authorized to establish a revolving loan fund
to support solid waste projects.
Section 722. This section prohibits the promulgation of a
final rule related to animal and plant health programs.
Section 723. This section makes funds for certain
conservation programs available until expended to disburse
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year. This
section also makes fiscal years 2004-2008 funds for the
Agricultural Management Assistance Program available until
expended to disburse obligations.
Section 724. This section makes certain former Rural
Utilities Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic
Development loan and grant program.
Section 725. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority to make funding and other assistance
available for damage to non-Federal lands damaged by fires
initiated by the Federal Government, and waives cost-sharing
requirements.
Section 726. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture from requiring the recertification of rural Status
for each electric and telecommunications borrower for certain
Rural Utilities Service programs.
Section 727. This section prohibits the use of funds to
conduct competitive sourcing activities in rural development
and farm loan programs.
Section 728. This section provides a rescission for section
32.
Section 729. This section prohibits funds from being used
to pay the administrative expenses of a State agency that
authorizes new WIC-only vendors. The section also permits the
Secretary of Agriculture to approve new WIC-only vendors under
certain circumstances.
Section 730. This section provides base funding for all
institutions participating in the expanded food nutrition
education program.
Section 731. This section provides funding for the National
Center for Natural Products Research to construct and/or
renovate facilities to enhance the research conducted on
botanicals and dietary supplements at the National Center in
conjunction with FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. This research aids FDA's regulatory mission in
ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements by
identifying, isolating, and analyzing specific components of
botanicals and dietary supplements. (Cochran/University of
Mississippi)
Section 732. The section provides funding for the planning
and design of a facility that would allow the creation of
sterile fruit flies of all varieties of established fruit fly
pests. The release of sterile fruit flies is currently the most
effective method of eliminating fruit fly pests, which destroy
a significant amount of agriculture in warm-weather States.
Currently, only one such facility exists, and it only has the
capacity to create a single species of sterile fruit flies,
although there are at least four species currently known in
Hawaii. The creation of this new facility would eliminate the
dependence of the United States on a single foreign fruit fly
facility and would provide additional species of sterile fruit
flies to attempt to control and eliminate all known species of
fruit fly pests. (Inouye/APHIS Hawaii)
Section 733. This section establishes a transfer limit on
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Section 734. This section makes certain service areas
eligible for financing through the Rural Utilities Service.
Section 735. This section repeals section 9012 of Public
Law 110-28.
Section 736. This section requires the Rural Utilities
Service to determine borrower interest rates for Water and
Waste Disposal direct loans in the same manner as in fiscal
year 2007.
Section 737. This section allows the Department to use
Salaries and Expenses funds to purchase media materials for
program utilization.
Section 738. This section makes certain locations eligible
for certain Rural Development programs.
Section 739. This section establishes a forestry pilot
program for lands affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Section 740. This section provides agricultural disaster
assistance through the Livestock Compensation Program and the
Emergency Conservation Program.
Section 741. This section authorizes travel relating to
commercial sales of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba.
Section 742. This section establishes a timeline for the
implementation of Country of Origin Labeling.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2008, 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, 2008, 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 2008 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 2008 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2008:
--The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides
authorizations for a number of programs funded under
this act. This act is currently under consideration for
reauthorization;
--Rare Diseases Orphan Product Development Act of 2002;
--Medical Device User Fee Act;
--Prescription Drug User Fee Act;
--Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 14, 2007,
the Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 1859)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and for other
purposes, subject to amendment and subject to the budget
allocation, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the
chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate-
reported bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote
of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2258. Purchase of newspapers
The Department of Agriculture is authorized to subscribe
for such newspapers as may be necessary to carry out its
authorized work[: Provided, That purchases under this authority
shall not be made unless provision is made therefor in the
applicable appropriation and the cost thereof is not in excess
of limitations prescribed therein].
* * * * * * *
TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 79--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7209. Requirements relating to certain travel-related transactions
with Cuba
[(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of
agricultural commodities
[The Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations
under which the travel-related transactions listed in
subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations, may be authorized on a case-by-case basis by a
specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the
commercial export sale of agricultural commodities pursuant to
the provisions of this chapter.]
(a) Authorization of Travel Relating to Commercial Sales of
Agricultural and Medical Goods.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-related
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are authorized by
general license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods pursuant
to the provisions of this title.
* * * * * * *
U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' CARE, KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ
ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-28
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 9002. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.
