[House Report 105-588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 105-588
_______________________________________________________________________
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1999
_______
June 19, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Skeen, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4101]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 1999.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 recommendation compared with
FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 1999 -------------------------------------
appropriation estimates recommendation FY 1998
appropriation FY 1999 estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs.............................. $6,940,775,000 $13,924,292,000 14,364,890,000 +7,424,115,000 +440,598,000
Title II--Conservation Programs............................. 786,474,000 826,327,000 784,357,000 -2,117,000 -41,970,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs 2,087,222,000 2,220,118,000 2,173,781,000 +86,559,000 -46,337,000
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs............................ 37,222,519,000 38,442,205,000 36,114,845,000 -1,107,674,000 -2,327,360,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs............ 1,605,799,000 1,365,172,000 1,424,854,000 -180,945,000 +59,682,000
Title VI--Related Agencies and FDA.......................... 990,974,000 1,036,025,000 1,030,420,000 +39,446,000 -5,605,000
Title VII--Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 104-208).......... 159,800,000 ................ ................ -159,800,000 .................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 49,793,563,000 57,814,139,000 55,893,147,000 +6,099,584,000 -1,920,992,000
Scorekeeping adjustments.............................. -243,405,000 +256,217,000 +18,717,000 +262,125,000 -237,500,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 49,550,155,000 58,070,356,000 55,911,864,000 +6,361,709,000 -2,158,492,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For discretionary programs the Committee provides
$13,621,112,000, which is $129,888,000 less than the amount
available in fiscal year 1998 and $57,492,000 less than the
budget request.
For mandatory programs, which account for over 75 percent
of the bill, the Committee provides $42,543,252,000, an
increase of $6,864,013,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 1998 and $2,101,500,000 below the budget request.
Introduction
The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives
of every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture
administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of
Americans. USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat
and poultry supply.
This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our
Nation's food supply, to make American exports competitive in
world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure
food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than
two percent of the population to provide a wide variety of
safe, nutritious, and affordable food for nearly 270 million
Americans and many more people overseas.
Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest
priorities. The bill provides increases of more than
$15,000,000 to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Food
and Drug Administration, the Office of the Chief Economist, the
Economic Research Service, the Food and Nutrition Service, the
Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service for food safety
related activities.
The rural development programs funded in this bill provide
basic housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic
growth in rural America. Conservation and environmental
programs preserve lands and watersheds for use by future
generations.
In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and
Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous
range of food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly
complex market in commodity trading.
To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and
critical activities is never easy and the task will be more
difficult as we continue the effort to balance the budget.
There are relatively few program increases in this bill. Many
of the accounts are at current levels of spending or decreased
from the previous fiscal year.
In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by
two main factors: allocations for budget authority and outlays
in comparison with fiscal year 1998 and the use of user fees by
the Administration to offset approximately $800 million in new
spending. Because the proposed user fees require enactment into
law and extensive rule making, there will be no revenue from
them for fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the Committee must
provide necessary spending using appropriated funds and
limitations on mandatory programs.
The Committee also believes the USDA needs to devote
additional management resources to insure that its large and
diverse computer operations are compliant with Year 2000
requirements.
Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee bases its authority to report this
legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the
Constitution of the United States of America which states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
1998 appropriation...................................... \1\ $3,379,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 2,941,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 2,941,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -438,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Includes $543,000 provided in P.L. 105-174 supplemental
appropriations.
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 of 1944 (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 provisions
For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $2,941,000, a decrease of $438,000 below the
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the
budget request.
The Committee expects the Department to continue to close
out the backlog of civil rights claims against the Department
within FY 1999. The Committee further directs the Secretary to
report on the Department's progress in this area at six month
intervals.
The Secretary shall report to the Appropriations Committee
of the House and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate
biannually during fiscal year 1999 as to whether the prices of
raw cane and beet sugar are sufficient to prevent forfeitures
and that the stock/use ratio is sufficient to ensure stable and
adequate supplies to consumers and refiners, with consideration
of its impact on growers, producers, processors, and users.
The Committee is aware of the Secretary's difficulty in
complying with the April, 1999 enactment date for Federal milk
marketing orders. Accordingly, the Committee has included a
general provision that grants an extension of the date of
enactment.
The Committee has included a general provision which limits
expenses related to advisory committees, panels, task forces,
and commissions to not more than $1,400,000. This provision is
intended to cover the activities of all advisory committees,
panels, task forces, and commissions including any FACA related
activities. The only exceptions are for panels used to comply
with negotiated rulemakings and panels used to evaluate
competitively awarded grants. The Committee expects the
Department to participate in the National Drought Policy
Commission.
The Committee is aware of the concerns that have arisen
regarding the manner in which the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) has been implemented. The Committee concurs with the
direction set forth in Vice President Gore's memorandum of
April 8, 1998, to the Secretary of Agriculture and to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency setting
forth clear principles to guide implementation of the FQPA. The
Committee believes that it is essential that the Department of
Agriculture fully carry out its responsibilities under this
memorandum. The intent of this directive is to ensure that FQPA
decisions are based on sound science, and reliable, accurate
data that reflect the conditions, practices and complexities of
the nation's agricultural production where practicable while
taking into consideration new public health and children's
health provisions.
The Secretary is directed to report within 90 days of the
enactment of this Act regarding departmental actions taken to
comply with and carry out the directives set forth in the April
8, 1998 memorandum and the Committee's directives set forth
above.
In fiscal year 1997, the Committee included language
designed to limit the personnel detailed to sub-Cabinet
offices. It had come to the Committee's attention that, while
each office had requested and received a specific
appropriation, in fact, many more personnel and funds were
being used to support sub-Cabinet offices. Each Under or
Assistant Secretary office should justify its expenditures and
staffing on the same basis as agencies must. It is apparent
that Under and Assistant Secretary offices continue to violate
the spirit of the individual appropriations for these offices.
Financial shell games have been devised to deflect salaries of
agency personnel for the continuation of the same function
detailees have been performing. The Committee includes language
again this year which prohibits details for more than 30 days.
The Committee has also appropriately reduced the fiscal year
1999 appropriations for those agencies contributing funding for
the purposes of supporting Under and Assistant Secretary
offices.
The Committee expects the Secretary to provide a report on
the status of identifying delinquent farm loan borrowers who
are also receiving program payments.
Executive Operations
Executive Operations was established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected department-wide services.
Activities under Executive Operations include the Office of the
Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis.
Office of the Chief Economist
1998 appropriation.................................... $5,048,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 5,823,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 5,973,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +925,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +150,000
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, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and
international food and agriculture, 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 provisions
For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $5,973,000, an increase of
$925,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an
increase of $150,000 above the budget request.
The effects of El Nino and other weather-related patterns
dramatically affect the outcome of all agricultural activity.
Long term modeling and forecasting efforts in the area of
climate change can provide valuable information that impact
producers and consumers alike. The Committee has provided
$150,000 to work with the International Research Institute for
Climate Prediction to use existing expertise in forecasting and
predictive modeling.
commission on 21st century production agriculture
1998 appropriation.................................... ................
1999 budget estimate.................................. $350,000
Provided in the bill.................................. ................
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. -350,000
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act
of 1996 authorized the Commission on 21st Century Production
Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of
the success of production flexibility contracts in supporting
the viability of U.S. farming and a review of the future of
production agriculture and the appropriate role of the Federal
government.
Committee Provisions
The Committee does not concur with the budget request for a
separate appropriation for the Commission on 21st Century
Production Agriculture. The Committee has included a general
provision which limits the total amount spent on all advisory
committees, task forces, panels, and commissions of the
Department to not more than $1,400,000. The Committee does not
specify how this funding should be spent, but rather, allows
the Secretary to prioritize and decide which ones to fund and
at what funding levels.
National Appeals Division
1998 appropriation.................................... $11,718,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 13,297,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 12,204,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +486,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. -1,093,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the Farm
Service Agency, the Risk Management Agency, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities
Service.
Committee Provisions
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $12,204,000, an increase of $486,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$1,093,000 below the budget request.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
1998 appropriation.................................... $5,986,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 6,045,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 6,120,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +134,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +75,000
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 decision-making
process; and provides department-wide 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 department-wide coordination
of the preparation and processing of regulations and
legislative programs and reports.
COMMITTEE PROVISIONS
For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $6,120,000, an increase
of $134,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
an increase of $75,000 above the budget request.
office of the chief information officer
1998 appropriation.................................... $4,773,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 7,222,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 5,551,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +778,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. -1,671,000
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies.
Pursuant to this Act, the Office of the Chief Information
Officer was established in August 1996, to provide policy
guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the
Department's information management and information technology
investment activities in support of USDA program delivery. The
Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency Information Resources
Management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. The Office
also provides telecommunications and ADP services to USDA
agencies through the National Information Technology Center
with locations in Ft. Collins, Colorado and Kansas City,
Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to
the Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel,
Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Operations.
Additionally, the Office of the Chief Information Officer
is responsible for certain activities under the Department's
Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
committee provisions
For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $5,551,000, an increase
of $778,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $1,671,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
1998 appropriation.................................... $4,283,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 4,562,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 4,283,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. -279,000
Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief
Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction
and oversight of the Department's financial management
operations and systems. The Office supports the Chief Financial
Officer in carrying out the dual roles of the Chief Financial
Management Policy Officer and the Chief Financial Management
Advisor to the Secretary and mission area heads. The Office
provides leadership, expertise, coordination, and evaluation in
the development of Department and agency programs for financial
management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and
performance measurements. It is also responsible for the
management and operation of the National Finance Center. The
Office also 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 Provisions
For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $4,283,000, the same as
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$279,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has repeated bill language that directs the
Chief Financial Officer to continue to market actively the
cross-servicing activities of the National Finance Center.
The Committee has carried an annual provision regarding the
Working Capital Fund to allow the National Finance Center (NFC)
of the Department of Agriculture to accumulate growth capital
for data services and other improvements. However, it is the
Committee's understanding that USDA has only used this
provision to ensure that deficits do not occur in the Working
Capital Fund. The Committee is aware of the urgent need to
modernize and improve existing hardware and software systems as
well as other capital requirements at the NFC. The Committee
directs that USDA to report back to the Committee on a plan to
allow the NFC, due to efficiencies, cost savings, or other
mechanisms, to use revenues or retained earnings of the Working
Capital Fund for capital improvements.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
1998 appropriation.................................... $613,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 636,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 636,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +23,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, equal
opportunity and civil rights programs, and other general
administrative functions. Additionally, 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 provisions
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$636,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
1998 appropriation.................................... $131,085,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 155,689,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 155,689,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +24,604,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
Rental Payments.--Annual appropriations are made to
agencies of the Federal government so that they can pay the
General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space
and for related services.
The budget estimates for rental payments are based on GSA's
projection of what it will bill agencies in the budget year.
The agencies have no influence or control over how GSA sets
their rates. Rental payments paid by agencies go into a fund to
be used for other real property management operations, such as
rental of buildings, repairs and alterations, and acquisition
of new facilities. The concept behind rental payments is that
all agencies pay the market value of the space they occupy so
that GSA will have the funds available to provide, in an
efficient and coordinated way, for overall Federal space needs.
However, in practice this concept means that agencies are
paying prevailing commercial rental rates in order to subsidize
the inflated cost of new construction and newly leased space
and to cover the cost of vacant space in GSA's inventory.
Building Operations and Maintenance.--On October 1, 1984,
GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the
buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity
provides departmental staff and support services to operate,
maintain, and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since
1989, when the GSA delegation expired, USDA has been
responsible for managing, operating, maintaining, repairing,
and improving the headquarters complex, which encompasses 14.1
acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately
three million square feet of space occupied by approximately
8,000 employees.
Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the
metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to
improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people,
including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority
goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and
effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To
implement this goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of
space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern
and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA Strategic
Space Plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its
facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out
of scattered leased facilities and serious safety hazards which
exist in the huge Agriculture South Building.
Committee Provisions
For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments to GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$155,689,000, an increase of $24,604,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget
request.
Included in this amount is $108,057,000 for rental payments
to GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent
of this appropriation to or from another agency's
appropriation. The Committee expects that such a transfer will
be proposed only when a move into GSA space is vacated in favor
of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for
incremental changes in the amount of GSA space and is not
intended merely to finance changes in GSA billing.
Hazardous Waste Management
1998 appropriation.................................... $15,700,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 15,700,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 15,700,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous waste as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous waste in areas covered by the Department or within
departmental jurisdiction.
Committee Provisions
For Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $15,700,000, the same as the amount available
for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Departmental Administration
1998 appropriation.................................... $29,231,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 32,168,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 32,168,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +2,937,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of the Department. These activities
include department-wide programs for human resource management,
management improvement, occupational safety and health
management, real and personal property management, procurement,
contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply
management, civil rights and equal opportunity, participation
of small and disadvantaged businesses and socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the Department's program
activities, emergency preparedness, and the regulatory hearing
and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative
Law Judges, Judicial Officer, and Board of Contract Appeals.
Departmental Administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of government-wide
policies and initiatives; analyzing the impact of government-
wide trends and developing appropriate USDA principles,
policies, and standards. In addition, Departmental
Administration engages in strategic planning and evaluating
programs to ensure Department-wide compliance with applicable
laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to administrative
matters for the Secretary and general officers of the
Department.
Committee Provisions
For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $32,168,000, an increase of $2,937,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the
budget request.
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
1998 appropriation.................................... $3,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 10,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 3,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. -7,000,000
This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Grants are made to eligible community-based organizations with
demonstrated experience in providing education or other
agriculturally related services to socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers in their area of influence. Also eligible
are the 1890 land-grant colleges, Tuskegee University, Indian
tribal community colleges, and Hispanic serving post-secondary
education facilities.
committee provisions
For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$3,000,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1998 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
1998 appropriation.................................... $3,668,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 3,814,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 3,668,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. -146,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains 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 Provisions
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$3,668,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1998 and a decrease of $146,000 below the budget request. The
Committee includes language allowing the transfer of not less
than $2,241,000 to agencies funded in this Act to maintain
personnel at the agency level. The following table reflects the
amounts provided by the Committee:
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 FY 1999 Committee
enacted estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Activities.......... $957 $994 957
Intergovernmental Affairs........ 470 488 470
Agricultural Marketing Service... 176 183 176
Agricultural Research Service.... 129 135 129
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.............. 101 106 101
Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service 120 126 120
Farm Service Agency.............. 355 369 355
Food and Nutrition Service....... 270 280 270
Food Safety and Inspection
Service......................... 309 321 309
Foreign Agricultural Service..... 183 191 183
Natural Resources Conservation
Service......................... 148 154 148
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service......................... 52 54 52
Rural Housing Service............ 147 153 147
Rural Utilities Service.......... 142 147 142
Risk Management Agency........... 109 113 109
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 3,668 3,814 3,668
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Communications
1998 appropriation.................................... $8,138,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 8,319,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 8,138,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. -181,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations
representing America's food, fiber, and environmental
interests.
committee provisions
For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $8,138,000, the same as the amount available
for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $181,000 below the
budget request.
Office of the Inspector General
1998 appropriation.................................... $63,128,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 87,689,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 67,178,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +4,050,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -20,511,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This reaffirmed
and expanded the Office established by Secretary's Memorandum
No. 1915, dated March 23, 1977.
The Office is administered by an Inspector General who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies, and review
of existing and proposed legislation and regulations regarding
the impact such initiatives will have on the economy and
efficiency of the Department's programs and operations and the
prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs.
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 Provisions
For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $67,178,000, an increase of
$4,050,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $20,511,000 below the budget request. Of the
funding provided, $2,085,000 is for pay and related retirement
costs.
The Committee expects the Inspector General to report on
efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the multi-family
rural housing program by April 1, 1999.
The Committee supports the Inspector General's law
enforcement and investigations, audits, and other related
oversight work of USDA's agencies and programs. Included in the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation is an increase of $1,965,000 for
these activities.
The Committee is aware that the USDA, the Department of
Treasury, and the Department of Justice have reached agreement
on the allocation of funds received through forfeiture
proceedings. The Committee believes that funds received as a
result of this agreement should allow the Inspector General's
Office to pursue law enforcement initiatives and other related
activities.
The Committee strongly supports the Department's Operation
Talon program to locate and apprehend fugitives who are
illegally receiving food stamps. This initiative has already
led to the arrest of nearly 2,500 dangerous fugitives,
including many individuals being sought for murder, rape,
assault, and other violent crimes. The Committee urges the
Department to expand its commitment to Operation Talon and to
enlist the assistance of state social service agencies in this
effort.
Office of the General Counsel
1998 appropriation.................................... $28,759,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 30,446,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 30,396,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +1,637,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. -50,000
The Office of the General Counsel, originally known as the
Office of the Solicitor, was established in 1910 as the law
office of the Department of Agriculture, and manages all of the
legal work arising from the activities of the Department. The
General Counsel represents the Department on administrative
proceedings for the promulgation of rules and regulations
having the force and effect of law; in quasi-judicial hearings
held in connection with the administration of various programs
and acts; and in proceedings involving freight rates and
practices relating to farm commodities. Counsel serves as
General Counsel for the Commodity Credit Corporation and the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal cases
arising under the programs of the Department for referral to
the Department of Justice.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $30,396,000, an increase of
$1,637,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $50,000 below the budget request. The Committee
has included an increase of $670,000 to provide legal support
for the Department's Civil Rights program.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
1998 appropriation.................................... $540,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 560,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 560,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +20,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
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 Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $560,000, an increase of $20,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the
budget request.
Economic Research Service
1998 appropriation.................................... $71,604,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 55,839,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 67,282,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -4,322,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +11,443,000
The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, food, natural resources, and
rural America. ERS produces such information 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 Provisions
For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $67,282,000, a decrease of $4,322,000 below
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of
$11,443,000 above the budget request. The increase provided
consolidates all studies and evaluations work of the food
stamp, child nutrition, and WIC programs into one account. This
work is to be carried out within the Food and Consumer
Economics Division of the ERS which conducts research and
analysis of food programs and food policy issues. The Committee
expects ERS to consult and work with the staff at the Food and
Nutrition Service as well as other agencies to assure that all
studies and evaluations are meeting the needs of the
Department.
As part of the nutrition related studies, the Committee
expects the Department to conduct a study to assess cost
containment practices used by states to limit branded products
sold in the WIC food package other than infant formula. The
study should consider cost containment impacts on: (1) program
participation; (2) availability at the retail level of foods
prescribed; (3) voucher redemption rates and participants
actual food selections; (4) participants on special diets or
with specific food allergies; (5) participants use of and
satisfaction with food prescribed; and (6) achievement of
positive health outcomes. The Committee expects the ERS to
report to the Committee on Appropriations on this issue no
later than September 30, 1999.
The Committee has become aware that plate waste is a
problem in the School Lunch Program. The Committee encourages
the ERS to work with the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct
a study on plate waste in the School Lunch Program and to
develop recommendations for eliminating this problem.
The Committee has included an increase of $704,000 so that
the ERS may conduct an analysis of the needs of small farmers
and other casualties of an industrializing agriculture sector,
an electric utility deregulation analysis, and an analysis on
estimating the benefits of food safety.
The Committee expects the agency to study the economic
impacts of the termination of the Wool Act to the sheep and
goat industry and to rural economies in the primary production
areas. The results of the study should be reported to the
appropriate Committees of Congress by February 15, 1999.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
1998 appropriation.................................... $118,048,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 107,190,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 105,082,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -12,966,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. -2,108,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, state, and county agricultural
statistics, which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. These statistics provide
accurate and timely estimates of current agricultural
production and measures of the economic and environmental
welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
Beginning with the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, funding
has been provided to NASS for the Census of Agriculture which
has been transferred from the Department of Commerce to the
Department of Agriculture to consolidate the activities of the
two agricultural statistics programs. The Census of Agriculture
is taken every five 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. It provides national, state, and county data as
well as selected data for Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United
States Virgin Islands.
Committee Provisions
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $105,082,000, a decrease
of $12,966,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998
and a decrease of $2,108,000 below the budget request. Included
in this amount is $23,141,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
The Census of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive
data every five years on all aspects of the agricultural
economy. For fiscal year 1999, data collection costs are
significantly reduced since data collection occurred primarily
in fiscal year 1998.
Agricultural Research Service
1998 appropriation.................................... $744,382,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 776,828,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 755,816,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +11,434,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. -21,012,000
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on November 2, 1953, under the
authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 133z-15),
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities.
Pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912), ARS includes functions previously
performed by the Human Nutrition Information Service and the
National Agricultural Library. ARS conducts basic and applied
research in the fields of animal sciences, plant sciences,
entomology, soil and water conservation, agricultural
engineering, utilization and development, human nutrition and
consumer use, marketing, development of integrated farming
systems, and development of methods to eradicate narcotic-
producing plants.
ARS also directs research beneficial to the United States
which can be advantageously conducted in foreign countries
through agreements with foreign research institutions and
universities, using foreign currencies for such purposes. This
program is carried out under the authority of sections 104(b)
(1) and (3) of Public Law 480, and the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended.
Committee Provisions
Salaries and expenses.--For salaries and expenses of the
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $755,816,000, an increase of $11,434,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$21,012,000 below the budget request.
Alternative fish feed, Aberdeen, ID.--Idaho is a national
leader in the aquaculture industry producing more than 70
percent of the nation's commercially grown rainbow trout. The
Committee provides an increase of $250,000 to initiate an
alternative grain-based fish feed project at the ARS facility
in Aberdeen, ID. Idaho is in a unique position to coordinate
needed research to develop solutions to challenges facing the
aquaculture industry.
Areawide pest management.--The Committee provides an
increase of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 as requested in the
budget for research to develop compounds to replace hazardous
chemicals and to expand IPM and areawide pest management
practices. New technologies are critical to assist the
Department in implementing its target of instituting IPM
practices on 75 percent of the nation's cropland and to meet
requirements resulting from the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA). No funds are appropriated in this bill to fund an
Office of Pest Management as proposed in the fiscal year 1999
budget.
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation.--The
Committee expects the agency to continue its work on the
Corporation's research at the same levels as fiscal year 1998,
subject to administrative streamlining reductions concurred in
by the Committee.
Biological control of western weeds.--Over 30 million acres
in western states are currently infested with noxious weeds
which continue to spread at an alarming rate. Yellow
Starthistle, Medusa Head and other weeds stifle the ability of
millions of acres to produce crops, forage for livestock and
wildlife, and habitat for wildlife. These weeds are also
invading our most environmentally sensitive parks and natural
resource acres in the west. The Committee provides an increase
of $300,000 to the Western Regional Research Center for
biological control resources on noxious weeds.
Citrus tresteza virus research.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of Citrus Tresteza Virus (CTV) research. The
fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided an increase of
$750,000 for cooperative CTV research. However, the Committee
believes the most effective use of these funds is through the
Special Research Grants account administered by CSREES. Funding
in the amount of $500,000 is transferred to that account in
fiscal year 1999 for CTV research. The balance is to remain in
support of the in-house Orlando-Ft. Pierce citrus research
program.