(a) Livestock Compensation Program.--
(1) Availability of assistance.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums
as are necessary, to remain available until expended,
to carry out the livestock compensation program
established under subpart B of part 1416 of title 7,
Code of Federal Regulations, as announced by the
Secretary on February 12, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 6443), to
provide compensation for livestock losses between
January 1, 2005 and [February 28, 2007] December 31,
2007, due to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary
(including losses due to blizzards that started in 2006
and continued into January 2007). However, the payment
rate for compensation under this subsection shall be 61
percent of the payment rate otherwise applicable under
such program. In addition, section 1416.102(b)(2)(ii)
of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (72 Fed. Reg.
6444) shall not apply.
* * * * * * *
(5) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) Natural disaster declaration.--The term
``natural disaster declaration'' means--
(i) a natural disaster declared by
the Secretary between January 1, 2005
and [February 28, 2007] December 31,
2007, under section 321(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a));
(ii) a major disaster or emergency
designated by the President between
January 1, 2005 and [February 28, 2007]
December 31, 2007, under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.); or
* * * * * * *
(b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
(1) Availability of assistance.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture such sums
as are necessary, to remain available until expended,
to make livestock indemnity payments to producers on
farms that have incurred livestock losses between
January 1, 2005 and [February 28, 2007] December 31,
2007, due to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary
(including losses due to blizzards that started in 2006
and continued into January 2007) in a disaster county.
To be eligible for assistance, applicants must meet all
eligibility requirements established by the Secretary
for the program.
* * * * * * *
(5) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) Natural disaster declaration.--The term
``natural disaster declaration'' means--
(i) a natural disaster declared by
the Secretary between January 1, 2005
and [February 28, 2007] December 31,
2007, under section 321(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a));
(ii) a major disaster or emergency
designated by the President between
January 1, 2005 and [February 28, 2007]
December 31, 2007, under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.); or
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 9012. CONTRACT WAIVER.
[In carrying out crop disaster and livestock assistance in
this title, the Secretary shall require forage producers to
have articipated in a crop insurance pilot program or the Non-
Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program during the crop year
for which compensation is received.]
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2008: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory............................................... 69,055 72,661 55,661 \1\ 55,661
Discretionary........................................... 18,709 18,709 20,072 \1\ 19,871
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2008.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 67,370
2009.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,510
2010.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,069
2011.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 241
2012 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 150
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 26,113 NA 25,677
2008.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
-)
Item 2007 Budget House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation estimate deg. recommendation 2007 Budget House
appropriation estimate allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and
Marketing
Office of the Secretary....... 5,097 18,355 5,309 +212 -13,046
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist........... 10,487 11,347 10,847 +360 -500
National Appeals Division. 14,466 15,056 15,056 +590 ................
Office of Budget and 8,270 9,035 9,035 +765 ................
Program Analysis.........
Homeland Security staff... 931 2,412 2,252 +1,321 -160
Office of the Chief 16,361 17,024 16,723 +362 -301
Information Officer......
Common computing 107,971 ................. ................ -107,971 ................
environment..........
Office of the Chief 5,850 30,863 6,076 +226 -24,787
Financial Officer........
Working capital fund...... 1,891 ................. ................ -1,891 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive 166,227 85,737 59,989 -106,238 -25,748
Operations.............
Office of the Assistant 818 897 861 +43 -36
Secretary for Civil Rights...
Office of Civil Rights........ 20,020 23,147 20,706 +686 -2,441
Office of the Assistant 673 739 709 +36 -30
Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture buildings and (185,919) (216,837) (199,016) (+13,097) (-17,821)
facilities and rental
payments.....................
Payments to GSA........... 146,257 156,590 156,590 +10,333 ................
Building operations and 39,662 60,247 42,426 +2,764 -17,821
maintenance..............
Hazardous materials management 11,887 12,200 5,200 -6,687 -7,000
Departmental administration... 23,008 24,608 23,913 +905 -695
Office of the Assistant 3,795 4,099 3,936 +141 -163
Secretary for Congressional
Relations....................
Office of Communications...... 9,474 9,720 9,720 +246 ................
Office of the Inspector 80,052 83,998 81,627 +1,575 -2,371
General......................
Office of the General Counsel. 39,227 41,721 40,764 +1,537 -957
Office of the Under Secretary 596 654 626 +30 -28
for Research, Education, and
Economics....................
Economic Research Service..... 75,193 82,544 76,532 +1,339 -6,012
National Agricultural 147,253 167,699 167,699 +20,446 ................
Statistics Service...........
Census of Agriculture..... (36,249) (54,325) (54,325) (+18,076) ................
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses..... 1,128,943 1,021,517 1,154,174 +25,231 +132,657
Buildings and facilities.. ................ 16,000 40,100 +40,100 +24,100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 1,128,943 1,037,517 1,194,274 +65,331 +156,757
Research Service.......