Closures of facilities.--The Committee has reviewed and
again disagrees with the President's recommendation to close
research laboratories at Prosser, WA; Mandan, ND; Orono, ME;
and Brawley, CA. The Committee believes that these locations
are essential components of the Department's agricultural
research program.
Continuing programs.--The Committee has reviewed the 92
projects recommended for elimination in FY 1999, some of which
were retained by the Committee last year. The Committee
recognizes the importance of these ongoing research projects in
addressing increasing problems faced by the Nation's food and
fiber producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following
areas of research in fiscal year 1999: organics management
research; shallow groundwater management systems for arid
irrigated areas; rice research; floriculture; genetic
characterization of soybean germplasm; development of soybean
germplasm and production systems for high yield and drought
prone environments; germplasm evaluation and genetic
improvement of oats and wild rice; improving sugarcane
productivity by conventional and molecular approaches to
genetic development; disease and insect control mechanisms for
the enhancement of sugar germplasm resistance; development and
use ofmolecular techniques in oat enhancement; soybean
diseases; genetically enhanced wheat for quality, productivity, and
resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses; control of foliar diseases
and smuts of wheat; Northwest nursery crops research; biological
control of yellow starthistle and other non-indigenous plant pests in
the Western U.S.; honeybee research; in-vitro creation and
commercialization of high solids tomatos and high solids, low sugar
potatoes; biology and control of virus diseases of sorghum; grain
legume research; biochemical and molecular regulation of preharvest
sprouting and grain dormancy in wheat; germplasm enhancement and
cultivar development of blackberry, strawberry, blueberry, and
raspberry; sensors and systems for site-specific crop management to
improve environmental quality; small grains research; sugarcane
biotechnology research; plant genetics equipment; developing integrated
weed management systems for efficient and sustainable sugarcane
production; evaluation of temperate legumes and warm-season grass
mixtures in sustainable production systems; enhancement of strawberry,
blueberry, and other small fruit crops through molecular approaches and
breeding; reduced herbicide inputs for effective weed management
systems to improve water quality; hops research; Formosan termite;
management of termites as urban pests in the American Pacific; lyme
disease (tick management project); reproductive efficiency of beef
cattle; Poult Enteritis Mortality Syndrome; ecologically-based
technologies for controlling ixodes scapularis and reducing lyme
disease; fish disease research; poisonous plant research; postharvest
handling and mechanization to minimize damage to fruits; enhanced use
of plant proteins: identifying, isolating, and relating structures to
properties; improving quality of fresh and fresh-cut produce by
preventing deterioration in cold storage; flavor optimization of major
food crops through control of metabolic processes; exploratory thermal
chemical conversions of starch to enhance derivatization; genetic
engineering of anaerobic bacteria for improved rumen function; novel
biopolymers based on agricultural sources; new bacterial
polysacchraides for food and industry; modification of vegetable oils
as raw materials for industrial uses; comparative textural analysis of
fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables; factors responsible for
control of the textural properties of processed sweet potato products;
improved peanut quality and bioactive nutrient composition with genetic
resources; food fermentation research; cotton ginning; and crop/animal
systems to improve nutrient management and sustainability of dairy
farms.
Emerging infectious animal and plant diseases.--The
Committee is keenly aware of the potential threats posed to
agriculture and animal and human health from emerging plant and
animal diseases. The Committee provides an increase of
$1,500,000 to combat new and emerging noxious weeds, biological
control of weedy plants that severely threaten biodiversity and
ecosystem functions, and emerging plant diseases that include
potato blight, sorghum ergot, etc. This research is directed to
ARS research centers at: Beltsville, MD; Frederick, MD; College
Station; TX; Weslaco, TX; Albany, CA; and Montpellier, FR.
In addition, the Committee provides an increase of $250,000
for rangeland research at the ARS Reno, NV research station to
emphasize the reestablishment of desirable native grass and
forage species.
The Committee is particularly sensitive to the need to
accelerate research to protect U.S. livestock and human health
against emerging infectious and zoonotic diseases such as
tuberculosis, brucellosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis,
salmonella, etc. Additional funding in the amount of $3,400,000
is provided to combat these diseases as well as develop
critical diagnostic tests and basic information for Scrapie,
BSE, Johne's disease, porcine reproductive and respiratory
syndrome, avian influenza, and various other disease agents of
livestock. These funds are to expand the ongoing research
carried out at existing ARS laboratories located at: Pullman,
WA; Laramie, WY; Athens, GA; Beltsville, MD; and the National
Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA.
Endophyte research.--There are over 35 million acres of
endophyte infected tall fescue pastures in the U.S. responsible
for annual losses to the beef cattle industry. The Committee
provides an increase of $200,000 for expanded cooperative
research with the University of Arkansas, University of
Missouri, and Oregon State University.
Everglades preservation.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the research being carried out to restore the
South Florida ecosystem and provides an increase of $750,000 as
requested in the President's budget. These funds are to be
implemented at the Canal Point, Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
laboratories to accelerate efforts to resolve the ecological,
hydrological, and agricultural constraints on sustainable
production in South Florida.
Fish diseases research.--The Committee provides an increase
of $350,000 in fiscal year 1999 for expanded agriculture
research at the ARS Auburn, AL research laboratory focusing on
development of successful disease prevention methods and
vaccines to thwart warm water fish diseases.
Floriculture and nursery crop research.--The Committee
notes that floriculture and nursery crops represent more than
10 percent of the total U.S. farm crop cash receipts. The
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to implement this
research. Of the additional funding, $200,000 is provided for
research at Ohio State University to support the Ornamental
Plant Germplasm Center and $200,000 is directed to the floral
and nursery plants research program at the U.S. National
Arboretum. A portion of this funding should be allocated to
university partners, including California University and
Cornell University, through cooperative agreements.
Food safety.--The Committee is currently providing
significant funding in support of the department's food safety
programs. In fiscal year 1998 the Congress appropriated a total
of $66,262,000 to USDA for the President's food safety
initiative. ARS funding for food safety research is currently
$54,849,000, which is an increase of $4,000,000 over the fiscal
year 1997 level. The Committee understands the importance of
this research and the need to assure the American people that
they have a safe and healthy food supply. Within the limited
budget allocations available for fiscal year 1999, the
Committee provides an additional $3,750,000 for pre- and post-
harvest food safety research. The Committee directs the Agency
to implement the additional pre-harvest resources to those
areas emphasized in the budget at Clay Center, NE; Ames, IA;
Athens, GA; Beltsville, MD; College Station, TX; and West
Lafayette, IN totaling $1,500,000. The Committee also includes
$1,000,000 for expanded research to maintain the safety and
quality of fresh fruits and vegetables as requested in the
President's budget. The Committee provides an additional
$1,250,000 for the most essential post-harvest food safety
research as identified in the fiscal year 1999 request.
The fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act provided $420,000
for a food safety study to be conducted by the National Academy
of Sciences. These funds are deleted in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill.
Ft. Pierce, FL.--The Committee recognizes the important
research currently being conducted at the Orlando, FL citrus
research laboratory and notes its consolidation in the new
replacement laboratory at Ft. Pierce in fiscal year 1999. The
new laboratory will carry out a more diverse horticultural
sciences program. The Committee provides an increase of
$500,000 to support additional research scientists under this
expanded program.
Formosan Termite Control.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal year 1998, for the
ongoing formosan termite control and research program at the
Southern Regional Research Center.
Fusarium head blight.--Generally known as ``scab'',
Fusarium Head Blight poses an extremely serious threat to all
classes of wheat and barley in the U.S. The effects of scab are
mostly manifested as reduced farm yield, lowered test weights,
and reduced grain quality. The problem is amplified because
scab infected grain is usually contaminated with vomitoxin, a
toxic metabolyte produced when the fungal pathogen invades the
developing grain kernel. The Committee is providing an increase
of $3,000,000 to support the ongoing cooperative effort with
the 12 land-grant universities to control this serious threat
to the wheat and barley industries.
Genetic resources.--The Committee concurs that there is
need to invest in new biotechnological approaches of genomics
which promise to unlock secrets controlling agriculturally
important traits of plant and animal germplasm. The Committee
provides an increase of $2,100,000 over the fiscal year 1998
level to support funding of the department's Food Genome
Initiative. The Committee is supportive of this initiative and
directs the Department to provide status reports detailing
program and funding efforts in this research.
Grape rootstock.--Grapes are now the highest value fruit
crop in the nation and sixth largest crop overall. Most of the
crop is processed to raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby
adding enormous value to the crop. The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 for research at Geneva, NY for vitally
needed research on rootstock development.
Honey bee.--Varroa mites and trachea mites are having
devastating effects on wild honeybee populations. Without
proper control of these pests U.S. agriculture will suffer
dramatic losses to production. Accordingly, the Committee
provides $300,000 at the ARS lab in Baton Rouge, LA for the
development of long term, genetics-based solutions.
Human nutrition research.--The Committee recognizes the
ongoing efforts of the ARS Human Nutrition Centers and provides
an additional $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1999. These resources
will further research investigations on dietary intake, and
reduced risk of chronic diseases. The increase is directed to
the Centers located at Beltsville, MD; Boston, MA; Houston, TX;
San Francisco, CA; Little Rock, AR; and Grand Forks, ND.
Lettuce geneticist/breeder, Salinas, CA.--The Committee
provides an increase of $250,000 for a new geneticist plant
breeder at the ARS research station at Salinas, CA. This
increase will strengthen the current research effort on
development of new lettuce varieties and improved product
quality.
Lyme disease.--The Committee provides an increase of
$200,000 for continued support of the 5 year Northeast Area-
Wide Tick Control Project to achieve a dramatic reduction of
Lyme Ticks thereby reducing Lyme disease risks to humans.
Meadowfoam research.--The Committee supports the important
utilization research conducted at the Peoria, IL Center and the
work it is doing on meadowfoam. An increase of $200,000 over
the fiscal year 1998 level is provided to expand research on
this important new crop at NCAUR.
Methyl Bromide.--The Committee is aware of the important
research carried out by ARS to develop alternatives to methyl
bromide which is effectively utilized as a soil farming agent
and pest control for stored commodities. The Committee provides
$14,571,000 for methyl bromide research, the same as the fiscal
year 1998 funding level.
National Agricultural Library.--The Committee provides an
increase of $300,000 for the purchase of periodicals, improved
electronic retrieval capacity, enhanced preservation effort,
and to expand agriculture network information centers.
Peanut research.--The Committee notes that peanuts
represent an essential agricultural industry to the rural
Southeast. Peanuts are a major commodity in the U.S. and
International markets. The peanut industry is concerned about
the need for new and effective technologies to use in place of
existing marketing methodologies for peanuts from the producer
to the consumer. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000
in fiscal year 1999 to support this research program to be
carried out at ARS research laboratories in Dawson, GA and
Raleigh, NC.
Pfiesteria research.--The Committee recognizes the need for
additional research on the relationship between agricultural
practices and Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. While it has not been clearly established that
agricultural nutrient sources are responsible for the recent
outbreaks of Pfiesteria, there is a scientific consensus that
agricultural-based nutrients can be a contributing factor. In
this regard, the Committee provides $1,500,000 over the fiscal
year 1998 level to investigate this matter and to make periodic
reports to the Committee on the research findings.
Phytoestrogens research.--The Committee has provided
$450,000, the same amount as in fiscal year 1998, for the
Southern Regional Research Center for a broad based research
program to investigate the mechanisms of production and action
of phytoestrogens.
Range research.--The Committee is cognizant of the
important work carried out at the ARS rangeland research
station at Burns, OR. Additional staffing is required to meet
research needs in support of action agencies, farmers and
ranchers in the Great Basin rangeland area--primarily Oregon,
Washington, Idaho and Nevada. The Committee provides an
increase of $250,000 for this research in fiscal year 1999.
Rice research.--The Committee continues to emphasize the
need for rice research and provides an increase of $200,000 to
enhance rice quality research at the ARS Rice Research
Laboratory, Beaumont, TX and $250,000 for rice germplasm and
genetics research at the Davis, CA laboratory.
Root diseases in wheat and barley.--An increase of $250,000
is provided to the ARS Root Disease and Biological Control
Laboratory, Pullman, WA for investigation of root diseases.
Major research breakthroughs are needed in root disease
management to achieve high yields possible under conservation
tillage systems.
Small fruits research.--The Committee provides an increase
of $250,000 to the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research,
Corvallis, OR. The Center conducts and coordinates research
efforts unique to small fruit industries in the Pacific
Northwest, including breeding, insect, disease management,
product development, and market analyses.
Soil tilth research.--Additional research staffing to carry
out effective soil and water investigations at the ARS National
Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, IA is prudent. The Committee
provides an addition of $500,000 over the fiscal year 1998
level to support this research.
Subtropical Animal Research Station.--The Committee
provides an increase of $500,000 above the fiscal year 1998
funding level for essential staffing of subtropical animal
production and germplasm research at the STARS research station
at Brooksville, FL.
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, Miami, FL.--The
Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for additional
staffing at the ARS Miami research station. Expansion of
research efforts is needed to address emerging pest problems
from the Caribbean basin areas; development of tropical tree
fruit as a high value crop; and support the restoration of the
Everglades ecosystem.
Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the need for
additional funding to adequately support the ARS sugarbeet
research program at Ft. Collins, CO. An increase of $200,000 is
provided to strengthen sugarbeet research at the ARS laboratory
in fiscal year 1999.
Survey of food intakes of infants and children.--The
Committee provided $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 to respond to
the requirements of the Food Quality and Protection Act. The
survey will enable the Secretary to provide the Environmental
Protection Agency with essential information on food
consumption patterns of infants and children. This data will
also be useful to other agencies that address similar or
related issues. These funds will not be required in fiscal year
1999 and are deleted from the fiscal year 1999 bill.
U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The
Committee provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 1999
for additional staffing to perform research on molecular
biology to improve agronomic crop tolerance to water and other
environmental stress factors in the High Plains region.
Vegetable research.--ARS carries out important research on
cucumbers, carrots, onions, cabbage, garlic and other
vegetables essential to the American diet. The Committee
provides an increase of $200,000 to strengthen this research at
the Vegetable Harvesting Laboratory, East Lansing, MI;
Vegetable Crops Research Laboratory, Madison, WI; U.S.
Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, SC; and the Food Fermentation
Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.
Wild rice research.--The Committee provides an increase of
$100,000 in fiscal year 1999 to strengthen program support for
wild rice research including germplasm preservation, seed
storage, disease resistance, and plant productivity. This
program is directed from the ARS St. Paul, MN research
laboratory.
Buildings and Facilities
1998 appropriation.................................... $80,630,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 35,900,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 61,380,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -19,250,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +25,480,000
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 which directly or indirectly support research and
extension programs of the Department. Routine construction or
replacement items would continue to be funded under the
limitations contained in the regular account.
Committee Provisions
For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and
Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$61,380,000, a decrease of $19,250,000 below the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of $25,480,000
above the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 Committee
estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Arizona:
Water Conservation & Western Cotton,
Maricopa................................. ........... $1,750
California:
Western Human Nutrition Lab, Davis........ ........... 12,300
Florida:
Melaleuca Research and Quarantine
Facility, Ft. Lauderdale................. $4,000 ...........
Illinois:
National Center for Agricultural
Utilization Research, Peoria............. 8,400 8,200
Iowa:
National Animal Disease Center, Ames...... 5,600 4,900
Kansas:
Grain Marketing Research Lab, Manhattan... 1,400 ...........
Louisiana:
Southern Regional Research Center, New
Orleans.................................. 6,000 6,000
Maryland:
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center... 2,500 2,500
National Agricultural Library, Beltsville. 1,200 1,200
Michigan:
Avian Disease Lab, East Lansing........... ........... 2,000
Mississippi:
Biocontrol & Insect Rearing, Stoneville... ........... 1,100
Montana:
Northern Plains Ag. Res. Lab, Pest
Quarantine and IPM Facility, Sidney...... ........... 7,300
New Mexico:
Jornada Range Research Station............ ........... 6,700
New York:
Plum Island Animal Disease Center......... 3,500 3,500
Pennsylvania:
Eastern Regional Research Center,
Philadelphia............................. 3,300 3,300
Utah:
Poisonous Plant Lab, Logan................ ........... 630
-------------------------
Total, Buildings and Facilities......... $35,900 $61,380
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) was established by the Secretary of
Agriculture on October 1, 1994, under the authority of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
6912). The Service was created by the merger of the Cooperative
State Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission
of CSREES is to work with university partners to advance
research, extension, and higher education in the food and
agricultural sciences and related environmental and human
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
Research and Education Activities
1998 appropriation.................................... $431,410,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 412,589,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 431,125,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -285,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +18,536,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
were established by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1462, dated July
19, 1961 and Supplement 1, dated August 31, 1961, and under
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. The primary function of
research and education activities is to administer Acts of
Congress that authorize Federal appropriations for agricultural
research and higher education carried out by the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States, District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Micronesia, and Northern Mariana Islands, and by
approved schools of forestry, the 1890 land-grant colleges and
Tuskegee University, the 1994 land-grant institutions, and
other eligible institutions. Administration of payments and
grants involves the approval of each research proposal to be
financed in whole or in part from Federal grant funds; the
continuous review and evaluation of research and higher
education programs and expenditures thereunder; and the
encouragement of cooperation within and between the states and
with the research programs of the Department of Agriculture.
Committee Provisions
For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $168,734,000, the same as the amount available
for fiscal year 1998 and $15,062,000 above the budget request.
For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $20,497,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and $615,000 above the budget
request.
For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee
University, the committee provides an appropriation of
$27,735,000, the same as the budget request and the same as the
amount available for fiscal year 1998.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 FY 1999 Committee
enacted estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
ACTIVITIES
Payments Under Hatch Act..... $168,734 $153,672 $168,734
Cooperative forestry research
(McIntire-Stennis).......... 20,497 19,882 20,497
Payments to 1890 colleges and
Tuskegee.................... 27,735 27,735 27,735
Special Research Grants (P.L.
89-106):
Aegilops cylindricum (WA) 346 .......... 375
Aflatoxin (IL)........... 113 .......... .................
Agriculture based
industrial lubricants
(IA).................... 200 .......... 250
Agricultural
diversification (HI).... 131 .......... .................
Agricultural diversity/
Red River Corridor (MN,
ND)..................... 250 .......... 250
Agriculture water usage
(GA).................... .......... .......... 300
Alliance for food
protection (NE, GA)..... 300 .......... 300
Alternative crops (ND)... 550 .......... 600
Alternative crops for
arid lands (TX)......... .......... .......... 100
Alternative marine and
fresh water species (MS) 308 .......... .................
Alternative salmon
products (AK)........... 400 .......... .................
Animal science food
safety consortium (AR,
IA, KS)................. 1,521 .......... 1,521
Apple fireblight (NY, MI) 500 .......... 500
Aquaculture (IL)......... 158 .......... .................
Aquaculture (LA)......... 330 .......... 330
Aquaculture (MS)......... 642 .......... .................
Aquaculture (VA)......... .......... .......... 200
Aquaculture product and
marketing development
(WV).................... 600 .......... .................
Babcock Institute (WI)... 312 .......... 400
Binational agriculture
research and development 500 2,000 .................
Biodiesel research (MO).. 152 .......... .................
Center for animal health
and productivity (PA)... 113 .......... 113
Center for innovative
food technology (OH).... 281 .......... 381
Center for rural studies
(VT).................... 32 .......... .................
Chesapeake Bay
aquaculture............. 370 .......... 400
Citrus decay fungus (AZ). 250 .......... .................
Citrus tristeza.......... .......... .......... 500
Coastal cultivars (GA)... 250 .......... .................
Competitiveness of
agricultural products
(WA).................... 677 .......... 700
Cool season legume
research (ID, WA)....... 329 .......... 329
Cotton research (TX)..... 200 .......... 200
Cranberry/blueberry
disease and breeding
(NJ, MA)................ 220 .......... 320
Dairy (AK)............... 250 .......... .................
Dairy and meat goat
research (TX)........... 63 .......... 63
Delta rural
revitalization (MS)..... 148 .......... .................
Designing foods for
health (TX)............. .......... .......... 300
Drought mitigation (NE).. 200 .......... 200
Ecosystems (AL).......... 500 .......... 500
Environmental research
(NY).................... 486 .......... 486
Environmental risk
factors/cancer (NY)..... 100 .......... 100
Expanded wheat pasture
(OK).................... 285 .......... 300
Farm and rural business
finance (IL)............ 87 .......... .................
Feed barley for rangeland
cattle (MT)............. 600 .......... 600
Floriculture (HI)........ 250 .......... .................
Food and Agriculture
Policy Institute (IA,
MO)..................... 800 .......... 800
Food irradiation (IA).... 200 .......... 200
Food Marketing policy
center (CT)............. 332 .......... 375
Food Processing Center
(NE).................... 42 .......... 42
Food safety.............. 2,000 5,000 2,500
Food systems research
group (WI).............. 221 .......... 225
Forestry (AR)............ 523 .......... 523
Fruit and vegetable
market analysis (AZ, MO) 296 .......... 320
Generic commodity
promotion research and
evaluation (NY)......... 212 .......... 212
Global change............ 1,000 1,567 1,250
Global marketing support
service (AR)............ 127 .......... 127
Grain Sorghum (KS)....... 106 .......... 106
Grass seed cropping
systems for a
sustainable agriculture
(WA, OR, ID)............ 423 .......... 500
Human nutrition (IA)..... 473 .......... 473
Human nutrition (LA)..... 752 .......... 752
Human nutrition (NY)..... 622 .......... 622
Hydroponic tomato
production (OH)......... 140 .......... 200
Illinois-Missouri
Alliance for
Biotechnology........... 1,184 .......... 1,184
Improved dairy management
practices (PA).......... 296 .......... 296
Improved fruit practices
(MI).................... 445 .......... 445
Institute for Food
Science and Engineering
(AR).................... 950 .......... .................
Integrated production
systems (OK)............ 161 .......... 200
International arid lands
consortium.............. 329 .......... 500
Iowa biotechnology
consortium.............. 1,564 .......... 1,564
Landscaping for water
quality (GA)............ 300 .......... .................
Livestock and dairy
policy (NY, TX)......... 445 .......... 500
Lowbush blueberry
research (ME)........... 220 .......... 220
Maple research (VT)...... 100 .......... .................
Meadowfoam (OR).......... .......... .......... 300
Michigan biotechnology
consortium.............. 675 .......... .................
Midwest advanced food
manufacturing alliance.. 423 .......... 475
Midwest agricultural
products (IA)........... 592 .......... 592
Milk safety (PA)......... 268 .......... .................
Minor use animal drugs
(IR-4).................. 550 550 550
Molluscan shellfish (OR). 400 .......... 400
Multi-commodity research
(OR).................... 364 .......... 400
Multi-cropping strategies
for aquaculture (HI).... 127 .......... .................
National biological
impact assessment....... 254 254 254
Nematode resistance
genetic engineering (NM) 127 .......... 127
Non-food uses of
agricultural products
(NE).................... 64 .......... 64
Oil resources from desert
plant (NM).............. 175 .......... 175
Organic waste utilization
(NM).................... 100 .......... 100
Pasture and forage
research (UT)........... 225 .......... 225
Peach tree short life
(SC).................... 162 .......... .................
Pest control alternatives
(SC).................... 106 .......... .................
Phytophthora root rot
(NM).................... 127 .......... 127
Plant, drought, and
disease resistance gene
cataloging.............. 150 .......... 150
Plant genome research
(OH).................... 50 .......... .................
Postharvest rice straws
(CA).................... 300 .......... 300
Potato research.......... 1,214 .......... 1,400
Poultry carcass removal
(AL).................... 300 .......... .................
Precision agriculture
(MS).................... 600 .......... 600
Preharvest food safety
(KS).................... 212 .......... 212
Preservation and
processing research (OK) 226 .......... 258
Rangeland ecosystems (NM) 185 .......... 200
Regional barley gene
mapping project......... 348 .......... 400
Regionalized implications
of farm programs (MO,
TX)..................... 294 .......... 300
Rice modeling, (AR)...... 296 .......... 296
Rural development centers
(PA, IA (ND), MS, OR,
LA)..................... 423 423 523
Rural Policies Institute
(NE, MO)................ 644 .......... .................
Russian wheat aphid (CO). 200 .......... 200
Seafood and aquaculture
harvesting, processing,
and marketing (MS)...... 305 .......... .................
Small fruit research (OR,
WA, ID)................. 212 .......... 300
Southwest consortium for
plant genetics and water
resources............... 338 .......... 338
Soybean cyst nematode
(MO).................... 450 .......... 500
STEEP III--water quality
in Northwest............ 500 .......... 500
Sustainable agriculture
(MI).................... 445 .......... 445
Sustainable agriculture
and natural resources
(PA).................... 94 .......... .................
Sustainable agriculture
systems (NE)............ 59 .......... 59
Sustainable pest
mangement for dryland
wheat (MT).............. 400 .......... 400
Swine waste management
(NC).................... 300 .......... 500
Tillage, silviculture,
waste management (LA)... 212 .......... 212
Tomato wilt virus (GA)... .......... .......... 200
Tropical and subtropical. 2,724 .......... 2,500
Turkey carnavirus (IN)... .......... .......... 200
Urban pests (GA)......... 64 .......... .................
Vidalia Onions (GA)...... 84 .......... 100
Viticulture consortium
(NY, CA)................ 800 .......... 1,000
Water conservation (KS).. 79 .......... 79
Water quality............ 2,461 2,757 2,461
Weed control (ND)........ 423 .......... 400
Wetland plants (LA)...... .......... .......... 600
Wheat genetic research
(KS).................... 261 .......... 261
Wood utilization research
(OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI,
ID, TN)................. 3,536 .......... 4,536
Wool research (TX, MT,
WY)..................... 300 .......... 300
------------------------------------------
Total, Special Research
Grants................ 51,495 12,551 49,273
==========================================
Improved pest control:
Critical issues.......... 200 200 200
Emerging pest and disease
issues.................. 1,623 4,200 1,623
Expert IPM decision
support issues.......... 177 260 177
Integrated pest
management.............. 2,731 8,000 2,731
Pesticide clearance (IR-
4)...................... 8,990 10,711 8,990
Pesticide impact
assessment.............. 1,327 1,327 1,327
------------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest
control............... 15,048 24,698 15,048
==========================================
Competitive research grants:
Plant systems............ 37,000 47,000 37,500
Animal systems........... 24,000 29,500 24,500
Nutrition, food quality,
and health.............. 8,000 11,000 8,600
Natural resources and the
environment............. 17,500 27,000 17,750
Processes and new
products................ 6,800 9,000 7,050
Markets, trade and policy 3,900 6,500 4,150
------------------------------------------
Total, Competitive
research grants....... 97,200 130,000 99,550
==========================================
Animal Health and Disease
(Sec. 1433)................. 4,775 4,775 4,775
Critical Agricultural
Materials Act............... 550 .......... .................
Aquaculture Centers (Sec.
1475)....................... 4,000 3,880 3,880
Alternative crops............ 650 .......... 700
Sustainable agriculture...... 8,000 10,000 8,000
Capacity building grants..... 9,200 9,200 9,200
Payments to the 1994
institutions................ 1,450 1,450 1,450
Graduate fellowship grants... 3,000 3,000 3,000
Institution challenge grants. 4,350 4,350 4,350
Multcultural scholars program 1,000 1,000 1,000
Hispanic serving institutions 2,500 2,500 3,000
Native American Institutions
Endowment Fund.............. (4,600) (4,600) (4,600)
Secondary/2-year post-
secondary................... .......... .......... 200
Federal Administration:
Agriculture development
in American Pacific..... 564 .......... 564
Agriculture waste
utilization (WV)........ 360 .......... .................
Alternative Fuels
Characterization Lab
(ND).................... 218 .......... 218
Animal Waste Management
(OK).................... 250 .......... 300
Center for Agricultural
and Rural Development
(IA).................... 355 .......... 355
Center for Human
Nutrition (MD).......... 150 .......... .................
Center for North American
Studies (TX)............ 87 .......... 87
Data Information System.. 800 2,000 1,000
Geographic information
system.................. 844 .......... 844
Mariculture (NC)......... 150 .......... 150
Mississippi Valley State
University.............. 583 .......... .................
National Center for
Peanut Competitiveness.. 150 .......... 300
Office of grants and
program systems......... 310 310 310
Pay costs and FERS
(prior)................. 900 1,236 1,100
Peer panels.............. 350 350 350
PM-10 study (CA, WA)..... 873 .......... 873
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ,
HI, MS, MA, SC)......... 3,354 .......... 3,354
Water quality (IL)....... 492 .......... 492
Water quality (ND)....... 436 .......... 436
------------------------------------------
Total, Federal
Administration........ 11,226 3,896 10,733
==========================================
Total, Research and
Education Activities.. $431,410 $412,589 $431,125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative crops.--The Committee provides $700,000 for
alternative crops, of which $500,000 is for canola research and
$200,000 is for hesperaloe research.
Agriculture Water Usage (GA)--The demand for water is
increasing the need for more efficient water practices.
Agriculture is a major user of water and long-term planning
will alleviate waste and pollution in heavily used agriculture
areas. The Committee provides $300,000 for a five-year project
to provide monitoring and modeling of certain commodities'
water uses and practices.
Alternative crops for arid lands (TX)--The Committee
provides $100,000 for research on arid land crops. Research in
this area focuses on providing diversification of agriculture
niche products including mesquite and prickly pear. These
plants have historically been considered pests but through
research are showing promise for productive agriculture.
Aquaculture (VA)--The Committee has provided $200,000 for
research on recirculating aquaculture systems. Closed system
aquaculture offers a promising alternative to traditional
aquaculture. This type of system reduces waste use by 95%,
reduces and contains waste, assures uniformly high quality
products, and provides faster fish growth and higher survival
rates.
Citrus Tristeza--This program was previously conducted
through the Agricultural Research Service. The Committee
provides $500,000 for research to assist in the suppression and
eradication of citrus tristeza.
Cranberry (MA)--Demand for cranberries has expanded rapidly
in recent years outstripping domestic supply. Research is
needed to find better weed and pest control for cranberry
yields. The Committee has included $100,000 for research at the
University of Massachusetts.
Designing foods for health (TX)--Diet related diseases are
the leading cause of two-thirds of the 2 million deaths that
occur in the U.S. each year. Research has established that
certain fruits and vegetables contain certain compounds
important in the prevention and treatment of diseases. The
Committee has provided $300,000 for an initiative to establish
the role of delivery of improved products to consumers for
health.
Integrated Pest Management--The Committee expects CSREES to
implement its IPM research and extension programs with
extensive farmer participation in all aspects of the program,
substantial attention to on-farm research and demonstration
projects, close coordination of research and extension
activities, and explicit plans for communicating usable results
to intended users and audiences.
Meadowfoam (OR)--Meadowfoam is a plant whose seed oil is
being researched for uses in cosmetics, plastics, metalworking
lubricants and other industrial products. This work was
previously carried out through an agreement with the
Agricultural Research Service. The Committee provides $300,000.
Tomato wilt virus (GA)--Tomato wilt virus epidemics cause
an estimated $100,000,000 in losses to peanut and vegetable
crops annually. The Committee provides $200,000 to begin
research to eliminate this disease.
Turkey carnavirus (IN)--Turkey carnavirus is the major
causative factor for turkey poult enteritis. This disease has
resulted in significant losses in turkey production. Research
will focus on development of diagnostic procedures and
effective vaccines for the prevention of the disease. The
Committee provides $200,000 for this research effort.
Wetland plants (LA)--Shoreline and coastal erosion have
become major problems in coastal states. Current methods for
control are inadequate and generally involve major
environmental damage. Research in this area is beginning to
target native plant species. The Committee provides $600,000 to
continue biotechnology applications in wetlands plant
production for erosion control purposes at the Rice Research
Station in Louisiana.
Secondary/two year post secondary education--The Committee
believes that it is important that the expertise and resources
of the Department of Agriculture be available to support
secondary agricultural education. The Committee requests a
report on USDA's activities and efforts to cooperate with the
U.S. Department of Education on all activities conducted and
plans for future activities to collaborate and cooperate in
providing both teaching and technical support for school-based
agricultural education. The Committee has provided $200,000 to
establish a pilot demonstration project for a secondary/two
year post secondary education program.
Wood utilization--The Committee has included an increase of
$1,000,000 for the wood utilization grants program. The
increase allows for $450,000 at the University of Tennessee and
$550,000 for a three state consortium in the northwest
(University of Idaho, Washington State University, and
University of Montana).
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
1998 appropriation.................................... ($4,600,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................. (4,600,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (4,600,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ (...............
...)
1999 budget estimate.............................. (...............
...)
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides authority to establish an
endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (29 tribal
controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational
opportunities for Native Americans by building educational
capacity at these institutions in the areas of student
recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty
preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific
instrumentation for teaching. On the termination of each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from the
endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: sixty 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 forty percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed
in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
Committee Provisions
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the
Committee provides $4,600,000, the same as the amount available
in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Extension Activities
1998 appropriation.................................... $423,376,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 418,651,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 416,789,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -6,587,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. -1,862,000
Cooperative agricultural extension work was established by
the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The legislation
authorizes the Department of Agriculture to give, through the
land-grant institutions, instruction and practical
demonstrations in agricultural and home economics and related
subjects, and to encourage the application of such information
by means of demonstrations, publications, and otherwise to
persons not attending or a resident in the colleges. In
addition, the Service provides nutrition training to low-income
families, 4-H Club work, and educational assistance such as
community resource development.
Committee Provisions
For Extension activities, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $416,789,000, a decrease of $6,587,000 below
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$1,862,000 below the budget request.
The following table reflects the amount provided by the
Committee:
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 FY 1999 Committee
enacted estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension Activities
Smith Lever 3(b) & 3(c)............... $268,493 $257,753 $268,493
Smith Lever: 3(d)
Farm safety....................... 2,855 ......... 3,000
Food and nutrition education
(EFNEP).......................... 58,695 56,347 56,147
Food safety....................... 2,365 7,365 3,500
Indian reservation agents......... 1,672 5,000 1,672
Pest management................... 10,783 15,000 10,783
Pesticide impact assessment....... 3,214 3,313 3,214
Pesticide applicator training..... ......... 1,500 300
Rural development centers......... 908 908 908
Sustainable agriculture........... 3,309 3,309 3,309
Water quality..................... 9,061 9,061 10,061
Youth at risk..................... 9,554 10,000 9,000
1890's Colleges and Tuskegee.......... 25,090 25,090 25,090
1890's facilities grants.............. 7,549 12,000 8,549
Renewable Resources Extension Act..... 3,192 3,192 3,192
Agricultural telecommunications....... 900 ......... ..........
Rural health and safety education..... 2,628 ......... ..........
Extension services at the 1994
institutions......................... 2,000 3,500 2,000
---------------------------------
Subtotal........................ 412,268 413,338 409,218
=================================
Federal Administration and special
grants:
Ag in the classroom............... 208 208 208
Beef producers' improvement (AR).. 197 ......... ..........
Delta teachers academy............ 3,500 ......... ..........
Diabetes detection, prevention
(WA)............................. ......... ......... 550
Extension specialist (AR)......... 99 ......... ..........
Extension specialist (MS)......... 50 ......... ..........
General administration............ 4,787 5,105 4,950
Income enhancement demonstration
(OH)............................. 246 ......... 250
Integrated cow/calf resources
management (IA).................. 300 ......... 300
National Center for Agriculture
Safety (IA)...................... 195 ......... ..........
Pilot tech. transfer (OK, MS)..... 326 ......... 326
Pilot tech. transfer (WI)......... 163 ......... 163
Range improvement (NM)............ 197 ......... 197
Rural development (NM)............ 247 ......... 280
Rural development (OK)............ 150 ......... 150
Rural rehabilitation (GA)......... 246 ......... ..........
Wood biomass as an alternative
farm product (NY)................ 197 ......... 197
---------------------------------
Total, Federal Administration... 11,108 5,313 7,571
=================================
Total, Extension Activities..... $423,376 $418,651 $416,789
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is concerned that funds for cooperative
agriculture extension are being used in cooperation with not-
for-profit research organizations focusing on Federal policies
and programs that promote Federal welfare programs, such as,
but not limited to, the Earned Income Tax Credit. The Committee
encourages the Cooperative Extension System to only maintain
activities that help people improve their lives through
education.
Diabetes detection, prevention, and care.--The Committee
provides $550,000 for a pilot demonstration project to provide
rural residents in Washington and Hawaii access to state-of-
the-art health technology and education related to diabetes and
diabetes complications through the existing Extension Service
County structure and communications system. These funds will
allow Extension personnel to be trained in the use of advanced
diabetes detection techniques.
Water Quality.--The Committee has provided an increase of
$1,000,000 to Extension Service's water quality program. These
funds should be used to expand the Farm*A*Syst voluntary
pollution prevention programs.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
1998 appropriation.................................... $618,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 642,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 642,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +24,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
..........
The Office of the Assistant 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 Provisions
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$642,000, an increase of $24,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and Expenses
1998 appropriation.................................... $425,932,000
1999 budget estimate \1\.............................. 417,752,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 424,500,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -1,432,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +6,748,000
\1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($9,935,000).
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was
established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972
under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 and
other authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect
the animal and plant resources of the nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports-of-entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
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 cooperators such as
states, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
agency.
Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities
which ensure the humane care and treatment of animals as
required by the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring of certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities in support of the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research aimed
at reducing economic damage from vertebrate animals;
development of new pest and animal damage control methods and
tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered
products.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.--User fees are
collected to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine
activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction
of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the amounts provided by the
Committee:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 FY 1999 Committee
enacted request provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:
Ag. quarantine inspection.... $26,747 $30,648 $30,648
User fees................ 88,000 100,000 88,000
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, AQI.......... 114,747 130,648 118,648
======================================
Cattle ticks................. 4,627 4,852 4,852
Foot-and-mouth disease....... 3,803 3,846 3,846
Sanitary/phytosanitary
standards:..................
Import/export inspection. 6,815 7,263 7,263
International programs... 6,630 8,243 7,365
Fruit fly exclusion and
detection................... 20,970 22,322 22,322
Screwworm.................... 31,713 30,623 30,623
Tropical bont tick........... 444 414 414
--------------------------------------
Total, Pest and Disease
Exclusion................. 189,749 208,211 195,333
======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health
Monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and
surveillance................ 61,464 65,017 65,017
Animal and plant health
regulatory enforcement...... 5,855 6,036 6,036
Pest detection............... 6,302 6,685 6,426
--------------------------------------
Total, Plant and Animal
Health Monitoring..... 73,621 77,738 77,479
======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management
Programs:
Aquaculture.................. 567 583 567
Biological control........... 6,275 8,467 8,467
Boll weevil.................. 16,209 4,090 16,209
Brucellosis eradication...... 19,818 11,654 11,654
Golden nematode.............. 435 419 419
Gypsy moth................... 4,366 4,702 4,504
Imported fire ant............ 1,000 0 1,000
Misc. plant diseases......... 1,516 1,461 1,461
Noxious weeds................ 454 382 454
Pink bollworm................ 1,048 0 1,048
Pseudorabies................. 4,481 4,567 4,567
Scrapie...................... 2,931 3,199 2,991
Silverleaf whitefly.......... 1,877 0 0
Tuberculosis................. 4,920 5,012 4,920
Wildlife Services operations. 28,487 26,051 28,732
Witchweed.................... 1,638 1,546 1,546
--------------------------------------
Total, Pest and Disease
Management Programs....... 96,022 72,133 88,539
======================================
4. Animal Care:
Animal welfare............... 9,175 6,374 9,175
Horse protection............. 353 361 361
--------------------------------------
Total, Animal Care......... 9,528 6,735 9,536
======================================
5. Scientific & Technical
Services:
Biotechnology/environmental
protection.................. 8,132 7,393 7,393
Integrated systems
acquisition................. 3,500 3,696 3,696
Plant methods development
labs........................ 5,048 4,891 4,891
Veterinary biologics......... 10,345 7,098 7,098
Veterinary diagnostics....... 15,622 16,065 16,065
Wildlife Services methods
devel....................... 10,215 9,687 10,365
--------------------------------------
Total, Scientific and
Technical Services.... 52,862 48,830 49,508
======================================
6. Contingency fund 4,500 4,105 4,105
======================================
Total, Salaries and
Expenses.............. $426,282 $417,752 $424,500
Recap:
Appropriated................. 338,282 317,752 336,500
AQI User Fees................ 88,000 100,000 88,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI).--The Committee
provides an appropriation of $88,000,000 for the agricultural
quarantine inspection user fee program, the same as the amount
available in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $12,000,000
below the budget request.
The Committee notes the rapid growth of imports through
Miami International Airport and requests that the Department
consider allocation of additional resources there to protect
American agriculture and the safety of the food supply.
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--The Committee
urges APHIS to implement regulations for the safe
transportation of horses to slaughterhouse facilities.
Wildlife Services.--The Committee directs APHIS to assure,
to the maximum extent possible, that all control activities be
cost-shared with local sponsors. The Committee also expects
APHIS to continue work related to blackbird damage control in
Louisiana. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for rabies control
activities.
The Committee expects APHIS to intensify its efforts in
both research and operations to control migratory fish-eating
birds, such as the double crested cormorant, which are causing
serious problems to the Southeastern aquaculture industry.
The Committee directs that APHIS continue its efforts to
maximize cost sharing of control activities in all states to
the extent possible. However, the Committee believes that
circumstances vary among states and does not support the rigid
cost sharing requirement proposed in the budget.
Avocados.--The Committee urges the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service to continue working with U.S. avocado
growers in implementing procedures for the safe importation of
Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to report on the
status of Mexican avocado imports including any problems in
pest surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel and importation,
including diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved
destinations. The report should be submitted with the Fiscal
Year 2000 budget request for the agency.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports the development
of a program for the control, management, and eradication of
the imported fire ant and provides funding for this program at
the same level as fiscal year 1998.
Hog cholera.--The Committee believes there is a very high
risk of introduction of hog cholera into the United States due
to the presence of the disease in the Caribbean. The Committee
believes this should be viewed as an emergency situation and
the following efforts should be undertaken: (1) preclearance of
passengers entering the United States from high risk countries;
(2) enhanced surveillance of high risk U.S. herds; (3)
enforcement of the Swine Health Protection Act; and (4)
improved training and educational efforts for state and Federal
animal health officials and accredited veterinarians.
Horse Protection.--The Committee is concerned about the
implementation of the Department's recently released Strategic
Plan for the Horse Protection Act which proposes to transfer
certain enforcement responsibilities of the Act to six Horse
Industry Organizations. These inspection programs have been
formally approved and certified by APHIS. The Committee
believes that written enforcement agreements need to be
negotiated and executed between APHIS and each of these six
Horse Industry Organizations to reduce conflicts in the
inspection process and to ensure proper implementation of the
goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan. The Committee
expects APHIS and the six Horse Industry Organizations to
include in these written enforcement agreements the following
elements: (1) a uniform horse inspection and grading system,
which relies exclusively on generally-accepted equine medical
principles, to be used by both Department and industry
inspectors at horse shows, exhibitions, sales or auctions; (2)
a schedule of minimum suspension penalties for horse show
participants which relies on the facts and circumstances
standards authorized by the Act; and (3) a fair and effective
system for resolving disputes in the field between Department
and industry inspectors. The Committee further expects APHIS
and the six Horse Industry Organizations to negotiate these
written enforcement agreements in good faith and execute such
agreements prior to the start of the 1999 show season.
Methods Development.--The Committee provides $450,000 for
continuation of trap testing, development of best management
practices and related activities necessary to meet U.S.
obligations under an international agreement for trap
standards. The Committee expects that activities funded by this
appropriation shall continue to be carried out by APHIS
Wildlife Services and in full cooperation with state wildlife
management agencies and the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies.
National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project for
Dairy Cattle.--The Committee provides continued funding at the
fiscal year 1998 level for the National Farm Animal
Identification and Records Project for Dairy Cattle to be
coordinated with the Holstein Association.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards.--The Committee
expects that imported products will be subjected to the same
sanitary and phytosanitary standards as domestic products and
those that do not meet the U.S. standards will be rejected.
APHIS should provide adequate staffing levels at the borders
and ports of entry to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary
standards are upheld.
Screwworm.--The Committee notes that the transfer of the
screwworm facility in Chiapas, Mexico in several years may add
to serious unemployment problems in the area. The Committee
directs APHIS to work with other appropriate USDA and
multinational agencies to develop possible solutions, including
agricultural production cooperatives, which do not compete with
U.S. agricultural production.
Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee expects APHIS to
continue detection and eradication work on the Asian longhorned
beetle from the contingency fund.
Buildings and Facilities
1998 appropriation.................................... $4,200,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 5,200,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 5,200,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +1,000,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
The APHIS Buildings and Facilities account funds major
nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific
program activities and recurring construction, alterations,
preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS
facilities.
Committee Provisions
For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings
and Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$5,200,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget
request.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
1998 appropriation.................................... $46,567,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 58,469,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 46,567,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. -11,902,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the
authority of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory
programs, AMS aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing
and effective distribution and transportation of products from
the Nation's farms.
Programs administered by this agency include the market
news services, payments to states for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of
marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading,
classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation
services, and market protection and promotion.
Committee Provisions
For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$46,567,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1998 and a decrease of $11,902,000 below the budget request.
Included in this amount is an increase of $505,000 for the
Organic Standards program and $110,000 for International Market
News. The Committee is aware that the Department has completed
its assistance with the salmon marketing program and that
funding will no longer be needed for this activity. The
Committee also provides language to allow for the collection of
fees for the development of standards.
The Committee expects implementation of the Organic
Certification Program to continue and that a final rule will be
published in fiscal year 1999.
The Committee is aware that the Department guidelines for
commodity purchase programs relating to small businesses
effectively prohibit many farmer cooperatives from
participating in such programs. The Committee has included a
general provision that the USDA does not prohibit eligibility
or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives in the commodity
purchase program.