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension
Service:
Research and education 671,419 562,518 700,849 +29,430 +138,331
activities...............
Native American (12,000) (11,880) (11,880) (-120) ................
Institutions Endowment
Fund.....................
Extension activities...... 450,346 431,125 458,537 +8,191 +27,412
Integrated activities..... 55,234 20,120 12,948 -42,286 -7,172
Outreach for socially 5,940 6,930 5,940 ................ -990
disadvantaged farmers....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State 1,182,939 1,020,693 1,178,274 -4,665 +157,581
Research, Education,
and Extension Service..
Office of the Under Secretary 721 792 759 +38 -33
for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.....................
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses..... 846,230 945,550 911,742 +65,512 -33,808
Buildings and facilities.. 4,946 8,931 4,946 ................ -3,985
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant 851,176 954,481 916,688 +65,512 -37,793
Health Inspection
Service................
Agricultural Marketing
Service:
Marketing Services........ 74,937 74,988 80,145 +5,208 +5,157
(Limitation on (62,211) (61,233) (61,233) (-978) ................
administrative expenses,
from fees collected).....
Funds for strengthening 16,425 16,798 16,798 +373 ................
markets, income, and
supply (transfer from
section 32)..............
Discretionary 20,000 20,000 10,000 -10,000 -10,000
appropriations.......
Payments to states and 1,334 1,334 3,834 +2,500 +2,500
possessions..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 112,696 113,120 110,777 -1,919 -2,343
Marketing Service......
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses..... 37,785 44,385 39,115 +1,330 -5,270
Limitation on inspection (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................
and weighing services....
Office of the Under Secretary 600 659 632 +32 -27
for Food Safety..............
Food Safety and Inspection 892,136 930,120 930,620 +38,484 +500
Service......................
Lab accreditation fees.... (1,000) ................. ................ (-1,000) ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, 4,976,235 4,874,722 5,067,746 +91,511 +193,024
Processing, and
Marketing..............
=========================================================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary 632 695 666 +34 -29
for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services........
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses..... 1,030,193 1,228,662 1,160,662 +130,469 -68,000
(Transfer from export (343) (359) (349) (+6) (-10)
loans)...................
(Transfer from Public Law (3,207) (2,761) (2,749) (-458) (-12)
480).....................
(Transfer from ACIF)...... (303,309) (311,737) (310,230) (+6,921) (-1,507)
(Transfer from farm ................ (4,660) (4,660) (+4,660) ................
storage loan program
account).................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from (306,859) (319,517) (317,988) (+11,129) (-1,529)
program accounts.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (1,337,052) (1,548,179) (1,478,650) (+141,598) (-69,529)
expenses...............
State mediation grants.... 4,208 4,000 4,750 +542 +750
Grassroot source water 3,713 ................. 3,713 ................ +3,713
protection program.......
Dairy indemnity program... 100 100 100 ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service 1,038,214 1,232,762 1,169,225 +131,011 -63,537
Agency.................
Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct............ (207,642) (223,857) (223,857) (+16,215) ................
Guaranteed........ (1,386,000) (1,200,000) (1,247,400) (-138,600) (+47,400)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........ (1,593,642) (1,423,857) (1,471,257) (-122,385) (+47,400)
Farm operating loans:
Direct............ (643,500) (629,595) (579,150) (-64,350) (-50,445)
Unsubsidized (1,138,500) (1,000,000) (1,024,650) (-113,850) (+24,650)
guaranteed.......
Subsidized (271,886) (250,000) (271,886) ................ (+21,886)
guaranteed.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........ (2,053,886) (1,879,595) (1,875,686) (-178,200) (-3,909)
Indian tribe land (2,000) (3,960) (3,960) (+1,960) ................
acquisition loans
Boll weevil (100,000) (59,400) (100,000) ................ (+40,600)
eradication loans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (3,749,528) (3,366,812) (3,450,903) (-298,625) (+84,091)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct............ 8,700 9,962 9,962 +1,262 ................
Guaranteed........ 8,039 4,800 4,990 -3,049 +190
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........ 16,739 14,762 14,952 -1,787 +190
Farm operating loans:
Direct............ 75,225 79,896 73,494 -1,731 -6,402
Unsubsidized 28,121 24,200 24,797 -3,324 +597
guaranteed.......
Subsidized 27,379 33,350 36,270 +8,891 +2,920
guaranteed.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........ 130,725 137,446 134,561 +3,836 -2,885
Indian tribe land 423 125 125 -298 ................
acquisition..........