The Committee directs the Agricultural Marketing Service to
request public comment regarding establishing, on a voluntary
user-fee basis, a Quality Through Verification Program by
December 1, 1998.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
1998 limitation....................................... ($59,521,000)
1999 budget limitation................................ (60,730,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (60,730,000)
Comparison:
1998 limitation................................... (+1,209,000)
1999 budget limitation............................ (...............
..........)
The Agricultural Marketing Service provides inspection,
grading, and classing services to the cotton and tobacco
industries on a user funded basis. The legislative authorities
to carry out these programs are: the U.S. Cotton Standards Act;
the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927, as amended;
the Tobacco Inspection Act; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1981; the Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1985; and
the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. These programs
facilitate the interstate and foreign commerce of these
products. This is accomplished by inspecting, identifying, and
certifying the quality of these products in accordance with
official standards. Grades serve as a basis for prices and
reflect the value of the products to the producer as well as
the buyer. These programs facilitate the movement of
commodities through marketing channels in a quick, efficient,
and equitable manner.
Committee Provisions
For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Committee provides
$60,730,000, an increase of $1,209,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget
request.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply
(Section 32)
1998 appropriation...................................... $10,690,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 10,998,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 10,998,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +308,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all
customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural
commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of
agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or
by increasing their utilization; and (c) reestablishing the
farmers' purchasing power.
The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets
by purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to
encourage continued adequate production.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 1997 through 1999:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1997-1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 current FY 1999 current
FY 1997 actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs receipts)......... $5,923,376,725 $5,730,107,608 $5,701,865,817
Less transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service......................... -5,433,753,000 -5,151,391,000 -5,048,150,000
Commerce Department................................ -66,381,020 -65,734,190 -65,734,015
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, transfers................................. -5,500,134,020 -5,217,125,190 -5,206,534,015
========================================================
Budget authority....................................... 423,242,705 512,982,418 495,331,802
Unobligated balance available, start of year........... 300,000,000 233,868,236 129,335,198
Recoveries of prior year obligations................... 38,784,325 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Available for obligation........................... 762,027,030 746,850,654 717,317,000
Less obligations:
Commodity procurement:
Child nutrition purchases...................... 399,949,263 400,000,000 400,000,000
Emergency surplus removal...................... 100,946,696 193,627,456 0
Diversion payments............................. 9,000,000 0 0
Disaster relief................................ 2,150,000 7,000,000 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, commodity procurement................. 512,045,959 600,627,456 400,000,000
========================================================
Administrative funds:
Commodity purchase service..................... 5,624,409 6,198,000 6,319,000
Marketing agreements and orders................ 10,488,426 10,690,000 10,998,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, administrative funds.................. 16,112,835 16,888,000 17,317,000
========================================================
Total, obligations........................... 528,158,794 617,515,456 417,317,000
========================================================
Carryout..................................... 233,868,236 129,335,198 300,000,000
========================================================
Unobligated balance available, end of year... 233,868,236 129,335,198 300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Provisions
For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of
$10,998,000, an increase of $308,000 above the amount available
for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Payments to States and Possessions
1998 appropriation.................................... $1,200,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. 1,200,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 1,200,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ ................
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program 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 Provisions
For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $1,200,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget
request.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Salaries and Expenses
1998 appropriation.................................... $25,390,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. \1\ 11,797,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 29,042,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +3,652,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +17,245,000
\1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($21,476,000) offset by
startup costs of $4.2 million.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other
programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and
grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain
inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and
processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act,
assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat,
and poultry markets is provided. The Administration monitors
competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and
industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect
meat and poultry prices.
Committee Provisions
For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$29,042,000, an increase of $3,652,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of $17,245,000
above the budget request.
The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for restructuring the
Packers and Stockyards Administration. The Committee believes
that the efficiencies that could be gained from consolidating
the Packers and Stockyards Administration from 11 regional
offices to 3; consolidating two program divisions and six
branches into one policy/litigation office with three branches;
and transferring 20 percent of headquarters positions to field
offices would benefit the agency as well as the taxpayer. This
restructuring provides the agency with the ability to
investigate anticompetitive practices and provide flexibility
in enforcing the trade practice and payment protection
provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
The Committee has included an increase of $397,000 for
packer concentration and industry structure.
Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses
1998 limitation......................................... ($43,092,000)
1999 budget limitation.................................. (42,557,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (42,557,000)
Comparison:
1998 limitation..................................... (-535,000)
1999 budget limitation...................(.........................)
The U.S. Grain Standards Act requires, with minor
exceptions, that all grain exported by grade must be officially
inspected and weighed. The agency's employees or delegated
state agencies perform original inspection and weighing
services at export port locations in the United States and
Canada. Grain which is not being exported may be inspected at
interior locations, upon request, by licensed employees of
designated state and private agencies. The agency's employees,
upon request, perform domestic original inspection and weighing
services on grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related grain
commodities. The agency's employees supervise and provide
oversight for inspectors performing official services.
committee provisions
The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and
weighing services expenses of $42,557,000, a decrease of
$535,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
the same as the budget request. The bill includes authority to
exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing
services with notification to the Appropriations Committees.
This allows for flexibility if export activities require
additional supervision and oversight or other uncontrollable
factors occur.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
1998 appropriation...................................... $446,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 598,000
Provided in the bill............................... ....................
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -446,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -598,000
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 Provisions
The Committee has provided no separate funding for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. The
Administration annually requests funding for additional
positions in the Office of the Under Secretary for ``policy
guidance.'' The Administration also annually requests
additional funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service
which is the single agency for which the Under Secretary has
oversight responsibility. Given the extremely tight funding
situation and the need to add resources to the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, the Committee has provided $446,000 for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety within the budget
of the Food Safety and Inspection Service for fiscal year 1999.
This will enable the Administration to best decide where
resources are needed. The $446,000 is the same amount available
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety in fiscal
year 1998 and $152,000 below the budget request.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1998 appropriation.................................... $588,761,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. \1\ 149,566,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 609,250,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +20,489,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +459,684,000
\1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($573,434,000) and
start up costs of $100 million.
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 major objectives of the Service are to assure that meat
and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly
labeled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act; provide
continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under
the Egg Products Inspection Act; and administer the pathogen
reduction program.
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 Provisions
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Office
of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $609,250,000, an increase of $20,489,000
above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase
of $459,684,000 above the budget request.
The budget request assumes enactment of user fees totaling
$573,434,000. The Committee believes that the delay on the part
of the Administration in sending the necessary authorizing
legislation to Congress and the lack of support among industry
and consumer groups for the user fees require appropriated
funds to insure that the critical activities of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service continue in fiscal year 1999.
The Committee regards the Administration's use of user fees
for food safety as an accounting device to allow new spending
on other programs as a grave matter, particularly considering
the importance of food safety. If the Administration is serious
about the implementation of user fees to pay for food safety
inspection activities, it should deliver the necessary
legislation to Congress in a timely manner, develop a realistic
plan to support that legislation and allow for a public
discussion of the issue with consumer groups, producers and
other interested parties.
The Committee directs the Department to work with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and any other
appropriate agency to provide the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations an annual report on the incidence of
foodborne illnesses in the United States. The report should be
submitted with the annual request for funding for the Food
Safety and Inspection Service.
The Committee is concerned by reports that some
difficulties in implementation of the new Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system have occurred due to
inadequate training of inspectors. The Committee expects
science-based training in HACCP to be conducted with curricula
and accredited instructors of organizations such as the
International Meat and Poultry HACCP Alliance or training
certified by the Administrator as equivalent thereto.
The Committee directs the General Accounting Office to
conduct a study of the implementation of the HACCP system with
emphasis on regulatory review and the similarity of FSIS' HACCP
systems to the seven principles of HACCP as outlined by the
National Advisory Commission on the Microbiological Criteria
for Food, the training of plant personnel and the adequacy of
the dispute resolution process between producers and
inspectors. The Committee understands that, because HACCP has
not been fully implemented yet, this study will not be a final
evaluation of the program.
The fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act required FSIS to
publish a final rule to implement the egg refrigeration
provisions as contained in the 1991 amendments to the Egg
Products Inspection Act. The Committee expects that publication
of a proposed rule will be completed in a timely fashion so
that there will be an opportunity for public comment before the
final rule is published as required in the 1998 bill.
The Committee does not agree to proposed bill language
which would waive the requirement that Federal funds for any
year shall not exceed 50 percent of the estimated total cost of
cooperative state inspection programs.
The Committee notes that FSIS has been working on
development of an electronic system for issuing export
certificates and expects FSIS to report on the feasibility and
cost of such a system when it presents its fiscal year 2000
budget justification.
FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
1998 appropriation...................................... $572,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 597,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 597,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +25,000
1999 budget estimate..................... ..........................
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 (which includes the Commodity Credit Corporation), the
Risk Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation
of $597,000, an increase of $25,000 above the amount available
for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established by the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-
354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, the name was changed to the
Farm Service Agency on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers
the agricultural commodity programs financed by the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC); the warehouse examination function;
the conservation reserve program (CRP); several other
conservation cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (NAP); and farm ownership, operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs.
Agricultural market transition program.--The Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127
(1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary
offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the
opportunity for a one-time signup in a 7-year, production
flexibility contract. Depending on each contract, a
participant's prior contract-crop acreage history and payment
yield, as well as total program participation, each contract
participant shares a portion of a statutorily-specified annual
dollar amount. In return, participants must comply with certain
requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection,
planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for
the purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments,
include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland
cotton, and rice. This program does not include any production
adjustment requirements or related provisions except for
restrictions on the planting of fruits and vegetables.
Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs,
and other loan and related programs.--The 1996 Act provides for
marketing assistance loans to producers of contract
commodities, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds for
the 1996 through 2002 crops. With the exception of ELS cotton,
these nonrecourse loans are characterized by loan repayment
rates that may be determined to be less than the principal plus
accrued interest per unit of the commodity. Producers have the
option of taking a loan deficiency payment, if available, in
lieu of the marketing assistance loan.
The 1996 Act also provides for a loan program for sugar for
the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where
the loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature
depending on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of
sugar. The 1996 Act provides for a milk price support program,
whereby the price of milk is supported through December 31,
1999, via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The
rate of support is fixed each calendar year, starting at $10.35
per hundredweight in 1996 and declining each year to $9.90 per
hundredweight in 1999. Beginning January 1, 2000, the 1996 Act
provides a recourse loan program for commercial processors of
dairy products. The 1996 Act and the 1938 Act provide for a
peanut loan and poundage quota program for the 1996 through
2002 crops of peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act of 1949,
as amended (1949 Act), and the 1938 Act provide for a price
support, quota, and allotment program for tobacco.
The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after
October 1, 1996, will be one percentage point higher than the
formula which was used to calculate commodity loans secured
prior to fiscal year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan
interest rate will, in effect, be one percentage point higher
than CCC's cost-of-money for that month.
The 1996 Act amended the payment limitation provisions in
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), by
changing the annual $50,000 payment limit per person for
deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment
limit per person for contract payments. The annual $75,000
payment limit per person applicable to combined marketing loan
gains and loan deficiency payments for all commodities that was
in effect for the 1991 through 1995 crop years continues
through the 2002 crop year. Similarly, the 3-entity rule is
continued.
Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.--Various
price support and related programs have been authorized in
numerous legislative enactments since the early 1930's.
Operations under these programs are financed through the
Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) are utilized in the administration of
the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the
FSA is also Executive Vice President of the Corporation.
The 1996 Act created new conservation programs to address
high priority environmental protection goals and authorized CCC
funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of
the programs financed through the CCC.
Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.--
Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities
are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations
and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and
facilities to implement the programs. Appropriations for these
programs are transferred or paid to the Corporation for its
costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as
Public Law 480.
Farm credit programs.--The Department's reorganization has
placed the farm credit programs under FSA to facilitate
improved coordination between the credit programs and FSA's
risk management, conservation, and commodity support programs.
FSA reviews applications, makes and collects loans, and
provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. Under
credit reform, administrative costs associated with
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (ACIF) loans are
appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and transferred to FSA
salaries and expenses.
Risk management.--Includes the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (NAP) which provides crop loss protection
for growers of many crops for which crop insurance is not
available.
Salaries and Expenses
Transfer from
Appropriation program accts. Total, FSA, S&E
1998 appropriation........................................ $699,579,000 ($211,265,000) ($910,844,000)
1999 budget estimate \1\.................................. 723,478,000 (229,190,000) (952,668,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 724,499,000 (211,265,000) (935,764,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................... +24,920,000 (...............
.....) (+24,920,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................. +1,021,000 (-17,925,000) (-16,904,000)
\1\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($10,000,000).
Committee Provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA),
the Committee provides an appropriation of $724,499,000 and
transfers from other accounts of $211,265,000, for a total
program level of $935,764,000. This is an increase of
$24,920,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $16,904,000 below the budget request.
The amount provided includes pay costs, retirement costs,
and non-Federal county office support and reductions proposed
as part of the USDA 1994 Reorganization Act. The Committee
expects the Department to defer any further staff reductions
beyond those already agreed to in the 1994 restructuring plan
until such time as an independent study of staff levels and
workload requirements is completed and reviewed/evaluated by
the appropriate Committees of Congress.
The Committee remains concerned about the Department's
aging information systems and its ability to complete a
transition to a common county office structure and computing
system. Streamlined county offices are necessary and the
ability of those offices to effectively serve farmers and
others in rural areas is the ultimate goal. To assist in this
process, the Committee has provided an increase of $10,000,000
for the service center implementation and common computing
environment concept.
The Committee expects the Agency to target lending in farm
loan and assistance programs to those in most economic need.
state mediation grants
1998 appropriation...................................... $2,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 4,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 2,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation..................................................
1999 budget estimate................................ -2,000,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address
agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 to include other agricultural issues
such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural
water loan programs, grazing on national forest system lands,
and pesticides. Grants are made to states whose mediation
programs have been certified by FSA. Grants will be solely for
operation and administration of the state's agricultural
mediation program.
Committee Provisions
For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $2,000,000, the same as the amount available
in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $2,000,000 below the
budget request.
Dairy Indemnity Program
1998 appropriation...................................... $550,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 450,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 450,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -100,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
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 programalso 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 Provisions
For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $450,000, a decrease of $100,000 below the
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same as the
budget request.
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
Farm Ownership Loans.--Makes loans to farmers and ranchers
for acquiring, enlarging, or improving farms, including farm
buildings, land development, use, and conservation, refinancing
indebtedness, and for loan closing costs.
Operating Loans.--Makes loans to farmers and ranchers for
costs incident to reorganizing a farming system for more
profitable operations, for a variety of essential farm
operating expenses such as purchase of livestock, farm
equipment, feed, seed, fertilizer, and farm supplies; for
refinancing land and water development, use, and conservation;
for refinancing indebtedness; for other farm and home needs;
and for loan closing costs.
Emergency Loans.--Makes loans in designated areas where a
natural disaster has caused a general need for agricultural
credit which cannot be met for limited periods of time by
private cooperatives or other responsible sources.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Makes loans to any
Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or
tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian
Reorganization Act, which does not have adequate uncommitted
funds, to acquire lands or interest in lands within the tribe's
reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior, for use of the tribe or the
corporation or the members thereof.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Makes loans in
conjunction with the sale of security properties previously
acquired during the servicing of its loan portfolio.
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Makes loans to assist
foundations in financing the operation of boll weevil
eradication programs provided to farmers.
estimated loan levels
1998 loan level.........................................($2,400,693,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (2,991,034,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (2,627,031,000)
Comparison:
1998 loan level..................................... (+226,338,000)
1999 budget estimate................................ (-364,003,000)
Note.--Public Law 105-18 provided supplemental 1997 appropriations of
$29,300,000 to support a loan level of $164,000,000. These funds are not
reflected here.
This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm
ownership, farm operating, and emergency. In addition, the fund
makes loans to associations for Indian tribe land acquisition,
and boll weevil eradication.
committee provisions
Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for
fiscal year 1999 for the agricultural credit insurance fund
programs are: $500,031,000 for farm ownership loans, of which
$75,000,000 is for direct loans and $425,031,000 is for
guaranteed loans; $1,976,000,000 for farm operating loans, of
which $500,000,000 is for direct loans, $200,000,000 is for
guaranteed subsidized loans, and $1,276,000,000 is for
guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $1,000,000 for Indian tribe land
acquisition loans; $25,000,000 for emergency disaster loans;
$100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans; and $25,000,000
for credit sales of acquired property.
agriculture credit programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 Committee
FY 1998 level estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
Farm ownership:
Direct...................................................... ($78,320) ($85,000) ($75,000)
Guaranteed.................................................. (425,000) (425,031) (425,031)
Farm operating:
Direct...................................................... (565,000) (500,000) (500,000)
Unsubsidized guaranteed..................................... (992,906) (1,700,000) (1,276,000)
Subsidized guaranteed....................................... (235,000) (200,000) (200,000)
Emergency disaster.............................................. (25,000) (25,000) (25,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition................................... (1,000) (1,003) (1,000)
Credit sales of acquired property............................... (25,000) (25,000) (25,000)
Boll Weevil Eradication......................................... (53,467) (30,000) (100,000)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans......................................... ($2,400,693) ($2,991,034) ($2,627,031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy subsidy expenses
1998 appropriation........................................... $55,019,000 $50,678,000 $219,861,000
1999 budget estimate......................................... 56,620,000 43,958,000 237,673,000
Provided in the bill......................................... 56,110,000 35,238,000 219,861,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation....................................... (+1,091,000) (-15,440,000) ...............
1999 budget estimate..................................... (-510,000) (-8,720,000) (-17,812,000)
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1999, as well
as for administrative expenses.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the costs of loan programs
under credit reform:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1998 enacted FY 1999 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................ $8,329,000 $12,725,000 $11,228,000
Guaranteed............................................ 16,407,000 6,758,000 6,758,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 24,736,000 19,483,000 17,986,000
=====================================================
Farm operating:
Direct................................................ 36,823,000 34,150,000 34,150,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized............................... 11,617,000 19,720,000 11,000,000
Guaranteed subsidized................................. 22,654,000 17,480,000 17,480,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 71,094,000 71,350,000 62,630,000
=====================================================
Boll weevil eradication................................... 472,000 432,000 1,440,000
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 132,000 153,000 153,000
Emergency disaster........................................ 6,008,000 5,900,000 5,900,000
Credit sales of acquired property......................... 3,255,000 3,260,000 3,260,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies................................. 105,697,000 100,578,000 91,369,000
=====================================================
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expenses................................... 209,861,000 227,673,000 209,861,000
Administrative expenses................................. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses.................................. $219,861,000 $237,673,000 $219,861,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
1998 appropriation...................................... $252,571,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 66,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 64,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -188,571,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -2,000,000
Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR)
Act of 1996, Risk Management became an agency of the Department
of Agriculture, known as the Risk Management Agency (RMA),
reporting to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
RMA manages program activities in support of the Federal
crop insurance program as authorized by the Federal Crop
Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 and the FAIR Act of 1996. Functional areas of RMA
are research and development, insurance services, and
compliance whose functions include policy formulation and
procedures and regulations development. Reviews and evaluations
are conducted for overall performance to ensure the actuarial
soundness of the insurance program.
committee provisions
For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $64,000,000, a decrease of $188,571,000 below
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$2,000,000 below the budget request.
The significant reduction below fiscal year 1998 is a
result of certain costs related to the program being covered
through the Corporation Fund.
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
1998 appropriation....................................\1\ $1,584,135,000
1999 budget estimate...................................\1\ 1,504,036,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 1,504,036,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -80,099,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Estimated amounts. The 1998 appropriations bill provided such sums
as may be necessary to administer the program. The FY 1999 proposed
appropriation will do the same. RMA applied a portion of their
unobligated balance to cover expenses in FY 1998 thus reducing the
appropriation needed.
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace
the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment
programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 60 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $50 per policy, or $200 for all crops
grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At
least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and
certain other farm programs. This coverage was available either
through FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of
1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility
for emergency crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT
coverage required to meet program requirements. Emergency loss
assistance does not include emergency loans or payment under
the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered
by FSA. Beginning with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began
phasing out delivery of CAT coverage through the FSA offices,
except in those areas where there are insufficient private
insurance providers. In 1998, the private companies serve as
the sole source for CAT coverage.
The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies
for additional ``buy-up'' coverage levels which producers may
obtain from private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy
is equivalent to the amount of premium established for
catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for
operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65
percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater
than 65 percent at 100 percent of the price, the amount is
equivalent to an amount equal to the premium established for 50
percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent of the expected
market price and an amount of operating and administrative
expenses.
The reform legislation included the NAP program for
producers of crops for which there is currently no insurance
available. NAP was established to ensure that most producers of
crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop
catastrophes comparable to protection previously provided by ad
hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was
established as part of the Risk Management Agency, under the
FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has
been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program
activities.
Committee Provisions
For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the
Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be
necessary, the same as the budget request.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under
the laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United
States, and was managed and operated in close affiliation with
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was
transferred to the Department of Agriculture by the President's
Reorganization Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established
as an agency and instrumentality of the United States under a
permanent Federal charter by Public Law 80-806, as amended. Its
operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other
specific legislation.
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 also makes available materials and facilities
required in connection with the storage and distribution of
such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for
sharing of costs with producers for the establishment of
approved conservation practices on environmentally sensitive
land and subsequent rental payments for such land for the
duration of conservation reserve program contracts.
Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act, as amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996;
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).
The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be
offered for the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production
flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed
grains, upland cotton, and rice); nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple
(ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for
peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse loan program for sugar. The
1996 Act also requires a milk price support program that begins
after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31,
1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product
processors.
The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation
acreage reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the
conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve
program (WRP), and the environmental quality incentives program
(EQIP). Each of these programs is funded through the
Corporation.
The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded
conservation programs, including the conservation farm option;
flood risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives,
and farmland protection programs.
The Corporation is managed by a board of directors
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject
to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of
Agriculture, who is ex officio, a director, and chairman of the
board. The board consists of six members, in addition to the
Secretary, who are designated according to their positions in
the Department of Agriculture.
Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA
state and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used
to carry out Corporation activities.
The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100
million held by the United States and authority to borrow up to
$30 billion. The fiscal year 1988 Appropriations Act, P.L. 100-
202, increased the statutory borrowing authority from $25
billion to $30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal
Treasury and may also be borrowed from private lending
agencies.
The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity
Credit Corporation are as follows:
In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its
annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the
Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is
authorized to use its general powers only to--
(a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities
through loans, purchases, payments, and other
operations.
(b) Make available materials and facilities required
in connection with the production and marketing of
agricultural commodities.
(c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to
other government agencies, foreign governments, and
domestic, foreign or international relief or
rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic
requirements.
(d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or
disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.
(e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural
commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of
domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the
development of new and additional markets, marketing
facilities, and uses for such commodities.
(f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the
development of foreign markets for agricultural
commodities.
(g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs
authorized by law.
(h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress
may specifically authorize or provide.
Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses
1998 appropriation.................................... $783,507,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. \1\ 8,439,000,00
0
Provided in the bill.................................. 8,439,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ +7,655,493,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. ................