Boll weevil 1,900 ................. ................ -1,900 ................
eradication..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 149,787 152,333 149,638 -149 -2,695
subsidies..........
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense 303,309 311,737 310,230 +6,921 -1,507
(transfer to FSA)....
Administrative 7,920 7,920 7,920 ................ ................
expenses.............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses 311,229 319,657 318,150 +6,921 -1,507
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural 461,016 471,990 467,788 +6,772 -4,202
Credit Insurance
Fund...............
(Loan (3,749,528) (3,366,812) (3,450,903) (-298,625) (+84,091)
authorization).
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Service 1,499,230 1,704,752 1,637,013 +137,783 -67,739
Agency.............
=========================================================================================================================
Risk Management Agency:
Administrative and 76,658 79,062 78,833 +2,175 -229
operating expenses.......
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance 1,576,520 1,784,509 1,716,512 +139,992 -67,997
Programs...............
=========================================================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation:
Federal crop insurance 4,379,256 4,818,099 4,818,099 +438,843 ................
corporation fund.........
Commodity Credit Corporation
Fund:
Reimbursement for net 23,098,328 12,983,000 12,983,000 -10,115,328 ................
realized losses..........
Hazardous waste management (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
(limitation on expenses).
Farm Storage Facility Loans
Program Account:
Salaries and expenses:
Farm Service Agency ................ 4,660 4,660 +4,660 ................
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations. 27,477,584 17,805,759 17,805,759 -9,671,825 ................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title I, 34,030,339 24,464,990 24,590,017 -9,440,322 +125,027
Agricultural
Programs...........
(By transfer)... (306,859) (319,517) (317,988) (+11,129) (-1,529)
(Loan (3,749,528) (3,366,812) (3,450,903) (-298,625) (+84,091)
authorization).
(Limitation on (109,674) (108,696) (108,696) (-978) ................
administrative
expenses)......
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 742 822 781 +39 -41
for Natural Resources and
Environment..................
Natural Resources Conservation
Service:
Conservation operations... 763,360 801,825 862,996 +99,636 +61,171
Watershed surveys and 6,056 ................. ................ -6,056 ................
planning.................
Watershed and flood ................ ................. 33,450 +33,450 +33,450
prevention operations....
Watershed rehabilitation 31,309 5,807 20,000 -11,309 +14,193
program..................
Resource conservation and 51,088 14,653 53,150 +2,062 +38,497
development..............
Healthy forests reserve ................ 2,476 2,476 +2,476 ................
program..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources 851,813 824,761 972,072 +120,259 +147,311
Conservation Service...
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title II, 852,555 825,583 972,853 +120,298 +147,270
Conservation Programs..
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 632 695 666 +34 -29
for Rural Development........
Rural Development:
Rural community 737,135 ................. ................ -737,135 ................
advancement program......
(Transfer out)........ (-25,740) ................. ................ (+25,740) ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 737,135 ................. ................ -737,135 ................
community
advancement program
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses. 161,298 208,194 175,302 +14,004 -32,892
(Transfer from RHIF).. (452,927) (434,890) (462,521) (+9,594) (+27,631)
(Transfer from MHRP).. ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(Transfer from RDLFP). (4,774) (4,576) (4,861) (+87) (+285)
(Transfer from RETLP). (38,623) (37,009) (39,405) (+782) (+2,396)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers (496,324) (476,475) (506,787) (+10,463) (+30,312)
from program
accounts...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses.. (657,622) (684,669) (682,089) (+24,467) (-2,580)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 898,433 208,194 175,302 -723,131 -32,892
Development........
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance
Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family (1,129,391) ................. (1,129,391) ................ (+1,129,391)
direct (sec. 502)
Unsubsidized (3,644,224) (4,848,611) (3,561,111) (-83,113) (-1,287,500)
guaranteed...
-------------------
Subtotal, (4,773,615) (4,848,611) (4,690,502) (-83,113) (-158,109)
Single
family.....
Housing repair (34,652) (22,855) (34,652) ................ (+11,797)
(sec. 504).......
Rental housing (99,000) ................. (70,000) (-29,000) (+70,000)
(sec. 515).......
Site loans (sec. (5,000) (5,045) (5,045) (+45) ................
524).............
Multi-family (99,000) (200,000) (150,000) (+51,000) (-50,000)
housing
guarantees (sec.
538).............
Multi-family (1,485) (1,408) (1,485) ................ (+77)
housing credit
sales............
Single family (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
housing credit
sales............
Self-help housing (4,998) ................. (5,000) (+2) (+5,000)
land develop.