\1\ Amount proposed to be reimbursed through a current, indefinite
appropriation.
If necessary to perform the functions, duties, obligations,
or commitments of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
administrative personnel and others serving the Corporation
shall be paid from funds on hand or from those funds received
from the redemption or sale of commodities. Such funds shall
also be available to meet program payments, commodity loans, or
other obligations of the Corporation.
Committee Provisions
For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Committee provides $8,439,000,000, an
increase of $7,655,493,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management
1998 limitation......................................... ($5,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (5,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (5,000,000)
Comparison:
1998 limitation..........................(.........................)
1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)
The Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, as amended.
Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the
management of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA's
hazardous waste management appropriation. CCC funds operations
and maintenance costs only.
Committee Provisions
For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste
Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000,
the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the
same as the budget request.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
1998 appropriation...................................... $693,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 719,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 719,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +26,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
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 Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$719,000, an increase of $26,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee continues its support for the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The Committee understands
that the Secretary has made a decision to dedicate a minimum of
5.5 million acres of the Conservation Reserve Program to
continuous sign-up (including the buffer strip initiative) and
CREP enrollments. The Committee remains concerned about the
geographic disparity among CREP participants and directs the
Secretary to take all reasonable steps to ensure maximum
flexibility in the CREP rental rate formula in order to promote
participation from all regions of the country.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is the
lead Federal conservation agency for private land. SCS was
established in 1935 to carry out a continuing program of soil
and water conservation on the Nation's private and non-Federal
land. NRCS was established by the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The agency combines
the authorities of the former SCS and directs financial or
technical assistance programs for natural resource
conservation.
NRCS provides America's private land conservation through
local conservation districts to individuals, communities,
watershed groups, tribal governments, Federal, state, and local
agencies, and others. The NRCS staff at the local level work
with state and local conservation staff and volunteers in a
partnership to assist individuals and communities to care for
natural resources. NRCS also develops technical guidance for
conservation planning and assistance. This technical guidance
is tailored to local conditions and is widely used by NRCS
staff and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to
ensure that conservation is based on sound science.
The benefits of these activities are multifaceted,
including sustained and improved agricultural productivity;
cleaner, safer, and more dependable water supplies; reduced
damages caused by floods and other natural disasters; and an
enhanced natural resource base to support continued economic
development, recreation, and the environment.
Conservation Operations
1998 appropriation...................................... $632,853,000
1999 budget estimate......................\1\,\2\ 742,231,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 641,243,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +8,390,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -100,988,000
\1\ Includes funding for Watershed Surveys and Planning and technical
assistance for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program.
\2\ The budget assumes enactment of user fees ($10 million).
The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain
agricultural productivity and protect and enhance the natural
resource base. This is done through providing America's private
land conservation to land users, communities, units of state
and local government, and other Federal agencies in planning
and implementing natural resources solutions to reduce erosion,
improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and
conserve wetlands, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, improve
air quality, improve pasture and range conditions, reduce
upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. Assistance is also
provided to implement highly erodible land (HEL), wetlands
(swampbuster), wetlands reserve program (WRP), and conservation
reserve program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act,
as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990, the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
committee provisions
For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $641,243,000, an increase of $8,390,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$100,988,000 below the budget request. The Committee has
included $15,000,000 in each of the last three fiscal years for
the grazing lands conservation initiative and expects the
agency to continue this funding level in fiscal year 1999.
The Committee believes in the way the NRCS has provided
vital conservation technical assistance to private landowners,
groups, and communities since 1935. As a result, the Committee
does not concur with the Administration's proposal to establish
America's Private Land Conservation Legacy.
The Committee has included a limitation that allows 130,000
additional acres to be enrolled in the wetlands reserve program
instead of the 164,214 additional acres as the budget proposes;
and a limitation on the funding level for the environmental
quality incentives program of $174,000,000. The savings from
these limitations are used to protect funding for the
conservation operations account.
The Committee has provided for the continuation of the
following projects: $300,000 to promote pastureland management
and rotational grazing in Central New York; $250,000 to
establish best management practices to individual farmers to
reduce the impact of agriculture-related non-point sources of
pollution in the Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds;
$500,000 for the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion
Sediment Control; $250,000 for technical assistance to the
Westchester Soil and Conservation District for a partnership
with the Environmental Protection Agency to address land use
and water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound; and
$250,000 for technical assistance for environmental restoration
activities for Beaver Swamp Brook.
The Committee urges the Natural Resources Conservation
Service to provide support to initiate work on Main Ditch #1,
Poinsett County, Arkansas.
The Committee encourages the NRCS to work with Branch
County, Michigan to digitize county soil maps.
The House report accompanying the fiscal year 1998
agriculture appropriations bill expressed concern over the fact
that while the conservation operations program accounts for 80
percent of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
appropriations that little or no accountability is shown for
how these funds are used by the agency. Specifically, the
Committee is concerned about the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative (AHRI) for which funding has never been requested
from the Congress. The Committee requests a report by December
15, 1998 on the following: total expenditures on the American
Heritage River Initiative by fiscal year; a list of all
activities being carried out and/or planned in support of the
AHRI and their associated costs; and the number of personnel
assigned to work on this initiative and the amount of their
time spent working on this initiative.
Funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the
Urban Resources Partnership and the Northwest Salmon Recovery
Initiative are not available until justification and reprogram
requests are approved. In addition, specific line item requests
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the Urban
Resources Partnership, the Northwest Salmon Initiative and any
other initiative are to be included in the fiscal year 2000
request under the conservation operations account.
The Committee recognizes the participation of the NRCS in
the Urban Resources Partnership. The Urban Resources
Partnership (URP) is a multi-agency effort to assist urban and
suburban communities to improve management and conservation of
their natural resources. It has served as a catalyst to
encourage local communities to participate in conservation
activities. The Committee expects that the NRCS will continue
their participation in URP.
The Committee directs the agency to provide an additional
$300,000 for work on erosion control from wetland plants in
Louisiana.
The Committee expects the agency to maintain the fiscal
year 1998 funding and staffing levels in support of Chesapeake
Bay activities.
The Committee urges the NRCS to allocate environmental
quality incentives program (EQIP) funds to the maximum extent
possible to conduct voluntary on-farm assessments for the pork
industry's On-Farm Odor/Environmental Assistance Program.
The Committee is concerned that an additional bureaucratic
layer has been added to the NRCS. The Committee directs the
agency to provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives on the activities, mission, and
oversight authority of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service regional offices. This report shall be provided to the
Committee along with the agency's fiscal year 2000 budget
submission.
The Committee expects the agency's cost of providing
technical assistance to the EQIP will be fully funded within
the EQIP as provided in the Federal Agriculture Improvement
Reform Act of 1996.
The Committee expects that the NRCS portion of the National
Water Management Center will be funded at a level no less than
the amount available for fiscal year 1998.
The Committee also expects the Department to give
consideration to utilizing financial or educational assistance
under EQIP for pilot work to evaluate and assess the
effectiveness of various best management practices to assist
livestock producers in the Bosque River watershed in Texas.
The Committee directs the NRCS to continue support of
ground water activities in eastern Arkansas and programs
related to Boeuf-Tensas.
The Committee understands that the NRCS has accepted the
responsibility for structural deficiencies in a pipeline in the
Powder Valley Water Control District in Oregon. The Committee
expects the NRCS to repair the pipeline so as not to render the
pipeline useless.
The Committee is concerned that the cover crop requirement
of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) signup in several
states has become increasingly detailed, diverse, complex and
expensive for landowners and taxpayers. Consequently, the
Committee is concerned that intended environmental incentives
have been weakened. The Committee encourages State Technical
Committees to give serious consideration to the cost of
establishing covers compared to the benefits derived from these
covers. State Technical Committees should recommend cover
enhancement practices that result in fair and reasonable costs
to producers. The Committee encourages the Department to
provide as much flexibility as possible to producers in the
timing of cover establishment and the seeding options offered
to producers. In determining cover requirements, the Department
should seek to minimize the costs to producers.
watershed surveys and planning
1998 appropriation.................................... $11,190,000
1999 budget estimate.................................. (\1\)
Provided in the bill.................................. 9,545,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................ -1,645,000
1999 budget estimate.............................. +9,545,000
\1\ Proposed to be funded under conservation operations.
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 Investigations 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 of 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 of floodwater retardation, erosion control, and
reduction of sedimentation in the watershed of rivers and
streams and to further the conservation, development,
utilization, and disposal of water. 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 provisions
For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $9,545,000, a decrease of $1,645,000 below
the amount available for fiscal year 1998. The budget request
proposed to fund these activities under conservation
operations.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
1998 appropriation...................................... $101,036,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 49,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 97,850,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -3,186,000
1999 budget estimate................................ +48,850,000
\1\ Technical assistance proposed to be funded under conservation
operations.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-
1009), provides for cooperation among the Federal government,
the states, and local 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 work of the Department under this item includes
financial assistance for the installation of works of
improvement specified in approved watershed work plans
including structural measures, land treatment measures, and
program evaluation studies in selected watershed projects to
determine the effectiveness of structural and land treatment
measures installed. In addition, NRCS makes loans to local
organizations to finance the local share of the costs of
installing planned works of improvement.
committee provisions
For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $97,850,000, a decrease
of $3,186,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998
and an increase of $48,850,000 above the budget request.
Language is included which limits the amount spent on technical
assistance to not more than $47,000,000. The Committee expects
more funding to be spent on completing ongoing projects and
reducing the backlog of watershed projects.
The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue
on the following projects: New Town Hoffman Flood Control
Project in Chemung County, New York; the four pilot projects in
North Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts;
Tulpehocken Creek Watershed Project in Berks County and Lebanon
County, Pennsylvania; the 5-D Project in Yadkin County, North
Carolina; the Stillwater Creek Flood Project in Oklahoma; and
the Deadman Creek/Bullard Creek Watershed Project in Lake
County, Oregon.
resource conservation and development
1998 appropriation...................................... $34,377,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 34,377,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 35,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +623,000
1999 budget estimate................................ +623,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work
plans for resource conservation and development projects in
cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs
of land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups
and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to
conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions
and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make
loans to project sponsors for conservation and development
purposes and to individual operators for establishing soil and
water conservation practices.
committee provisions
For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $35,000,000, an increase of
$623,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and an
increase of $623,000 above the budget request. The Committee
expects the USDA to fund new RC&D areas.
forestry incentives program
1998 appropriation...................................... $6,325,000
1999 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -6,325,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
313), as amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its
purpose is to encourage the development, management, and
protection of nonindustrial private forest lands. The program
will be carried out by providing technical assistance and long-
term cost sharing agreements with private landowners.
committee provisions
The Committee concurs with the President's budget and does
not provide funding for the Forestry Incentives Program. This
program promotes timber production on private lands, and in
support of the budget these efforts will be continued through
the State and Private Forestry program in the Forest Service.
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 Service, Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service and
placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for
Rural Development. These agencies deliver a variety of programs
through a network of state, district, and county offices.
In the 1930's and 1940's these agencies were primarily
involved in making small loans to farmers; however, today these
agencies have a multi-billion dollar loan program throughout
all America providing loan and grant assistance for single
family, multi-family, housing, and special housing needs, as
well as a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and
business development programs.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
1998 appropriation...................................... $588,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 611,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 611,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +23,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
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 Rural
Utilities Service.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$611,000, an increase of $23,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee expects the Department to give consideration
to the following projects or organizations requesting
assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program and
other rural development programs: capacity building to assist
rural communities in the states of New York and Florida
(through the Florida Counties Foundation) to access state and
Federal programs to address needs in rural areas; the Ohio
Rural Enterprise Program; a water purification system for the
City of Plaquemine, cleanup of atrazine concentration for water
district 3 in Iberville Parish, and improvements to the Colyell
water system, Livingston Parish, (Louisiana); an energy
cooperative development program in conjunction with the State
of California Energy Commission, assistance to the Sacramento
Valley Resource Conservation and Development District
(California) to establish a nature tourism program; a
participation loan program and labor market analysis for the
Tehama (California) Local Development Corporation for small
business development; designation of Tehama County (California)
as a Champion Community; the Lake Marion (South Carolina)
Regional Water Agency potable water program; continued support
for the St. Johns-New Madrid (Missouri) Floodway Flood Control
Project; construction of the Lincoln County (Georgia)
Conference Center; the Paseo del Canon drainage canal, Taos,
New Mexico redirection of storm waters; Rural Enterprises,
Inc., Durant, OK., for rural economic development; The
Enterprise Center, Bradford County (Pennsylvania) for rural
economic and business development; the Lackawanna Junior
College (Pennsylvania) job training program; the New River
Valley Planning District (Virginia) Commission's Jacksonville
Center small business incubator project; feasibility studies by
Wytheville Community College, Southwest Virginia Community
College and Mountain Empire Community College (Virginia) for
small business incubators; revolving loan funds for the Fayette
County Industrial Development Corporation, the City of
Scottsburg and the City of Aurora (Indiana); the Central Valley
(California) Assessment Project for current and long-term
trends in agriculture; the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund
expansion of financial and technical assistance to businesses
in northeastern Minnesota; the Western Massachusetts Food
Processing Center; the Western Massachusetts Industrial
Development Equity Pool; the Self Help Credit Union Emerging
Rural Enterprises Loan Fund in North Carolina; the Kentucky
Highlands Investment Corporation venture capital fund
expansion; the Mountain Association for Community Economic
Development (Kentucky) Strategic Capital Fund; the Lee County
(Kentucky) Vegetable Co-op facility expansion program; the
Secondary Wood Industry Revolving Loan Fund in the Cumberland
Valley (Kentucky) Development District; the Hermiston (Oregon)
Development Corporation surface water feasibility study; the
Northumberland County (Pennsylvania) Multi-Use Industrial Park;
the Fulton County (Pennsylvania) Medical Center reconstruction
project; County of Lamar (Alabama) engineering and design of
drinking water project; improvements to the Battle Mountain
(Nevada) wastewater treatment facility; the Pine River
Irrigation District domestic water system in LaPlata County
(Colorado); the Lonoke/White County (Arkansas) water supply
project and the Arkansas State University value-added export
center; acquisition of a new water tank and the replacement of
old water lines by the Town of Trinity, Morgan County
(Alabama); the Renewable Research Institute (multi-state)
development and commercialization of value-added products; and
the Connecticut Energy Cooperative.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established
review procedures.
The Committee encourages the Department to assist
appropriate organizations in planning and establishing a
national farmers' marketing cooperative.
The Committee is aware of critical water supply problems in
the Municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico and has provided bill
language allowing the municipality to be eligible for
assistance under the rural water and sewer programs.
The Committee also provides bill language making the city
of Big Spring, Texas eligible for rural housing programs of the
Rural Housing Service. An anomaly in the calculation of the
city's population caused by the presence of several Federal
facilities currently makes the city ineligible for rural
housing assistance.
The Committee has been informed of unintentional effects of
certain definitions regarding eligibility for rural development
programs in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996. USDA reports that some rural entities that would
otherwise be eligible for loans and grants are now ineligible
as a result of these definitions. USDA reports that the problem
appears to be most acute in the northeast, but other states
such as Missouri and Illinois have also reported problems. USDA
also reports that in New Jersey, the number of eligible areas
has been reduced by 55 percent. The Committee has provided bill
language to suspend certain eligibility definitions for fiscal
year 1999. The Committee directs USDA to work with the
authorizing Committees to address this problem and develop
appropriate solutions.
The Committee supports efforts to develop capacity and
expects the Secretary to develop regulations to develop the
capacity and ability of private, non-profit community-based
housing and community development organizations, and rural
communities to undertake projects to improve housing, community
facilities, community and economic development projects in
rural areas. The Committee expects this program to be available
to qualified national and multi-state private, non-profit
intermediary organizations that propose to carry out a program
of technical assistance to eligible entities that includes
loans, grants or pre-development assistance. The intermediary
organizations would provide matching funds from other sources
in an amount not less than Federal funds. The Committee expects
the Department to publish the regulations in final form not
later than September 30, 1999.
The Committee understands that the Rural Utility Service
has approved a grant application and a loan application for the
City of Gridley, California. Because the project will provide
sewer benefits to the community as a whole, the Committee
directs the Service to allow the debt service on the loan to be
allocated to all users in the sewer service area through a
Certificate of Participation.
rural community advancement program
1998 Appropriations..................................... $652,197,000
1999 Budget estimate.................................... 715,172,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 745,172,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +92,975,000
1999 budget estimate................................ +30,000,000
The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127), consolidates funding for the following
programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,
water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water
assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and
guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants,
direct and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural
business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity
grants. This proposal is in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, Public Law 104-127. Consolidating funding for these 12
rural development loan and grant programs under RCAP will
provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to
applicant needs.
With the exception of the 10 percent in the ``National
office reserve'' account and the 3 percent of the funding in
the ``Federally recognized Indian tribe'' account, funding will
be allocated to rural development State directors for their
priority setting on a State-by-State basis. State directors are
authorized to transfer not more than 25 percent of the amount
in the account that is allocated for the State for the fiscal
year to any other account in which amounts are allocated for
the State for the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds
allowed to be reallocated nationwide.
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural
community facilities. Loans are made to organizations,
including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated
for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to construct,
enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities
providing essential services to rural residents. Such
facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development such as fire and rescue services, health
care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social,
cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), would be 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 will be targeted to the lowest income
communities. Communities that have lower population and income
levels would receive a higher cost-share contribution through
these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the
cost of developing the facility.
The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created
by the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are
made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized
for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the
purpose of improving, developing or financing business,
industry, and employment or improving the economic and
environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include
financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,
enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase
and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings,
payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital.
Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is
not within the outer boundary of any city having a population
of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and
urbanizing areas with a population density of more than 100
persons per square mile. Special consideration for such loans
is given to rural areas and cities having a population of less
than 25,000.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made not to exceed
$1,500,000 annually to public bodies and private nonprofit
community development corporations or entities. Grants are made
to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use
local rural economic and human resources; to identify, train,
and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and
managers; to establish business support centers; to conduct
economic development planning and coordination, and leadership
development; and to establish centers for training, technology,
and trade that will provide training to rural businesses in the
utilization of interactive communications technologies.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
several actions, including sections 306, 306A, 309A, 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
310(b)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act,
as amended. 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 Provisions
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the budget request:
RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 FY 1999 Committee
level estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
Community facility loans:
Guaranteed............... $613 0 0
Direct................... 17,273 $27,480 $27,480
Community facility grants.... 9,176 8,237 8,237
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, housing...... 27,062 35,717 35,717
======================================
Business:
Business and industry loans:
Guaranteed............... 9,700 10,200 10,200
Direct................... 0 0 0
Rural business enterprise
grants...................... 38,193 40,300 40,300
Rural business opportunity
grants...................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, business..... 47,893 50,500 50,500
======================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal
loans:
Guaranteed............... 0 0 0
Direct................... 67,442 126,209 156,209
Water and waste disposal
grants...................... 507,200 500,000 500,000
Solid waste management grants 2,600 2,746 2,746
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities.... 577,242 628,955 658,955
======================================
Total, loans and grants $652,197 $715,172 $745,172
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) was established under
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs
that work in partnership with state and local governments and
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially
guaranteed loans.
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
1998 loan level....................................... ($4,219,527,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................. (4,347,116,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (4,235,601,000)
Comparison:
1998 loan level................................... (+16,074,000)
1999 budget estimate.............................. (-111,515,000)
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to Section 517 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural
housing loans for single family homes, rental and cooperative
housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans, made with funds advanced by private lenders, are
repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor housing insured
loans are made either to a farm owner or to a public or private
nonprofit organization to provide modest living quarters and
related facilities for domestic farm labor. Loan programs are
limited to rural areas which include towns, villages, and other
places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not part
of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
committee provisions
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1998 level FY 1999 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Low-income family housing (sec 502):
Direct......................................... ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($930,600)
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................ (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)
Rental housing (sec 515)........................... (128,640) (100,000) (100,000)
Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................. (19,700) (150,000) (125,000)
Housing repair (sec 504)........................... (30,000) (25,001) (25,001)
Farm labor (sec 514)............................... (15,000) (32,108) (20,000)
Credit sales of acquired property.................. (25,000) (30,007) (25,000)
Site loans (sec 524)............................... (600) (5,000) (5,000)
Self-help housing land development fund............ (587) (5,000) (5,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorization........................ ($4,219,527) ($4,347,116) ($4,235,601)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy subsidy expenses
1998 appropriation..................................... $218,042,000 $8,100,000 $354,785,000
1999 budget estimate................................... 196,935,000 6,180,000 367,857,000
Provided in the bill................................... 181,255,000 5,600,000 354,785,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................. -37,787,000 -2,500,000 .................
1999 budget estimate............................... -15,680,000 -580,000 -13,072,000
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1999, as well
as for administrative expenses.
committee provisions
The Committee strongly urges the Rural Housing Service to
continue participation in the leveraged loan program of New
York and other states where alternative procedures are needed
to meet the needs of affordable housing in rural areas.
The following table reflects the cost of the loan programs
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal
year 1998 amount reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as
set by OMB.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1998 level FY 1999 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec 502):
Direct......................................... $128,100 $118,200 $110,000
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................ 6,900 2,700 2,700
Housing repair (sec 504)........................... 10,300 8,808 8,808
Farm labor (sec 514)............................... 7,388 16,706 10,406
Rental housing (sec 515)........................... 68,745 48,250 48,250
Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................. 1,200 3,480 2,900
Credit sales of acquired property.................. 3,492 4,672 3,492
Housing site dev. (sec 524)........................ 0 17 17
Self-help housing land development fund............ 17 282 282
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................ $226,142 $203,115 $186,855
RHIF expenses:
Administrative expenses............................ $354,785 $367,857 $354,785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rental assistance program
1998 appropriation ..................................... $541,397,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 583,397,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 583,397,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +42,000,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
established a rural rental assistance program to be
administered through the rural housing loans programs.
The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by
low-income families living in Rural Housing Service financed
rental projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this
program, low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1)
30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of
monthly income; or (3) designated housing payments from a
welfare agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service Section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by low-income
families to extend expiring contracts or provide full amounts
authority to existing contracts; any remaining authority will
be used for projects receiving new construction commitments
under Sections 514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families
with certain limitations.
committee provisions
For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a
program level of $583,397,000, an increase of $42,000,000 above
the amount available in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the
budget request.
mutual and self-help housing grants
1998 appropriation...................................... $26,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 26,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 26,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation..................................................
1999 budget estimate................................................
This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, as amended. Grants are made to local organizations
to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs
under which groups of usually six to ten 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 PROVISIONS
For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $26,000,000, the same amount as
available in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget
request.
rural community fire protection grants
1998 appropriation...................................... $2,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 0
Provided in the bill.................................... 0
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -2,000,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
Rural community fire protection grants are authorized by
Section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.