(sec. 523).......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (5,027,750) (5,087,919) (4,966,684) (-61,066) (-121,235)
authorizations.
Loan subsidies:
Single family 113,278 ................. 105,824 -7,454 +105,824
direct (sec. 502)
Unsubsidized 42,641 10,070 42,495 -146 +32,425
guaranteed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 155,919 10,070 148,319 -7,600 +138,249
Single
family.....
Housing repair 10,240 6,461 9,796 -444 +3,335
(sec. 504).......
Rental housing 45,213 ................. 29,827 -15,386 +29,827
(sec. 515).......
Multi-family 7,663 18,800 14,100 +6,437 -4,700
housing
guarantees (sec.
538).............
Multi-family 673 523 552 -121 +29
housing credit
sales............
Single family 48 ................. ................ -48 ................
housing credit
sales............
Self-help housing 123 ................. 142 +19 +142
land develop.
(sec. 523).......
Multi-family 8,910 ................. ................ -8,910 ................
housing
preservation.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 228,789 35,854 202,736 -26,053 +166,882
subsidies......
RHIF administrative 452,927 434,890 462,521 +9,594 +27,631
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing 681,716 470,744 665,257 -16,459 +194,513
Insurance Fund.....
(Loan (5,027,750) (5,087,919) (4,966,684) (-61,066) (-121,235)
authorization).
=========================================================================================================================
Rental assistance
program:
(Sec. 521)........ 608,100 567,000 490,950 -117,150 -76,050
(Sec. 7,920 ................. 6,000 -1,920 +6,000
502(c)(5)(D))....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental 616,020 567,000 496,950 -119,070 -70,050
assistance
program........
Rural housing voucher 15,840 ................. 15,500 -340 +15,500
program..................
Multifamily housing ................ 27,800 15,000 +15,000 -12,800
revitalization program
account..................
MHRP administrative ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
expenses (transfer to RD)
MHRP revolving loans.......... ................ ................. 2,923 +2,923 +2,923
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multifamily 15,840 27,800 33,423 +17,583 +5,623
housing revitalization.
Mutual and self-help 33,660 9,500 38,000 +4,340 +28,500
housing grants...........
Rural housing assistance 43,603 39,000 40,590 -3,013 +1,590
grants...................
Farm labor housing program
account:
(Loan authorization).. (38,117) (13,520) (27,739) (-10,378) (+14,219)
Loan subsidy.......... 18,277 5,849 12,000 -6,277 +6,151
Grants................ 13,860 4,000 10,000 -3,860 +6,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor 32,137 9,849 22,000 -10,137 +12,151
Housing Program
Account............
Rural community program
account:
Loan authorizations:
Community
facility:........
Direct........ ................ (302,414) (297,000) (+297,000) (-5,414)
Guaranteed.... ................ (210,000) (207,900) (+207,900) (-2,100)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan ................ (512,414) (504,900) (+504,900) (-7,514)
authorizati
ons........
Loan subsidies and
grants:
Commmunity
facility:
Direct........ ................ 16,784 16,484 +16,484 -300
Guaranteed.... ................ 7,728 7,651 +7,651 -77
Grants........ ................ ................. 17,000 +17,000 +17,000
Rural Community ................ ................. 6,287 +6,287 +6,287
Development
Initiative grants
Tribal college ................ ................. 4,000 +4,000 +4,000
grants...........
Economic impact ................ ................. 16,000 +16,000 +16,000
initiative grants
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan ................ 24,512 67,422 +67,422 +42,910
subsidies and
grants.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants 109,400 82,861 168,012 +58,612 +85,151
and payments...
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural 1,422,976 1,148,405 1,363,642 -59,334 +215,237
Housing Service
(Loan (5,065,867) (5,613,853) (5,499,323) (+433,456) (-114,530)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Business--Cooperative
Service:
Rural Development Loan
Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (33,870) (33,772) (33,870) ................ (+98)
Loan subsidy.......... 14,927 14,485 14,527 -400 +42
Administrative 4,774 4,576 4,861 +87 +285
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 19,701 19,061 19,388 -313 +327
Development Loan
Fund...............
Rural Economic Development
Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization).. (24,752) (33,077) (33,077) (+8,325) ................
Direct subsidy........ 5,406 ................. ................ -5,406 ................
Mandatory subsidy (NA) ................ (7,472) (7,472) (+7,472) ................
Rural economic development (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
grants (NA)..............
Rural cooperative
development grants:
Cooperative 3,753 4,455 4,455 +702 ................
development..........
Appropriate technology 936 ................. 3,000 +2,064 +3,000
transfer for rural
areas................