Grants are made to public bodies to organize, train, and equip
local firefighting forces, including those of Indian tribes or
other native groups, to prevent, control, and suppress fires
threatening human lives, crops, livestock, farmsteads or other
improvements, pastures, orchards, wildlife, rangeland,
woodland, and other resources in rural areas.
committee provisions
Funding for rural community fire protection grants in
fiscal year 1999 has been requested in the budget of the Forest
Service.
rural housing assistance grants
1998 appropriation...................................... $45,720,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 46,900,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 41,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -4,720,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -5,900,000
The following programs are consolidated under the Rural
Housing Assistance Grants: grants for rural housing for
domestic farm labor, very low-income housing repair grants,
rural housing preservation grants, compensation for
construction defects, and supervisory and technical assistance
grants.
Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor grants are provided
to public or private nonprofit organizations or other eligible
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor.
Under Section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Rural
Housing Service is authorized to share with States or other
political subdivisions, public or private nonprofit
organizations, or nonprofit organizations of farm workers, the
cost of providing low-rent housing, basic household
furnishings, and related facilities to be used by domestic farm
laborers. Such housing may be for year-round or seasonal
occupancy and consist of family units, apartments, or
dormitory-type units, constructed in an economical manner, and
not of elaborate or extravagant design or materials.
The Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants program is
authorized under Section 504 of Title V of the Housing Act of
1949, as amended. The program makes 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.
A grant can be made in combination with a Section 504 very low-
income housing repair loan.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair
for low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the
preservation program is to improve the delivery of
rehabilitation assistance by employing the expertise of housing
organizations at the local level. Eligible applicants will
compete on a state-by-state basis for grants funds. These funds
may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or grants to
finance home repair. The program is administered by local
grantees.
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.
The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is
carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants
are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for
packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502,
504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as
amended. The assistance is to be directed to underserved areas
where at least 20 percent or more of the population is at or
below the poverty level, and at least 10 percent or more of the
population resides in substandard housing. Under section 525,
grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations
and other associations for the developing, conducting,
administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory
assistance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal,
State, and local housing programs for low-income families in
rural areas.
COMMITTEE PROVISIONS
For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $41,000,000, a decrease
of $4,720,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 1998
and a decrease of $5,900,000 below the budget request.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Administrative
expenses Transfers Total expenses
1998 level................................................ $57,958,000 ($354,785,000) ($412,743,000)
1999 budget estimate...................................... 60,978,000 (367,857,000) (428,835,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 57,958,000 (354,785,000) (412,743,000)
Comparison:
1998 level............................................ ................ ................ ................
1999 budget estimate.................................. -3,020,000 (-13,072,000) (-16,092,000)
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Housing Service including reviewing
applications, making and collecting loans, and providing
technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist
in extending other Federal programs to people in rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program account for the
rural housing insurance fund. Appropriations to the salaries
and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant
programs.
Committee Provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Housing Service, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $57,958,000, the same as
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$3,020,000 below the budget request.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to
enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally-
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
rural development loan fund program account
estimated loan level
1998 loan level......................................... ($35,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (35,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (35,000,000)
Comparison:
1998 loan level..........................(.........................)
1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)
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 (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 1999, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Committee Provisions
For the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, the
Committee provides for a loan level of $35,000,000, the same as
provided in fiscal year 1998 and the same as the budget
request.
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
1998 appropriation.................. $16,888,000 $3,482,000
1999 budget estimate................ 17,622,000 3,547,000
Provided in the bill................ 17,622,000 3,499,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.............. +734,000 +17,000
1999 budget estimates........... ................ -48,000
rural economic development loans program account
estimated loan level
1998 loan level......................................... ($25,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (15,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (15,000,000)
Comparison:
1998 loan level..................................... (-10,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)
The rural economic development loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (P.L.
100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936,
by establishing a new section 313. This section of the Rural
Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of
credits payment program and created the rural economic
development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized
under the Act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero
interest loans to electric telecommunications borrowers for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, including funding for feasibility studies,
start-up costs, and other reasonable expenses for the purpose
of fostering rural economic development.
committee provisions
For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account,
the Committee provides for a loan level of $15,000,000, a
decrease of $10,000,000 below the level for fiscal year 1998
and the same as the budget request.
The Committee has provided language, requested by the
Administration, to use earnings generated by the interest
differential on voluntary cushion of credit payments made by
Rural Utilities Service borrowers to provide necessary loan
subsidies for rural economic development loans. By using these
earnings for subsidy budget authority, additional loans funds
will be available to rural communities. The discretionary cost
of these loans is offset by reductions to rural economic
development grants made from the cushion of credit.
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan subsidy
1998 appropriation...................................... $5,978,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 3,783,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 3,783,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -2,195,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
alternative agricultural research and commercialization revolving fund
cooperative agreements
1998 appropriation...................................... $7,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 10,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -7,000,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -10,000,000
The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Act of 1990, subtitle G of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, was established to develop
and produce marketable products other than food, feed, or
traditional forest or fiber products. It will assist in
researching, developing, commercializing, and marketing new
nonfood, nonfeed uses for traditional and new agriculture
commodities.
Committee Provisions
The Committee does not provide funding for the Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund for
fiscal year 1999.
The Committee notes that, according to USDA, $34,237,629
has been invested in AARC with only $247,713.75 in repayments
from its beginning in 1993 through the end of fiscal year 1997.
rural cooperative development grants
1998 appropriation...................................... $3,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 5,700,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 3,300,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +300,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -2,400,000
Rural Cooperative Development Grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation centers for rural cooperative development with their
primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in
rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or
institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up
to 75 percent of the cost of the project and associated
administrative costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25
percent from non-federal sources. Grants are competitive and
are awarded based on specific selection criteria.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State department of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
Committee Provisions
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $3,300,000, an increase of
$300,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1998 and a
decrease of $2,400,000, below the budget request.
Of the funds provided, not to exceed $1,300,000 is provided
for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Transfer from
Appropriation loan accounts Total, RBS, S&E
1998 appropriation........................................ $25,680,000 ($3,482,000) ($29,162,000)
1999 budget estimate...................................... 26,396,000 (3,547,000) (29,943,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 25,680,000 (3,499,000) (29,179,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................... ................ (+17,000) (+17,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................. -716,000 (-48,000) (-764,000)
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans, and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Committee Provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative
Development Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$25,680,000, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 1998
and a decrease of $716,000 below the budget request.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
1998 loan level.........................................($1,420,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (1,075,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (1,561,500,000)
Comparison:
1998 loan level..................................... +141,500,000
1999 budget estimate................................ +486,500,000
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.), as amended provides the statutory authority for the
electric and telecommunications programs.
Committee Provisions
The following table reflects the loan levels for the rural
electrification and telecommunications loan program account:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1998 enacted FY 1999 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electrification and telecommunications loans program
account.
Loan authorizations:
Direct loans:
Electric 5%....................................... ($125,000,000) ($55,000,000) ($71,500,000)
Telecommunications 5%............................. (75,000,000) (50,000,000) (75,000,000)
Treasury rate: Telecommunications................. (300,000,000) (300,000,000) (300,000,000)
Muni-rate: Electric............................... (500,000,000) (250,000,000) (295,000,000)
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ (1,000,000,000) (655,000,000) (741,500,000)
=====================================================
FFB loans:
Electric, regular................................. (300,000,000) (300,000,000) (700,000,000)
Telecommunications................................ (120,000,000) (120,000,000) (120,000,000)
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ (420,000,000) (420,000,000) (820,000,000)
=====================================================
Total, Loan authorizations...................... ($1,420,000,000) ($1,075,000,000) ($1,561,500,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1998 enacted FY 1999 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Direct loans:
Electric 5%........................................... $9,325,000 $7,172,000 $9,325,000
Telecommunications 5%................................. 2,940,000 4,895,000 7,342,000
Treasury rate: Telecommunications................. 60,000 810,000 810,000
Muni-rate: Electric............................... 21,100,000 21,900,000 25,842,000
FFB loans: Regular Electric....................... 2,760,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................... 36,185,000 34,777,000 43,319,000
=====================================================
RETLP administrative expenses............................. 29,982,000 32,000,000 29,982,000
Total, Rural electrification and telecommunications
loans program account.............................. $66,167,000 $66,777,000 73,301,000
(Loan authorization)...................................... ($1,420,000,000) ($1,075,000,000) ($1,561,500,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. An appropriation to this account will be used
to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 1999, as well
as for administrative expenses.
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
1998 loan level......................................... ($175,000,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (175,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (175,000,000)
Comparison:
1998 loan level..........................(.........................)
1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)
The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was required by law to begin
privatization (repurchase of Federally owned stock) in fiscal
year 1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market
rates and no longer require Federal assistance.
The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of
directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the
Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and
operation. This will take place when 51 percent of the Class A
stock issued to the United States and outstanding at any time
after September 30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired.
Activities of the Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the
Office of General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Committee Provisions
For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a
loan level of $175,000,000, the same as the level for fiscal
year 1998 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal
year 1998 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock
of the Rural Telephone Bank.
The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language
using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank
Liquidating Account to pay for loan subsidies or administrative
expenses of the Rural Telephone Bank.
ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
Direct loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
1998 appropriation.................. $3,710,000 $3,000,000
1999 budget estimate................ (\1\) (\2\)
Provided in the bill................ 4,638,000 3,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.............. +928,000 ................
1999 budget estimate............ ................ ................
\1\ up to $4,638,000 is to be derived by transfer from unobligated
balances in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.
\2\ up to $3,000,000 is to be derived from transfer from unobligated
balances in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account.
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 1999, as well as for administrative
expenses.
DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM
Loan level Subsidy level Grants
1998 appropriation.............................................. $150,000,000 $30,000 $12,500,000
1999 budget estimate............................................ 150,000,000 180,000 15,000,000
Provided in the bill............................................ 150,000,000 180,000 10,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.......................................... .............. +150,000 -2,500,000
1999 budget estimates....................................... .............. .............. -5,000,000
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was
established by the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990 (104
STAT. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This program is
authorized in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990 to provide incentives to improve the quality of
phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
Committee Provisions
For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $10,180,000, a decrease
of $2,350,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998
and a decrease of $5,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee expects the Department to give consideration
to the following projects or organizations requesting
assistance under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Program: the Cayuga County (New York) Telecommunications
Project, the Southeast Community College (Kentucky) expansion
of the distance learning complex and respiratory/radiography
program; the Indiana State University Degree Link program; and
the San Bernardino County (California) Medical Center
telemedicine program.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established
review procedures.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Transfer from
Appropriation loan accounts Total, RUS, S&E
1998 appropriation........................................ $33,000,000 ($32,982,000) ($65,982,000)
1999 budget estimate...................................... 33,445,000 (35,000,000) (68,445,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 33,000,000 (32,982,000) (65,982,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................... ................ ................ ................
1999 budget estimate.................................. -445,000 (-2,018,000) (-2,463,000)
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, including reviewing
applications, making and collecting loans, and providing
technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist
in extending other Federal programs to people in rural areas.
Under Credit Reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts for the
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Fund and the
Rural Telephone Bank fund. Appropriations to the salaries and
expenses account will be for costs associated with grant
programs.
Committee Provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Utilities Service,
the Committee provides an appropriation of $33,000,000, the
same as the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a
decrease of $445,000 below the budget request.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
1998 appropriation...................................... $554,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 573,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -554,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -573,000
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 provisions
The Committee has included no separate funding for the
Office of the Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services. The Administration annually requests additional
funding for the Food and Nutrition Service which is the single
agency for which the Under Secretary has oversight
responsibility. Given the extremely tight funding situation and
the need to maintain resources to the Food and Nutrition
Service, the Committee has provided $554,000 for the Office of
the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
within the Food Program Administration account for fiscal year
1999. This will enable the Administration to best decide where
resources are needed. The $554,000 is the same amount for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Consumer and Nutrition
Services in fiscal year 1998.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in
this country. Food assistance programs are intended to 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.--Federal assistance is provided
to the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam for use
in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children
attending schools of high school grades or under, to children
of preschool age in child care centers and homes, 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.
Food Stamp Program.--This program is aimed at making more
effective use of the Nation's food supply and at improving
nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most
cases, through the issuance of food coupons which may be used
in retail stores for the purchase of food. The program also
includes nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. The Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) authorized
a block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which
gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a food
assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs
of its low-income households.
The program 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 program also includes $100,000,000 for commodity
purchases under the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC).--This program helps to safeguard the health
of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants,
and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by
providing food packages designed to supplement each
participant's diet with foods that are typically lacking.
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.
The Commodity Assistance Program (CAP).--This program was
created by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996
(P.L. 104-37), by consolidating funding for the commodity
supplemental food program (CSFP), the emergency food assistance
program (TEFAP), and the soup kitchens and food banks program
(SK/FB).
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding
women with low incomes who reside in approved project areas. In
addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects
directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides grant funds to state agencies to assist in
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for
needy individuals.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are also provided to
residents of the Pacific Territory of Palau and Federated
States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance
is provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting
administrative expenses incurred. Commodities or cash-in-lieu
of commodities are provided to assist nutrition programs for
the elderly.
Farmers Market Nutrition Program.--This program provides
(WIC or WIC-eligible) participants with coupons to purchase
fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and
vegetables, from farmers markets. The program is designed to
accomplish two major goals: (1) improve the diets of WIC or
WIC-eligible participants and (2) increase the awareness and
use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
Food Gleaning and Recovery.--Under this program FNS works
with States and community-based groups to develop innovative
ways of increasing the gleaning and recovery of wholesome food
for human consumption.
Food Program Administration.--This account represents all
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion (CNPP). As of September 30, 1997, there were 1,612
full-time permanent and 82 part-time and temporary employees in
the agency. There were 585 in the Washington headquarters and
1,109 in the field, which includes 816 in seven regional
offices and the balance in six food stamp compliance offices;
one computer support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; one
administrative review office; and 70 field offices. The Center
oversees improvements in and revisions to the food nutrition
guidance systems. CNPP is the focal point for advancing and
coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to
improve the health of all Americans.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply
(Section 32).--This program includes the donation of
commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Special programs provide
food to needy children and adults who are suffering from
general and continued hunger.
child nutrition programs
Direct Transfer from Total program
appropriation section 32 level
1998 appropriation..................................... $2,616,425,000 ($5,151,391,000) ($7,767,816,000)
1999 budget estimate................................... 3,897,703,000 (5,332,194,000) (9,229,897,000)
Provided in the bill................................... 4,170,497,000 (5,048,150,000) (9,218,647,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................. +1,554,072,000 (-103,241,000) (+1,450,831,000)
1999 budget estimate............................... +272,794,000 (-284,044,000) (-11,250,000)
Working through state agencies, the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) provides Federal assistance in 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 this program is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. The child nutrition account includes the
school lunch program; the school breakfast program; the summer
food service program; and child and adult care food programs.
In addition, the special milk program provides funding for milk
service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit
child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally
assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either
free or at a low cost depending on their family income level.
FNS provides cash subsidies to state administered programs and
directly administers the program in the states which have
chosen not to do so. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. Grants are
also made for nutritional training and surveys and for state
administrative expenses. Under current legislation, 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 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989,
Public Law 101-147, contained a number of child nutrition
provisions. These include:
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorized and
expanded SFSP to private, nonprofit organizations under certain
conditions.
School Breakfast Program (SBP).--Provided start-up grants
for programs serving low-income children.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Provided funds
for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless
children and family day care homes in low-income areas.
National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Mandated a
unified system for compliance and accountability which would
integrate Federal and state efforts and provide for increased
Federal monitoring of SFSP operations. (2) Authorized the Food
Service Management Institute to improve school food service
operations.
Nutrition Education and Training (NET).--Required
demonstration projects and studies to examine a number of
program issues and increased the authorization level.
Special Milk Program.--Through the special milk program,
funds are provided to state agencies to reimburse eligible
participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk
consumed. Under Public Law 97-35, participation in the special
milk program is restricted to schools and institutions that do
not participate in another meal service program authorized by
the Child Nutrition or School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1,
1986, based on authority in Public Law 99-661, children in
split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do
not have access to the meal service programs operating in those
schools may participate in the program.
committee provisions
For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a
total of $9,218,647,000, an increase of $1,450,831,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$11,250,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount
provided, $4,170,497,000 is by direct appropriation and
$5,048,150,000 is by transfer from section 32.
Child Nutrition Programs:
School lunch program................................ $5,384,452,000
School breakfast program............................ 1,396,955,000
Child and adult care food program................... 1,611,520,000
Summer food service program......................... 294,414,000
Special milk program................................ 18,055,000
State administrative expenses....................... 118,074,000
Commodity procurement and computer support.......... 370,029,000
School meals initiative............................. 8,000,000
Food safety education............................... 2,000,000
Coordinated review effort........................... 4,300,000
Nutrition education and training.................... 3,750,000
Computer support and procurement.................... 7,098,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... $9,218,647,000
The Committee provides $8,000,000 for the School Meals
Initiative. Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food
service training grants to states; $1,600,000 for technical
assistance materials; $1,000,000 for the National Food Service
Management Institute cooperative agreement for food service;
$400,000 for print and electronic food service resource
systems, and not more than $1,000,000 for other activities.
The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(WIC)
1998 appropriation...................................... $3,924,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 4,081,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 3,924,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation..................................................
1999 budget estimate................................ -157,000,000
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant,
breastfeeding, and postpartum women and infants, and children
up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989,
Public Law 101-147, reauthorized and added a provision to the
program as follows:
Cost Containment Initiatives to Expand Participation.--(1)
Required state agencies with a retail food delivery system to
use a competitive bidding system or a system with equal savings
for the procurement of infant formula. Savings are to be used
to expand program participation. (2) Permitted states with an
approved cost containment system to use first quarter funds to
cover obligations incurred during the fourth quarter of the
preceding fiscal year.
The WIC farmers' market nutrition program (FMNP) is also
funded from the Commodity Assistance Program appropriation.
FMNP is designed to accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve
the diets of WIC participants by providing them with coupons to
purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and
vegetables, from farmers' markets; and (2) to increase the
awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-income households.
committee provisions
For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC), the Committee provides an
appropriation of $3,924,000,000, the same as the amount
available in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $157,000,000
below the budget request. The President's budget estimated a
carryover in the WIC program of $130 million. The latest
estimates from USDA indicate a carryover of $180 million.
Through the first six months of fiscal year 1998, WIC
participation has averaged 7.3 million per month. In addition,
it is expected that the enactment of the WIC reauthorization
bill will produce savings and promote efficiency in the
program. The total includes up to $12,000,000 for the farmers'
market nutrition program.
The Committee notes that the authorization for the WIC
program is currently being addressed in the House Education and
Workforce Committee. The reauthorization bill addresses many of
the major concerns about the WIC program including possible
mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse. The authorizing bill
recommends: extending the program through 2003; requiring
states to limit vendor participation by using prices charged
for WIC foods in comparison to other store prices for same
foods; increasing maximum penalties for vendor violations from
$5,000 to $25,000; requiring physical presence and income
documentation for program participants; enabling states to
retain recoveries for a longer period to provide an incentive
for more anti-fraud activity by states; codifying provisions
eliminating state authority to spend forward unspent WIC food
funds; disqualifying stores found to have trafficked in WIC
coupons; and codifying a provision from the agriculture
appropriations bill requiring states to award infant formula
contracts to the company that offers the lowest net price.
The Committee is concerned that the WIC program remains
vulnerable to fraud and abuse from vendors authorized to
transact WIC food vouchers.
The Committee includes bill language requiring the
Department of Agriculture to publish a final rule related to
vendor fraud in the WIC program. The Department attempted to
write vendor fraud rules in 1990, but withdrew the rules due to
opposition. Since then, there has not been an attempt by the
Department to promulgate rules on vendor fraud. Therefore, the
bill language contains a provision that withholds $2,000,000 of
funds appropriated to Food Program Administration until a final
rule is implemented to address vendor fraud in the WIC program.
In order to contain costs in the WIC program, the Committee
encourages the Department to urge States, in selecting retail
stores for participation into the WIC program, to consider
prices that stores charge for foods under the WIC program as
compared to prices that other stores charge for the same foods.
The Committee directs the Department to establish procedures to
insure that any retail store selected for participation in the
WIC program does not subsequently raise prices to levels that
would otherwise make the store ineligible.
The Committee is concerned about the lack of accurate and
timely information regarding spending in the WIC program. The
Committee directs the USDA to reduce to 120 days the time
period in which states are required to report on monthly
obligation of funds.
During the appropriations hearing process, it became
apparent to the Committee that the methodology and data used in
the WIC program to attempt to estimate the number of eligibles,
participation and funding levels are seriously flawed. The
Committee directs the Department to review the methodology and
data used by USDA to estimate participation and funding levels
for the WIC program. The Committee expects a report, with
recommendations for improvements, to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives no later than
April 1, 1999.
The Committee has included two provisions requested by the
President which gives the Secretary some flexibility in
distributing WIC funds. The first provision provides for an
adjustment of fiscal year 1999 state allocations by requiring
the Secretary to reduce each state allocation by the amount of
food funds that the state chooses to spend forward from fiscal
year 1998. The second provision addresses the reallocation of
fiscal year 1998 recovered funds and allows the Secretary to
allocate funds first to states to maintain stability funding
levels and then to states whose funding is less than their fair
share of funds.
The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
food stamp program
1998 appropriation...................................... $25,140,479,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 24,701,806,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 22,591,806,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -2,548,673,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -2,110,000,000
The food stamp program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of
1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power.
Eligible households receive food stamps with which they can
purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus
enabled to obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible
without food stamp assistance.
Participating households receive free food stamps in
amounts determined by household size and income. Since March
1975, food stamp projects have been established throughout the
country. State social service agencies assume responsibility
for certifying eligible households and issuing the stamps
through suitable outlets. The Food and Nutrition Service
establishes a range of household food stamp allotments which
are updated annually.
Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for
food purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or
credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal
Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained
by the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the
paper food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT).
By the end of fiscal year 1997, twenty-five States had
operating EBT systems. They are Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut,
Georgia, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minniesta, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennyslvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Eight of
those were statewide: Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, North
Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah. All other
States are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT
systems.
The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian
reservations who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp
Program.
administrative costs
All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for
certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality
control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the
Federal government and the states on a 50-50 basis.
In addition, state agencies which reduce quality control
error rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60
percent of their administrative expenses. Also, state agencies
are paid up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the
program on Indian reservations. The food stamp program is in
operation in all 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
District of Columbia.
The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the
establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on
states which fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed
target.
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.--The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35, authorized a
block grant for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives
the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a food
assistance program which is specifically tailored to the needs
of its low-income households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987,
funding for this block grant program was included under the
food stamp appropriation account.
Committee Provisions
For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $22,591,806,000, a decrease of $2,548,673,000
below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease
of $2,110,000,000 below the budget request. The total amount
includes $100,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year
1999. The Committee provides $90,000,000 for the emergency food
assistance program.
The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
The President's Mid-session review of the budget states
that ``estimated outlays for food stamps are lower than in the
budget by $0.7 billion in 1998 and $1.2 billion in 1999,
reflecting a downward revision in average participation level
and benefits costs.'' The fiscal year 1999 funding level for
food stamps includes this $1.2 billion reduction.
The Committee is encouraged by the implementation of EBT
systems around the country and supports the goal that all
states must be operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee
directs the Secretary to report to the Committee, no later than
120 days after enactment of this Act, on efforts by the Food
and Nutrition Service to ensure that all states will be
operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee remains
concerned about security problems with EBT cards and directs
the Secretary to report to the Committee on what is being done
to ensure that EBT cards being issued include anti-fraud
mechanisms such as fine line printing and holograms.
The Committee believes the agency should focus more on
preventive strategies to combat retailer trafficking of food
stamps. Last year, the Committee urged the Food and Nutrition
Service, FNS, to require preauthorization visits for all high
risk stores. The Committee is disappointed that more
preauthorization visits have not been required and directs the
agency to work with its field offices to ensure that all new
high risk retailer applicants are visited before they are
authorized to participate in the program.
In addition, the Committee urges the agency to conduct more
sweeps to detect ineligible retailers in the program. An
Inspector General audit found that field offices have accepted
reauthorization applications without verifying significant
changes in sales and did not remove prior store owners from the
Store Tracking and Redemption System database. The Committee
believes FNS must do more to identify ineligible retailers and
remove them from the program. Verification of sales changes and
updating the database are two methods that should be used to
prevent fraud in the program.
The Committee also agrees with the Inspector General
recommendation that the National office needs to provide more
direction and oversight to regional and field offices and that
half of all field offices should be reviewed each year. FNS
established new oversight procedures as a result of an OIG 1992
retailer audit, but does not enforce them.
Obesity and diseases resulting in part from obesity such as
diabetes are serious and increasing problems for Native
Americans. The Committee is concerned that the nutritional
content of commodities provided to Native Americans through the
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations may exacerbate
the incidence of obesity and diabetes among Native Americans.
The Committee encourages the continuation of consultations
between USDA, the Indian Health Service (IHS), and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish and
undertake specific improvements in the program as recommended
by IHS and CDC to improve the nutritional content of
commodities and provide adequate nutrition education to Native
Americans. The Department should report back to the Committee
on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives by
January 15, 1999, on the outcome of the consultations and steps
taken or that will be taken to make improvements in the
program.
Commodity Assistance Programs
1998 appropriation...................................... $141,000,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 317,081,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 131,000,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -10,000,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -186,081,000
\1\ Includes funding for TEFAP, Commodity Supplemental Food Program,
Elderly Feeding Program, Pacific Island Assistance, WIC Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program, and the Food Gleaning Program.
The Commodity Assistance Program was established in fiscal
year 1996 by the Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-37).
The Commodity Assistance Program includes: the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and administrative expenses
of The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The commodity
supplemental food program (CSFP) provides supplemental food to
infants and children up to age six, and to pregnant,
postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low incomes, and
reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program
operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income
elderly persons 60 years of age or older.
Food Gleaning and Recovery.--Under this program FNS works
with States and community-based groups to develop innovative
ways of increasing the gleaning and recovery of wholesome food
for human consumption.
The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized the commodity
supplemental food program through fiscal year 2002. In
addition, this law requires CCC to donate 4 million pounds of
nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of cheese to the program
annually, subject to availability.
Committee Provisions
The Committee provides an appropriation of $131,000,000 for
the commodity assistance program. This is a decrease of
$10,000,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $186,081,000 below the budget request.
The Committee notes that there is a $10,000,000 carryover
in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and has adjusted the
appropriation by that amount.
The Committee has included $45,000,000 for administration
of the emergency food assistance program. These funds may be
used for administration purposes or for food costs at the
discretion of the states.
The Committee believes that there is an abundant and
affordable supply of surplus prepared food, but a lack of
distribution and transportation capacity, especially
refrigerated vehicles. The Committee urges the Department to
explore and support programs that can initiate and expand food
recovery and distribution.
food donations programs for selected groups
1998 appropriation...................................... $141,165,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... (\1\)
Provided in the bill.................................... 141,081,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -84,000
1999 budget estimate................................ +141,081,000
\1\ The Administration's budget proposes to include $141,081,000 for
these programs under the Commodity Assistance Program in FY 1999.
Nutrition Program for the Elderly.--The nutrition program
for the elderly (NPE) provides cash and commodities to States
for distribution to local organizations that prepare meals
served to elderly persons in congregate settings or delivered
to their homes. The program promotes good health through
nutrition assistance and by reducing the isolation experienced
by the elderly. This program is a supplement to the Department
of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) funding for programs for
the elderly with cash commodities on a per meal basis for each
meal served to an elderly person.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides for a
directly funded food distribution program for low-income
individuals in the Pacific Island Territories. This program
attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in low-income
households by providing nutritious agricultural commodities to
eligible persons.
Committee Provisions
For the Food Donations Programs for Selected Groups, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $141,081,000, a decrease
of $84,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
an increase of $141,081,000 above the budget request. Included
in the amount is $140,000,000 for the nutrition program for the
elderly.
food program administration
1998 appropriation...................................... $107,505,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 111,848,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 108,311,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +806,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -3,537,000
The food program administration appropriation provides for
all of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition
Service, which includes the child nutrition programs; special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(WIC); the commodity assistance program, including the
commodity supplemental food program, and administrative
expenses of the emergency food assistance program, the
nutrition program for the elderly, Pacific Island Assistance,
the Food Stamp Program and the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion.
The major objective of food program administration is to
efficiently and effectively carry out the food assistance
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to state agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the states and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support
functions.
Committee Provisions
For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided
$108,311,000, an increase of $806,000 above the amount
available in fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of $3,537,000
below the budget request.
Included in this amount is $2,470,000 for the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion, an increase of $252,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1998. The Committee has
included funding to support the publication of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.
The Committee has maintained all funding for studies and
evaluations under the Economic Research Service's Food and
Consumer Economics Division. The Committee does not reduce the
funding available for studies and evaluations. Full discretion
on how these funds are to be spent has been left to the
Department. The Committee believes that consolidating these
funds under ERS is prudent and fiscally responsible. It is
expected that FNS staff, as well as staff from other
agencies,will provide input and continue to work with ERS staff
to assure that all program and policy needs of the Department
are being met.
The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to
acquire commodities from local farmer's markets and
cooperatives for nutrition programs to the maximum extent
possible.
The Committee reaffirms the critical need for USDA to be
consistent when communicating nutrition advice and dietary
guidance to the public. For example, rigid dietary
recommendations for sugar intake, as reflected in the Food
Guide Pyramid, contradict the latest scientific advice in the
1995 Dietary Guidelines. In written testimony, USDA
acknowledged that ``while at first glance these two messages
might appear to be inconsistent.'' That acknowledgement of
inconsistency illustrates this point.
Unlike the Dietary Guidelines which must be reviewed by
outside expert scientists every five years to ensure that they
reflect the latest science, the Food Guide Pyramid has not been
subject to a similar scientific review process since its
initial 1992 publication.
The Committee expects the Secretary to review, evaluate
and, where appropriate for scientific accuracy and consistency,
revise the Food Guide Pyramid and all its accompanying
explanatory materials, including the USDA Home & Garden
Bulletin #252, as well as all pertinent children's educational
materials, to ensure that it reflects identical scientific
messages on dietary and nutritional behaviors as those in the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Committee further directs
the Secretary to develop and present a plan for an external
scientific review process of the Pyramid's content by outside
experts to the Committee within 90 after the enactment of the
fiscal year 1999 agriculture appropriations bill.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager
Transfer from
Appropriation loan accounts Total, FAS
1998 appropriation............................................ $131,295,000 ($4,266,000) ($135,561,000)
1999 budget estimate.......................................... 141,087,000 (4,506,000) (145,593,000)
Provided in the bill.......................................... 131,295,000 (4,266,000) (135,561,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation........................................ .............. (.............
.....) (...............
...)
1999 budget estimate...................................... -9,792,000 (-240,000) (-10,032,000)
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 primary function of this organization is to help
American agriculture in maintaining and expanding foreign
markets for agriculture products vital to the economic well-
being of the nation. It maintains a worldwide agricultural
intelligence and reporting service to assist the U.S.
agricultural industry in its export operations through a
continuous program of analyzing and reporting foreign
agricultural production, markets, and policies. It attempts to
develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products through
administration of special export programs and through helping
to secure international trade conditions that are favorable
toward American products. FAS is also responsible for
coordinating, planning, and directing the Department's programs
in international development and technical cooperation in food
and agriculture formerly carried out by the Office of
International Cooperation and Development.
committee provisions
For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $131,295,000 and transfers of
$4,266,000 for a total program level of $135,561,000, the same
as the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and a decrease of
$10,032,000 below the budget request.
The Committee directs that any programs or operations
administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and funded
through the Commodity Credit Corporation maintain that status
in fiscal year 1999. No discretionary funds are provided to the
Foreign Agricultural Service to convert CCC-funded programs to
discretionary funding.
The Committee does not agree with the proposal to establish
an account to manage currency fluctuations.
The Committee has provided bill language to allow no more
than $140,000 annually in representation allowances. Previous
bills have set a limit of $128,000 for this purpose. The
increase reflects the increased requirements placed on FAS by
other USDA agencies participating in international programs.
The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service
to focus more of its training and technical assistance
resources on cross border programs that share successful
agricultural development efforts in the countries of the former
Soviet Union.
The Committee also expects the Department to aggressively
promote the export of U.S.-origin seafood products in its
export credit guarantee and other export assistance programs.
Public Law 480
program and grant accounts
public law 480 title I program account
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans
obligated in 1998 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the legislation authorizes
financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies
and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local
currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation
provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S.
dollars on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period
of up to 5 years.
Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used
in carrying out activities under section 104 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended. Activities in the recipient country for which these
local currencies may be used include developing new markets for
U.S. agricultural commodities, paying U.S. obligations, and
supporting agricultural development and research.
Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, 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.
Ocean freight differential costs in connection with
commodities sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars
(title I).--The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight
differential costs on shipments under this title. These costs
are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping
costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a land-locked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
(title III).--Commodities are supplied without cost to least
developed countries through foreign governments for direct
feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold
with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country
for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity
Credit Corporation may pay ocean freight on shipments under
this title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a
landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs.
committee provisions
The Committee commends the Agency for International
Development and American private voluntary organizations for
their efforts to increase Title II relief feeding for the
poorest of the poor in non-emergency food aid programs. The
Committee believes that close consultation among the
administrators of the food aid programs, the private voluntary
organizations and the Congress is essential to make the best
possible use of scarce food aid resources.
The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480
programs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1998 enacted FY 1999 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
Title I--Credit sales:
Program level.................................. ($244,508,000) ($111,558,000) ($197,514,000)
Direct loans................................... (226,900,000) (102,163,000) (182,624,000)
Ocean freight differential..................... 17,608,000 9,395,000 14,890,000
Loan subsidies................................. 176,596,000 88,667,000 158,499,000
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level.................................. (837,000,000) (837,000,000) (837,000,000)
Appropriation.................................. 837,000,000 837,000,000 837,000,000
Title III--Commodity grants:
Program level.................................. (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (25,000,000)
Appropriation.................................. 30,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000
Salaries and expenses:
General Sales Manager.......................... 1,035,000 1,093,000 1,035,000
FSA............................................ 815,000 845,000 815,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 1,850,000 1,938,000 1,850,000
========================================================
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level............................ ($1,111,508,000) ($978,558,000) ($1,059,514,000)
Appropriation............................ $1,063,054,000 $967,000,000 $1,037,239,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Export Loans Program Account
Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
1998 appropriation................ \1\ $407,630,000 $3,820,000
1999 budget estimate.............. \2\ 253,000,000 4,085,000
Provided in the bill.............. 252,500,000 3,820,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation............ -155,130,000 .................
1999 budget estimate.......... -500,000 -265,000
\1\ Subsidy needed to support a program level of $5,500,000,000.
\2\ Subsidy needed to support a program level of $4,615,000,000.
Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided
by CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to
finance U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM-102 program
covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years.
The GSM-103 program provides intermediate-term credit with
repayment terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978, as amended, requires that not less than $5.5
billion be made available annually from 1996 through 2002 for
GSM-102 and GSM-103. The FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the
Emerging Markets Export Credit Program.
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 loan
guarantees committed in 1999 and beyond, as well as for
administrative expenses.
Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is
provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not
by annual appropriation.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
User fee
Appropriation accounts Total, FDA, S&E
1998 appropriation....................................... $857,501,000 ($131,088,000) ($988,589,000)
1999 budget estimate..................................... 878,884,000 (141,230,000) (1,020,114,000)
Provided in the bill..................................... 871,499,000 (141,230,000) (1,012,729,000)
Comparison:
1998 appropriation................................... +13,998,000 (+10,142,000) (+24,140,000)
1999 budget estimate................................. -7,385,000 ................ (-7,385,000)
The programs of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are
designed to achieve a single overall objective: consumer
protection. FDA's mission is to ensure that: (1) food is safe,
pure, and wholesome; (2) human and animal drugs, biological
products, and medical devices are safe and effective; and (3)
radiological products and use procedures do not result in
unnecessary exposure to radiation.
To accomplish its mission, FDA: (1) sets food and product
standards; (2) evaluates the safety and efficacy of new drugs
and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conducts and
sponsors research studies to detect health hazards and
violations of laws or regulations, to improve the agency's base
of scientific knowledge in toxicology and other disciplines,
and to promote development of orphan products; (4) informs
business firms and consumers about FDA-related topics; (5)
works with state and local agencies to develop programs that
will supplement or complement those of FDA; (6) maintains
surveillance over foods, drugs, medical devices and electronic
products to ensure that they are safe, effective, and honestly
labeled; and (7) takes legal action where necessary to remove
violative products from the marketplace and to prosecute firms
or individuals that violate the law.
Through its regulation of food, FDA protects and promotes
the health of nearly every American by monitoring the food
industry to safeguard against contamination by dangerous
bacteria and molds and other natural and man-made toxins, and
by regulating the safe use of veterinary drugs and feed
additives to protect consumers against hazardous drug residues
or by-products that may remain in meat. FDA also assures that
consumers are not victimized by adulteration; promotes
informative labeling to assist consumers in choosing foods; and
examines imported foods to see that they meet the same
standards as domestic products. FDA also provides leadership
and assistance to the states and local authorities in
conducting their responsibilities.
committee provisions
For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee
provides a program level of $1,012,729,000, an increase of
$24,140,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $7,385,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation includes $126,845,000 for the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act and $14,385,000 for the Mammography Quality Clinic
Act. Of the amount for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act,
$5,428,000 may be transferred to and merged with the FDA rental
payments account.
The Committee has provided an increase of $2,500,000 for
the Office of Cosmetics and Colors. The FDA recently announced
significant reductions to its regulatory efforts related to
cosmetics. The Committee disagrees with the elimination of this
office. The Office of Cosmetics and Colors provides standards
for both industry and consumers to assure the safety and
effectiveness of products.
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act
authorized a new pre-market notification system for food
packaging materials. The current lengthy review process has
resulted in significant lost sales to stakeholder companies.
The outdated system causes decisions to not bring new products
to market. The Committee provides $500,000 to begin the
development of the new approval process system.
The Committee expects the Food and Drug Administration to
report to Congress by April 1, 1999, on implementation of the
Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-250). The
report should address, among other matters, submission numbers,
approval numbers, and review times for various types of animal
drug applications, making a distinction between food and non-
food producing animals. The report also should address the
types and numbers of studies, including field investigations,
utilized in the approval of animal drug applications.
The Committee has provided an additional $250,000 for a
total of $450,000 for the Office of Seafood Inspection for
seafood safety and equivalency agreements for imported seafood.
The amount includes $200,000, the same as fiscal year 1998, for
a grant to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission.
Health care costs in the country have increased to
extraordinary levels. One effort that could assist in
addressing this problem is the quick approval of generic
products. FDA must assure bioequivalency, but should review
applications as quickly as possible. The Committee provides an
increase of $1,000,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs to
assist with accelerated approvals.
The Committee supports the food safety initiative and has
provided an increase of $6,998,000 for this effort. The
Committee expects the FDA to target these funds toward
increased inspections of imported foods.
The FDA has requested an increase of $100,000,000 for its
youth tobacco prevention initiative. While the Committee
concurs with the desire to eliminate young peoples' use of
tobacco products, the FDA should expect to receive any
additional funds for this initiative from any settlement
related to tobacco.
For fiscal year 1999, the Committee provides the following
program accounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods............................. $203,830,000 $214,078,000
Human drugs....................... 199,305,000 200,305,000
Biologics......................... 96,279,000 96,279,000
Animal drugs & feeds.............. 41,973,000 41,973,000
Medical Devices................... 143,486,000 148,486,000
National Center for Toxicological
Research......................... 31,079,000 31,579,000
Tobacco........................... 34,000,000 34,000,000
Other services including program
management....................... 81,694,000 78,944,000
Rent & related activities......... 25,855,000 25,855,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $857,501,000 $871,499,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
buildings and facilities
1998 appropriation...................................... $21,350,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 8,350,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 11,350,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -10,000,000
1999 budget estimate................................ +3,000,000
The Buildings and Facilities account was established for
repair and improvement of existing facilities, as well as for
construction of new facilities when needed.
committee provisions
For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug
Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$11,350,000, a decrease of $10,000,000 below the amount
available for fiscal year 1998 and an increase of $3,000,000
above the budget request. The increase provided is to begin
work on phase three of construction of the National Center for
Toxicological Research.
rental payments (fda)
1998 appropriation...................................... $46,294,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 88,294,000
Provided in the bill.................................... \1\ 88,294,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +42,000,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Includes $5,428,000 transfer from PDUFA.
Annual appropriations are made to agencies of the Federal
government so that they can pay the General Services
Administration fees for rental of space and for related
services.
committee provisions
For Rental Payments of the Food and Drug Administration,
the Committee provides an appropriation of $88,294,000, an
increase of $36,572,000 above the amount available for fiscal
year 1998 and the same as the budget request. Also, included is
bill language authorizing $5,428,000 of Prescription Drug User
Fee Act fees to be used for rental payments.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Management Service
Payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation
1998 appropriation...................................... $7,728,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 2,565,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 2,565,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. -5,163,000
1999 budget estimate................................................
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-233)
authorized such sums as necessary to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Treasury for Payment to the Farm Credit System
Financial Assistance Corporation. These payments reimburse the
Corporation for interest expenses on U.S. guaranteed debt
issued by the Corporation. Assistance Corporation debt proceeds
will be used to provide assistance to financially troubled
System institutions. Beginning in fiscal year 1989, Treasury
annually reimburses 100 percent of the Assistance Corporation
interest expense incurred until January 1994. Between January
1994 and the ensuing five years, Treasury will reimburse up to
50 percent of the Assistance Corporation's interest expense,
with System banks paying the balance. Thereafter all Assistance
Corporation interest expense will be paid by System banks.
committee provisions
For interest expenses incurred by the Farm Credit System
Financial Assistance Corporation, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $2,565,000, a decrease of $5,163,000 below the
amount available for fiscal year 1998 and the same amount as
the budget request.
Independent Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1998 appropriation...................................... $58,101,000
1999 budget estimate.................................... 63,360,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 62,140,000
Comparison:
1998 appropriation.................................. +4,039,000
1999 budget estimate................................ -1,220,000
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers
the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of
the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures
and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring
their integrity, and protecting participants against abusive
trade practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable
the markets to better serve their designated function in
providing a price discovery mechanism and as a means of
offsetting price risk. In properly serving these functions, the
futures markets contribute toward better planning, more
efficient distribution and consumption, and more economical
marketing.
committee provisions
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $62,140,000, an increase of
$4,039,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998 and
a decrease of $1,220,000 below the budget request.
The Committee notes that the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission is considering a proposal to permit electronic
trading of certain financial futures. Advances in information
technology which enable farmers, processors and manufacturers
to better manage their finances and the risks inherent in
agriculture should be promoted by the Commission. To assure
farmers and others involved in agriculture timely access to
technological advances in financial instruments, the Committee
urges the Commission to act promptly on the proposal, judging
it solely on merit.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
1998 limitation......................................... ($34,423,000)
1999 budget estimate.................................... (35,800,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (35,800,000)
Comparison:
1998 limitation..................................... (+1,377,000)
1999 budget estimate.....................(.........................)
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by
Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to
the Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by
Reorganization Plan No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23,
1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the
direction of a Federal Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The
Farm Credit Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-205) clarified the
FCA's role as an arm's-length financial regulator, granting it
the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal
financial regulatory agencies. The Act also replaced the
Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 Presidentially appointed part-
time Board members with the FCA Board, comprised of a Chairman
and two other Board members, all serving in a full-time
capacity. Not more than two members of the Board shall be
members of the same political party.
The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and
examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System).
The FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority
of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The
institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks, Federal
land bank associations, Federal intermediate credit banks,
production credit associations, Federal land credit
associations, agricultural credit associations, and banks for
cooperatives. The combined lending activities in the System
institutions provided short- and long-term credit to the
nation's farmers, ranchers, and producers and harvesters of
aquatic products, and their cooperatives. System institutions
are owned by their member borrowers. The operation of the
System is funded through the sale of systemwide consolidated
bonds and discount notes in the public money markets, and the
institutions are fully liable for the payment of these
securities. The operating expenses of the FCA are paid by the
System institutions and by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation through assessments, which are deposited in a
special fund in the Treasury which is available for the use of
the FCA.
Committee Provisions
For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit
Administration, the Committee provides $35,800,000, an increase
of $1,377,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1998
and the same as the budget request.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections 701 through 723 of the General Provisions
contained in the accompanying bill for fiscal year 1999 are
fundamentally the same as those included in last year's
appropriations bill.
Section 724. Language is included to allow funds from the
Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the Rural Development agencies to be used to support a
staff office for common support services including the common
computer system.
Section 725. Language is included to prohibit funds from
being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural
America.
Section 726. Language is included to prohibit funds to
carry out a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
Section 727. Language is included to limit the amount of
funds available for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program to $174,000,000.
Section 728. Language is included to limit enrollment of
acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 130,000 acres.
Section 729. Language is included to limit the amount of
funds available for The Emergency Food Assistance Program to
$90,000,000.
Section 730. Language is included to prohibit funds from
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture
and Food Systems.
Section 731. This provision makes the City of Big Spring,
Texas eligible for programs of the Rural Housing Service.
Section 732. This provision makes the Municipality of
Carolina, Puerto Rico eligible for assistance under rural
development programs.
Section 733: This provision restores the eligibility of
certain communities for rural development programs pending
revision of population and other criteria.
Section 734. Language is included that funds in this Act
shall not be used to carry out any commodity purchase program
that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-
owned cooperatives.
Section 735. Language is included that allows the change of
the term ``antibacterial'' to conform with the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Section 736. Language is included that grants the Secretary
of Agriculture an extension of the date to implement a final
rule on milk marketing orders required by the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7253).