Cooperative research 495 ................. ................ -495 ................
agreement............
Value-added 20,295 15,000 17,475 -2,820 +2,475
agricultural product
market development...
Grants to assist 1,239 1,473 1,473 +234 ................
minority producers...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 26,718 20,928 26,403 -315 +5,475
Cooperative
development grants.
Rural empowerment zones 11,088 ................. 10,000 -1,088 +10,000
and enterprise
communities grants.......
Renewable energy program:
(Loan authorization).. (176,512) (195,470) (176,512) ................ (-18,958)
Loan subsidy.......... 11,456 18,941 17,104 +5,648 -1,837
Grants................ 11,385 15,000 11,385 ................ -3,615
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable 22,841 33,941 28,489 +5,648 -5,452
energy program.....
Rural Business Program
Account:
(Guaranteed business ................ (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (+1,000,000) ................
and industry loans)..
Guaranteed business ................ 43,200 43,200 +43,200 ................
and industry subsidy.
Grants:
Rural business ................ ................. 38,000 +38,000 +38,000
enterprise.......
Rural business ................ ................. 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
opportunity......
Delta regional ................ ................. 3,000 +3,000 +3,000
authority........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural ................ 43,200 86,200 +86,200 +43,000
Business
Program Account
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural 85,754 117,130 170,480 +84,726 +53,350
Business--Coope
rative Service.
(Loan (235,134) (1,262,319) (1,243,459) (+1,008,325) (-18,860)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans
Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 (99,000) (100,000) (100,000) (+1,000) ................
percent......
Direct, (100,764) ................. ................ (-100,764) ................
Municipal
rate.........
Direct, FFB... (2,700,000) (4,000,000) (6,500,000) (+3,800,000) (+2,500,000)
Direct, (990,000) ................. ................ (-990,000) ................
Treasury rate
Guaranteed (1,500,000) ................. (1,000,000) (-500,000) (+1,000,000)
underwriting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (5,389,764) (4,100,000) (7,600,000) (+2,210,236) (+3,500,000)
Electric...
Telecommunications
:
Direct, 5 (145,000) (145,000) (145,000) ................ ................
percent......
Direct, (419,760) (250,000) (250,000) (-169,760) ................
Treasury rate
Direct, FFB... (125,000) (295,000) (295,000) (+170,000) ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, (689,760) (690,000) (690,000) (+240) ................
Telecommuni
cations....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (6,079,524) (4,790,000) (8,290,000) (+2,210,476) (+3,500,000)
authorizati
ons........
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 2,119 120 120 -1,999 ................
percent......
Direct, 1,522 ................. ................ -1,522 ................
Municipal
rate.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 3,641 120 120 -3,521 ................
Electric...
Telecommunications
:
Direct, 5 537 116 116 -421 ................
percent......
Direct, 126 1,675 1,675 +1,549 ................
Treasury rate
Direct, FFB... ................ 1,829 1,829 +1,829 ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 663 3,620 3,620 +2,957 ................
Telecommuni
cations....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 4,304 3,740 3,740 -564 ................
subsidies..
RETLP administrative 38,623 37,009 39,405 +782 +2,396
expenses (transfer to
RD)..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural 42,927 40,749 43,145 +218 +2,396
Electrification and
Telecommunications
Loans Program
Account............
(Loan (6,079,524) (4,790,000) (8,290,000) (+2,210,476) (+3,500,000)
authorization).
=========================================================================================================================
Distance learning,
telemedicine, and broadband
program:
Loan authorizations:
Broadband (495,000) (300,000) (495,000) ................ (+195,000)
telecommunications...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan (495,000) (300,000) (495,000) ................ (+195,000)
authorizations.....
Loan subsidies and grants:
Distance learning and
telemedicine:
Grants............ 29,700 24,750 34,750 +5,050 +10,000
Broadband
telecommunications:
Direct............ 10,643 6,450 10,643 +4,193 ................
Grants............ 8,910 ................. 8,910 ................ +8,910
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan 49,253 31,200 54,303 +5,050 +23,103
subsidies and
grants.........
Rural water and waste
disposal program account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct............ ................ (1,080,239) (1,080,234) (+1,080,234) (-5)
Guaranteed........ ................ (75,000) (75,000) (+75,000) ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan ................ (1,155,239) (1,155,234) (+1,155,234) (-5)
authorization..
Loan subsidies and
grants:
Direct subsidy.... ................ 153,394 73,564 +73,564 -79,830
Water and waste ................ 345,920 437,748 +437,748 +91,828
grants...........
Solid waste ................ 3,465 3,465 +3,465 ................
management grants
Emergency ................ ................. 13,692 +13,692 +13,692
Community Water
Assistance grants
Individual water ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
well grants......
Water and waste ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
financing
revolving fund...
High energy cost ................ ................. 22,000 +22,000 +22,000
grants...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan ................ 502,779 550,469 +550,469 +47,690
subsidies and
grants.........
=========================================================================================================================
Total, Rural 92,180 574,728 647,917 +555,737 +73,189
Utilities
Service........
(Loan (6,574,524) (6,245,239) (9,940,234) (+3,365,710) (+3,694,995)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title 2,499,975 2,049,152 2,358,007 -141,968 +308,855
III, Rural
Economic and
Community
Development
Programs.......
(By (496,324) (476,475) (506,787) (+10,463) (+30,312)
transfer)..
(Loan (11,875,525) (13,121,411) (16,683,016) (+4,807,491) (+3,561,605)
authorizati
on)........
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD
PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary 597 655 628 +31 -27
for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services............
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs.. 7,614,523 7,592,797 7,662,215 +47,692 +69,418
Transfer from section 5,731,073 6,304,475 6,235,057 +503,984 -69,418
32...................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child 13,345,596 13,897,272 13,897,272 +551,676 ................
nutrition programs.
Special supplemental 5,204,430 5,386,597 5,720,000 +515,570 +333,403
nutrition program for
women, infants, and
children (WIC)...........
Food stamp program:
Expenses.............. 33,463,137 35,053,973 35,017,973 +1,554,836 -36,000
Armed forces provision 1,000 ................. ................ -1,000 ................
Reserve............... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ................ ................
Nutrition assistance 1,557,397 1,621,250 1,621,250 +63,853 ................
for Puerto Rico and
Samoa................
The emergency food 140,000 140,000 140,000 ................ ................
assistance program...
CSFP transitional ................ 21,000 ................ ................ -21,000
benefit..............
CSFP outreach ................ 2,000 ................ ................ -2,000
grant............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food 38,161,534 39,838,223 39,779,223 +1,617,689 -59,000
stamp program..
Commodity assistance
program:
Commodity supplemental 107,202 ................. 128,000 +20,798 +128,000
food program.........
Farmers market 19,800 19,800 20,000 +200 +200
nutrition program....
Emergency food 49,500 49,500 50,000 +500 +500
assistance program...
Pacific island and 1,070 1,070 1,070 ................ ................
disaster assistance..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity 177,572 70,370 199,070 +21,498 +128,700
assistance program.
Nutrition programs 140,252 148,926 147,426 +7,174 -1,500
administration...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and 57,029,384 59,341,388 59,742,991 +2,713,607 +401,603
Nutrition Service......
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 57,029,981 59,342,043 59,743,619 +2,713,638 +401,576
Domestic Food Programs.
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service:
Salaries and expenses, 156,220 168,209 167,391 +11,171 -818
direct appropriation.....
(Transfer from export (3,433) (4,985) (4,985) (+1,552) ................
loans)...................
(Transfer from Public Law (166) ................. ................ (-166) ................
480).....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (159,819) (173,194) (172,376) (+12,557) (-818)
expenses program level.
Public Law 480 Program and
Grant Accounts:
Title II--Commodities for
disposition abroad:
Program level......... (1,214,711) (1,219,400) (1,219,400) (+4,689) ................
Appropriation......... 1,214,711 1,219,400 1,219,400 +4,689 ................
Salaries and expenses:
Foreign Agricultural 166 ................. ................ -166 ................
Service (transfer to
FAS).................
Farm Service Agency 3,207 2,761 2,749 -458 -12
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............ 3,373 2,761 2,749 -624 -12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law
480:
Program level... (1,214,711) (1,219,400) (1,219,400) (+4,689) ................
Appropriation... 1,218,084 1,222,161 1,222,149 +4,065 -12
=========================================================================================================================
CCC Export Loans Program
Account (administrative
expenses):
Salaries and expenses
(Export Loans):
General Sales Manager 3,433 4,985 4,985 +1,552 ................
(transfer to FAS)....
Farm Service Agency 343 359 349 +6 -10
(transfer to FSA)....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export 3,776 5,344 5,334 +1,558 -10
Loans Program
Account............
McGovern-Dole international 99,000 100,000 100,000 +1,000 ................
food for education and child
nutrition program grants.....
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign 1,477,080 1,495,714 1,494,874 +17,794 -840
Assistance and Related
Programs...............
(By transfer)....... (3,599) (4,985) (4,985) (+1,386) ................
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct 1,569,244 1,635,709 1,755,135 +185,891 +119,426
appropriation................
Prescription Drug User Fee (352,200) (339,195) (459,000) (+106,800) (+119,805)
Act......................
Medical Device User Fee (43,726) (47,500) (48,431) (+4,705) (+931)
Act......................
Animal Drug User Fee Act.. (11,604) (13,696) (13,696) (+2,092) ................
Generic drug user fee..... ................ (15,701) ................ ................ (-15,701)
Reinspection fees (user ................ (23,276) ................ ................ (-23,276)
fees) (leg. prop) NA.....
Food export fees (user ................ (3,741) ................ ................ (-3,741)
fees) (leg. prop) NA.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ (1,976,774) (2,051,801) (2,276,262) (+299,488) (+224,461)
Mammography clinics user (17,522) (18,398) (18,398) (+876) ................
fee (outlay savings).....
Export and color (8,481) (9,500) (9,500) (+1,019) ................
certification............
Payments to GSA........... (126,871) (131,533) (131,533) (+4,662) ................
Buildings and facilities...... 4,950 4,950 4,950 ................ ................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug 1,574,194 1,640,659 1,760,085 +185,891 +119,426
Administration.........
=========================================================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Farm Credit Administration (44,250) (46,000) (46,000) (+1,750) ................
(limitation on administrative
expenses)....................
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related 1,574,194 1,640,659 1,760,085 +185,891 +119,426
Agencies and Food and
Drug Administration....
=========================================================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Denali Commission............. 743 ................. 437 -306 +437
Section 32 (rescission) (sec. -37,601 -65,452 -331,000 -293,399 -265,548
xxx).........................
Specialty crop grants (sec. 6,930 ................. ................ -6,930 ................
736).........................
Healthy Forest Reserve........ 2,476 ................. ................ -2,476 ................
Food stamp program employment -11,200 ................. ................ +11,200 ................
& training (rescission)......
ARS buildings and facilities ................ -16,000 ................ ................ +16,000
(rescission).................
Hawaii APHIS facility......... ................ ................. 200 +200 +200
National Center for Natural ................ ................. 5,000 +5,000 +5,000
Products Research............
Across-the-board Pay Raise ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(H.J. Res. 20, Sec. 111)
(outlays)....................
Emergency Conservation program ................ ................. 10,000 +10,000 +10,000
Hardwoods Trees............... ................ ................. 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
=========================================================================================================================
Total, title VII, -38,652 -81,452 -314,363 -275,711 -232,911
General provisions.....
=========================================================================================================================
Grand total............. 97,425,472 89,736,689 90,605,092 -6,820,380 +868,403
Appropriations...... (97,474,273) (89,818,141) (90,936,092) (-6,538,181) (+1,117,951)
Emergency ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
Appropriations.....
Rescissions......... (-48,801) (-81,452) (-331,000) (-282,199) (-249,548)
(By transfer)........... (806,782) (800,977) (829,760) (+22,978) (+28,783)
(Loan authorization).... (15,625,053) (16,488,223) (20,133,919) (+4,508,866) (+3,645,696)
(Limitation on (153,924) (154,696) (154,696) (+772) ................
administrative
expenses)..............
=========================================================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs 34,030,339 24,464,990 24,590,017 -9,440,322 +125,027
Mandatory................. (27,494,109) (17,817,997) (17,817,997) (-9,676,112) ................
Discretionary............. (6,536,230) (6,646,993) (6,772,020) (+235,790) (+125,027)
Title II--Conservation 852,555 825,583 972,853 +120,298 +147,270
programs (discretionary).....
Title III--Rural economic and 2,499,975 2,049,152 2,358,007 -141,968 +308,855
community development
programs (discretionary).....
Title IV--Domestic food 57,029,981 59,342,043 59,743,619 +2,713,638 +401,576
programs.....................
Mandatory................. (51,506,130) (53,712,495) (53,676,495) (+2,170,365) (-36,000)
Discretionary............. (5,523,851) (5,629,548) (6,067,124) (+543,273) (+437,576)
Title V--Foreign assistance 1,477,080 1,495,714 1,494,874 +17,794 -840
and related programs
(discretionary)..............
Title VI--Related agencies and 1,574,194 1,640,659 1,760,085 +185,891 +119,426
Food and Drug Administration
(discretionary)..............
Title VII--General provisions -38,652 -81,452 -314,363 -275,711 -232,911
(discretionary)..............
Other appropriations ................ ................. ................ ................ ................
(discretionary)..............
-------------------
Total................... 97,425,472 89,736,689 90,605,092 -6,820,380 +868,403
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