Section 737. The Committee continues to support the
aggressive use of GSM-102 credits to promote foreign market
development and is concerned that recent nuclear tests in India
and Pakistan may jeopardize the application of this program to
South Asia. Markets in India and Pakistan may be at risk under
the terms of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits any
U.S. credit guarantees to a non-nuclear state that detonates a
nuclear device. The Committee believes that the Secretary of
Treasury, in consultation with other Administration officials,
has the authority to make a determination exempting commodity
credit programs from the terms of the Arms Export Control Act,
but also recognizes the need for legislative codification of
this issue. Accordingly, the Committee has included bill
language exempting any credit, credit guarantee, or other
financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture
for the purchase of food or other agriculture commodities from
sanctions under Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The provision is limited to fiscal year 1999 and is designated
as an emergency requirement.
Section 738. Language is included that requires the
Secretary of Agriculture, when announcing the basic formula
price for milk for purposes of Federal milk marketing orders (7
U.S.C. 608c), to include in the announcement an estimate,
stated on a per hundredweight basis, of the costs incurred by
milk producers, including transportation and marketing costs,
to produce milk in various regions of the United States.
Transfer of Unexpended Balances
Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of
Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the
accompanying bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are
assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations
by clause 1(b)(2) of rule X.
1. Office of the Secretary.--The bill allows the transfer
of unobligated balances of representation funds in the Foreign
Agricultural Service to the Office of the Secretary.
2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments.--The bill allows transfers to or from the rental
payments account based on changing space requirements.
3. Hazardous Waste Management.--The bill allows the funds
appropriated to the Department for hazardous waste management
to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required.
4. Departmental Administration.--The bill allows
reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.
5. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.--The bill allows the funds appropriated to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to
agencies.
6. Office of the Inspector General.--Authority is provided
to transfer funds to the Office of the Inspector General from
the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or the
Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--Authority
is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer
from other appropriations or funds of the Department such sums
as may be necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain
diseases of animals, plants, and poultry.
8. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill limits the
transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.
9. Farm Service Agency.--The bill provides that funds
provided to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the
salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.
10. Dairy Indemnity Program.--The bill authorizes the
transfer of funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
11. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.--The bill provides
that funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm
Service Agency salaries and expenses account.
12. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; Rural
Development Loan Program Account; and Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loan Program Account.--The bill provides
that administrative funds may be transferred to various
salaries and expenses accounts.
13. Rural Housing Assistance Program; Rural Business-
Cooperative Assistance Program; and Rural Utilities Assistance
Program.--The bill allows funds to be transferred between
authorized programs within the account.
14. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of
credit payments to this account.
15. Child Nutrition Programs.--The bill includes authority
to transfer section 32 funds to these programs.
16. Foreign Agricultural Service.--The bill allows for the
transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export
Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.
17. Public Law 480.--The bill allows for the transfer of up
to 15 percent of the funds between titles I, II, and III.
18. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.--The
bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural
Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses
associated with credit reform.
19. Rental Payments (FDA).--The bill allows transfer to or
from the rental payments account based on changing space
requirements.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted
describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill
which directly or indirectly change the application of existing
law. In most instances, these provisions have been included in
prior appropriations bills, often at the request of or with the
knowledge and consent of the responsible legislative
committees.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which
require annual authorization or additional legislation which to
date has not been enacted.
Language is included in the bill in several accounts that
earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities
as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law:
1. Office of the Secretary.--Language is included to limit
the amount of funds for official reception and representation
expenses, as determined by the Secretary.
2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments.--Language is included which allows the transfer of
limited amounts to and from this account. Language is included
that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant an
easement at the Beltsville, MD agricultural research center,
and language is included that authorizes the Agricultural
Research Service to charge fees for any permit, easement, lease
or other special use authorization for the occupancy or use of
land and facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall be
credited to the Agricultural Research Service and remain
available until expended.
3. Departmental Administration.--Language is included to
reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the
holding of hearings.
4. Inspector General.--Language is included to allow the
Inspector General to use funds transferred through forfeiture
proceedings for authorized law enforcement activities.
5. Agricultural Research Service.--The bill includes
language that prohibits funds from being used to carry out
research related to the production, processing or marketing of
tobacco or tobacco products.
6. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.--The bill includes language that prohibits funds from
being used to carry out research related to the production,
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.--A provision
carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state
matching funds has been continued to assure more effective
operation of the brucellosis control program through state cost
sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.
Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses
incurred from providing training to non-APHIS personnel.
8. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,
Inspection and Weighing Services.--The bill includes authority
to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by
10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees.
This allows for flexibility if export activities require
additional supervision and oversight, or other uncontrollable
factors occur.
9. Agricultural Marketing Service.--The bill includes
language that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS
activity related to preparation of standards.
10. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on
Administrative Expenses.--The bill includes language to allow
AMS to exceed the limitation on administrative expenses by 10
percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees.
This allows flexibility in case crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur.
11. Dairy Indemnity Program.--Language is included that
allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity
payments.
12. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for
Net Realized Losses.--Language is included to provide for the
reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which
limits the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and
maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.
13. Risk Management Agency.--Language is included to limit
the amount of funds for official reception and representation
expenses.
14. Natural Resources Conservation Service--Conservation
Operations.--This language, which has been included in the bill
since 1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not
owned by the government, although construction on land owned by
states and counties is authorized by basic law. This paragraph
also includes language carried in the bill since 1950, which
prohibits the use of funds for demonstration projects
authorized by the Act of April 27, 1935.
15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.--Language,
which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill and all
bills since 1984, provides that funds may be used for
rehabilitation of existing works.
16. Rural Housing Service--Rental Assistance Program.--
Language is included which provides that agreements entered
into during fiscal year 1999 be funded for a five-year period.
17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan
Program Account.--Language is included to allow borrowers'
interest rates for electric loans to exceed seven percent.
18. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.--
Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of
credit payments to this account.
19. Child Nutrition Programs.--Language is included to
prohibit funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
20. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC).--Language is included to prohibit
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
21. Food Stamp Program.--Language is included to prohibit
funds from being used for studies and evaluations.
22. Foreign Agricultural Service.--Language carried since
1979 enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received
by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities
involving international development and technical cooperation.
The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being
used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for
official reception and representation expenses.
23. Food and Drug Administration.--Language included since
1986 prohibits any user fee authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
24. Rental Payments (FDA).--Language included since 1985
allows transfer of limited amounts to and from this account.
25. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
26. General Provisions.--
Section 704: This provision repeats language carried
since 1972 which permits the accumulation of growth
capital not to exceed $2,000,000, and which provides
that no funds appropriated to an agency shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the
approval of the agency administrator.
Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is
again included which provides that certain
appropriations in this Act shall remain available until
expended where the programs or projects involved are
continuing in nature under the provisions of
authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation
does not specifically provide for extended
availability. This authority tends to result in savings
by preventing the wasteful practice often found in
government of rushing to commit funds at the end of the
fiscal year without due regard to the value of the
purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended
availability is also essential in view of the long lead
time frequently required to negotiate agreements or
contracts which normally extend over a period of more
than one year. Under these conditions such authority is
commonly provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted
from basic law. These provisions have been carried
through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient
and effective program execution and to assure maximum
savings. They involve the following items: Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund
to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the
reserve fund for integrated systems acquisition
project, the boll weevil program, and up to 10 percent
of the screwworm program; Food Safety and Inspection
Service, field automation and information management
project; Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, funds for the Native American
institutions endowment fund and competitive research
grants; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income
country training program; Farm Service Agency, salaries
and expenses to county committees; National
Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture;
and funds appropriated for rental payments.
Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal
year 1981, limits the overhead that can be charged on
cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This
provision is necessary because many universities
attempted to apply the same overhead rates to
cooperative agreements as was being applied to grants
and contracts, without giving consideration to the
cooperator's contributions as an offset to the overhead
charges.
Section 710: This provision, carried since 1983,
provides that none of the funds in this Act shall be
available to reimburse the General Services
Administration for rental payment in excess of the
amounts specified in the Act.
Section 711: This provision, added in 1987, provides
that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This
provision allows CCC to continue to lease space at a
lower cost than space leased by GSA.
Section 712: This provision, added in 1990, provides
that none of the funds in this Act may be made
available to pay indirect costs on competitive research
grants awarded by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service in excess of 14
percent of total direct costs, except for grants
available under the Small Business Innovation and
Development Act.
Section 713: This provision clarifies that loan
levels provided in the Act are to be considered
estimates and not limitations. The Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated
subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of
loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest
rates change, the amount of loan authority will
fluctuate.
Section 714: This provision allows funds made
available in fiscal year 1999 for the Rural Development
Loan Fund Program Account; Rural Telephone Bank Program
Account; the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans Program Account; and the Rural
Economic Development Loans Program Account to remain
available until expended. The Credit Reform Act
requires that the lifetime costs of loans be
appropriated. Current law requires that funds
unobligated after five years expire. The life of some
loans extends well beyond the five-year period and this
provision allows funds appropriated to remain available
until the loans are closed out.
Section 715: This provision provides that sums
necessary for fiscal year 1999 pay raises shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Section 716: This provision provides that the
Agricultural Marketing Service; Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration; and the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service may use cooperative
agreements.
Section 717: Provides that not more than 5 percent of
Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be
retired in fiscal year 1999. The provision also
prohibits the maintenance of any account or subaccount
which has not been specifically authorized by law. The
provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated
funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating
account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank
that are in excess of current requirements.
Section 718: Provides that none of the funds in this
Act may be used to provide market promotion/market
access program assistance to the U.S. Mink Export
Development Council or any mink industry trade
association.
Section 719: Provides that of the funds made
available, not more than $1,400,000 shall be used to
cover expenses of activities related to all advisory
committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the
Department of Agriculture except for panels used to
comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to
evaluate competitive award grants.
Section 720: Provides that none of the funds may be
used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of
Public Law 104-127.
Section 721: This provision prohibits any employee of
the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or
assigned to any other agency or office of the
Department for more than 30 days unless the
individual's employing agency or office is fully
reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the
salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Section 722: This provision prohibits the Department
of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to
any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or
responses to questions that are a result of information
requested for the appropriations hearing process.
Section 723: Language is included that requires
certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in
Appropriations Acts.
Section 724: Language is included to allow the Farm
Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and the Rural Development agencies to support a
staff office to provide common support services
including computer systems.
Section 725: Language is included to prohibit funds
from being used to carry out programs under the Fund
for Rural America.
Section 726: Language is included to prohibit funds
to carry out a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
Section 727: Language is included to limit the amount
of funds available for the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program to $174,000,000.
Section 728: Language is included to limit enrollment
of acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 130,000
acres.
Section 729: Language is included to limit the amount
of funds available for The Emergency Food Assistance
Program to $90,000,000.
Section 730: Language is included to prohibit funds
from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems.
Section 731-733: Language is included to allow the
Municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico, the City of Big
Spring, Texas and certain other communities to be
eligible for rural development programs.
Section 734. Language is included that funds in this
Act shall not be used to carry out any commodity
purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or
participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
Section 735. Language is included that allows the
change of the term ``antibacterial'' to conform with
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Section 736. Language is included that grants the
Secretary of Agriculture an extension of the date to
implement a final rule on milk marketing orders
required by the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7253).
Section 737. Language is included that exempts the
commodity credit programs from sanctions under section
102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act. The provision is
limited to fiscal year 1999 and is designated as an
emergency requirement.
Section 738. Language is included that requires the
Secretary of Agriculture, when announcing the basic
formula price for milk for purposes of Federal milk
marketing orders (7 U.S.C. 608c), to include in the
announcement an estimate, stated on a per hundredweight
basis, of the costs incurred by milk producers,
including transportation and marketing costs, to
produce milk in various regions of the United States.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 512 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
new animal drugs
Sec. 512. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) In a case in which an animal drug contains more than
one active ingredient, or the labeling of the drug prescribes,
recommends, or suggests use of the drug in combination with one
or more other animal drugs, and the active ingredients or drugs
intended for use in the combination have previously been
separately approved for particular uses and conditions of use
for which they are intended for use in the combination--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) the Secretary shall not issue an order under
paragraph (1)(E) refusing to approve an application for
a combination animal drug intended for use in animal
feed or drinking water unless the Secretary finds that
the application fails to demonstrate that--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) where a combination contains more than
one nontopical antibacterial ingredient or
animal drug, there is substantial evidence that
each of the nontopical antibacterial
ingredients or animal drugs makes a
contribution to the labeled effectiveness,
except that for purposes of this clause,
antibacterial ingredient or animal drug does
not include the ionophore or arsenical classes
of animal drugs; or
* * * * * * *
SECTION 102 OF THE ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT
SEC. 102. NUCLEAR REPROCESSING TRANSFERS, ILLEGAL EXPORTS FOR NUCLEAR
EXPLOSIVE DEVICES, TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE
DEVICES, AND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Prohibitions on Assistance to Countries Involved in
Transfer or Use of Nuclear Explosive Devices; Exceptions;
Procedures Applicable.--(1) * * *
(2) The sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) are as
follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) The United States Government shall deny to that
country any credit, credit guarantees, or other
financial assistance by any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
that the sanction of this subparagraph shall not
apply--
(i) to any transaction subject to the
reporting requirements of title V of the
National Security Act of 1947 (relating to
congressional oversight of intelligence
activities), [or]
(ii) to humanitarian assistance[.], or
(iii) to any credit, credit guarantee, or
other financial assistance provided by the
Department of Agriculture for the purchase or
other provision of food or other agricultural
commodities.
* * * * * * *
Appropriations Not Authorized By Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations
in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
Section 515, Multi-Family Housing,
Section 538 Guaranteed Multiple Family Housing,
Dairy Indemnity Program,
Elderly Feeding Program,
Food Assistance for the Nuclear-Affected Islands,
Child Nutrition Programs,
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children.
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing
new budget authority contains a statement detailing how the
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
-----------------------------------------------
Full committee data Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
Discretionary............................................... 13,587 14,002 13,621 14,025
Mandatory................................................... 41,058 33,087 42,291 33,090
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 54,645 47,089 55,912 47,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 320(b) suballocation.
However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the
Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding designated as emergency requirements. After
the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will provide an increased
section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new allocation will eliminate
the technical difference prior to floor consideration.
Five-Year Projection of Outlays
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill:
Five year projections
Budget Authority...................................... 55,912
Outlays:
1999.............................................. 41,010
2000.............................................. 4,862
2001.............................................. 577
2002.............................................. 359
2003 and beyond................................... 470
The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and
will have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays,
spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan
obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available
under existing law for fiscal year 1997 and beyond.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
state and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
New budget authority.................................... 18,268
Fiscal year 1999 outlays resulting therefrom............ 14,782
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 1999, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), 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, Food and Drug Administration, 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 of
1999, 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
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 1999 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 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 1999 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 state, district, and county offices.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall no. 1
Date: June 16, 1998.
Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 1999.
Motion by: Mrs. Lowey.
Description of motion: Assessing civil penalties for
violations of Federal meat and poultry inspection laws.
Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 25 nays.
Memebers Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Fazio Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Callahan
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Cramer
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Dickey
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Meek Mr. Forbes
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Hobson
Mr. Moran Mr. Istook
Mr. Neumann Mr. Kingston
Mr. Obey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Olver Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor Mr. Livingston
Mr. Porter Mr. McDade
Mr. Price Mr. Miller
Mr. Sabo Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Serrano Mr. Packard
Mr. Skaggs Mr. Regula
Mr. Yates Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID R. OBEY
The federal milk marketing order system has been around
since 1938. Originally, intended to encourage production of
milk in dairy deficit regions today it has a complicated
pricing formula that no one, not even Einstein, could
understand. But, what every dairy farmer in the country
understands is that it is an inequitable, costly and outdated
law that mandates farmers in Florida get paid about $3 per
hundredweight more than dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest for
their milk that goes to fluid use, and farmers in New York and
Texas get paid about $2 per hundredweight more. For exactly the
same product, the federal government mandates that farmers in
some regions of the country get paid more than farmers in other
regions.
When the Farm Bill was before Congress in 1996, the
Republican majority said they wanted reform that would return
real markets to farming. But, when it came to dairy, they
opposed any changes to the status quo. During negotiations, a
deal was struck between the GOP leadership and the leadership
of the Agriculture Committee that prevented the Chairman of the
Dairy Subcommittee, Steve Gunderson, from offering real reform.
That deal said that there would be no legislative remedy to the
widely-perceived problems of the milk marketing orders. The
only remedy they would allow was an evaluation by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture which was charged with developing
proposals to make the federal milk order system more market
oriented.
Now, USDA has begun that process. In fact, it is two years
into the 3-year reform timetable that was laid out in the Farm
Bill. Out of 7 or 8 alternatives ranging from no reform to
wholesale overhaul, USDA came out with two final options;
minimal reform and none. Even that is too much for the backers
of the status quo, however and the self-proclaimed champions of
``Free Enterprise'' in this Congress are using this Department
of Agriculture Appropriations bill to block even the very
minimal reforms developed by USDA.
The Farm Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to
implement market order reforms by April 4, 1999, three years
from date of enactment. Secretary Glickman has indicated that
his preference is Option 1B. That option calls for narrowing
slightly the disparities in the dairy differential payments
that farmers receive for milk that goes into fluid use, thereby
reducing but not eliminating, the competitive disadvantage
suffered by dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. USDA has also
indicated that its rulemaking is on schedule and that it
expects to complete action and implement reform by the
deadline.
However, this bill contains a provision which extends the
rulemaking and implementation of the minimal reforms proposed
by the Secretary for a further 6 months so that Congress is in
session when the final rule is proposed. That is a clear signal
to the Secretary to back off. The same people in Congress who
said that they would not allow a legislative remedy for
consumers and farmers are now saying that they were not serious
about allowing for an administrative remedy, either. This
extension of USDA rulemaking says, in effect, that if USDA
develops any proposals that are in any way real, then Congress
will wipe that out with a legislative override. It's a signal
to the Secretary that he should not do anything to change the
status quo. It's a shot across the bow of the USDA, telling the
Secretary ``if you're thinking of real reform, don't bother
because we'll cut you off.
Congress told the Administration to develop a reform
proposal and it should stick to that. But, the champions of the
status quo want it both ways. The people who get hurt are dairy
farmers in the Upper Midwest and consumers throughout the
country who will have to pay more for their milk.
In addition, this bill includes an extension of the North
East Dairy Compact which authorizes a dairy cartel in six New
England states. The Compact allows those states to artificially
hike up the prices that farmers receive and the prices that
consumers pay in those states and keep out dairy products from
other regions. The same Congress that passed NAFTA and declared
that we should tear down global trade barriers is erecting new
internal trade barriers to our own, American products.
These are two reasons I am opposed to this bill.
I am grateful that the Committee agreed to include a
provision that directs the Department of Agriculture to, for
the first time, announce a monthly Cost of Production (CoP)
figure for milk at the same time that it announces the Basic
Formula Price (BFP). Currently, USDA announces the BFP on or
about the 5th of every month so that everyone has a pretty good
idea of how much farmers are getting paid. But, it is much more
difficult to determine how much it costs farmers to produce
that milk. That's because cost of production figures are
published annually and they are two years out of date at the
time of publication. That means we are only getting half the
picture. By requiring USDA to announce on a monthly basis how
much it costs farmers to produce their milk at the same time it
announces the BFP we get to see the whole dairy farm finance
picture. That's important for consumers who will get a better
understanding of conditions on the farm and it could provide a
useful tool for policymakers.
Unfortunately, while this provision improves the bill, it
fails to outweigh the injury caused by the undermining of dairy
reform. I expect to have an amendment to the dairy section and
I would urge members to support whatever amendments are offered
to eliminate the North East Dairy Compact.
Finally, another reason I am opposed to this bill is that
the allocation for agriculture, rural development and nutrition
programs provided herein simply does not meet the needs of our
nation's farmers and consumers.
David R. Obey.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. MARCY KAPTUR, HON. VIC FAZIO, HON. JOSE
SERRANO, HON. ROSA DeLAURO, AND HON. NITA LOWEY
While we support the overall Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture
Appropriations bill as reported, we are compelled to point out
that funding levels are simply inadequate for several of the
most critically important programs in this bill. Discretionary
funding for the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations
bill is $130 million below comparable FY 1998 spending levels,
but total amounts provided under this bill (mandatory and
discretionary spending) have declined by almost 30 percent
since fiscal year 1994. It is clear that agriculture, rural
development, and nutritional programs continue to bear more
than their fair share of overall budget reductions.
We appreciate the difficult choices that had to be made by
the Subcommittee Chairman, and recognize that he has crafted a
balanced bill that attempts to address the needs of farmers,
food and drug safety, rural communities, consumers, and those
in our population most at risk nutritionally. But we are
compelled to highlight several areas where additional resources
are vital in order to ensure that U.S. agriculture remains
globally preeminent in the next century, and that there is
adequate investment in our nation's people and infrastructure.
food safety
One area that demands additional resources is food safety.
Nine thousand Americans die, and another thirty-three million
become ill each year from food borne pathogens. Currently less
than two-tenths of one percent of all imported produce is being
inspected for pathogen contamination. If we are serious about
protecting the health and safety of the American people, then
we need to commit greater resources to assure that their food
and produce are of the highest quality. Imports of foreign
grown produce and food are at record levels. American consumers
are overdue for better and stronger safeguards. While the bill
includes an additional $15 million over current spending levels
for food safety, it falls $80 million short of fully
implementing the President's food safety initiative for
programs in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Additional
resources must be found for both the Food and Drug
Administration and the Department of Agriculture to ensure
adequate protection for American consumers.
We are also concerned that this bill does not include a
provision giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to
levy civil penalties against those who violate the Federal Meat
Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Civil
fines provide a quicker, more effective deterrent for violators
of food safety laws than the lengthy process needed to obtain a
criminal conviction. They can be used as an enforcement tool
against plants that do not meet their food safety
responsibilities. This authority is critical to ensuring that
the U.S. food supply remains the safest in the world. That is
why the Clinton Administration and a wide range of consumer,
labor, and public health groups support this provision. We will
continue to work toward inclusion of this provision on this or
any other appropriate vehicle.
women, infants and children
Funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is frozen in this bill at the
FY 1998 level of $3.9 billion, which is $157 million below the
President's budget request. The Office of Management and Budget
has indicated that this amount will only support a
participation level of between 7.3 and 7.4 million women,
infants and children who are nutritionally at risk. Based on
current year-end projections for FY 1998, this could mean a
reduction below the number of participants served by this
program in the current year. While criticisms of the WIC
program have been expressed, actions taken in this bill and
report, as well as recent actions taken by the authorizing
Committee, go a long way toward addressing these concerns.
Improvements in management and administration of this worthy
program at all levels can and should be made, but should not be
at the expense of the pregnant women and children who depend on
this program for a sound nutritional start in life. The WIC
program is a sound long-term investment--each dollar spent on
WIC yields more than three dollars in savings to the government
through reduced spending on Medicaid and other programs. The
WIC program ensure that millions of women and children receive
adequate nutrition and health advice--preventing illnesses and
other health problems in the future.
conservation programs
It is critical that we end the erosion of USDA assistance
available to provide basic technical conservation services to
private agricultural landowners, particularly at a time when
the control of animal waste presents a tremendous challenge to
rural communities. The Federal government mustmaintain its
commitment to support locally led conservation initiatives which secure
a safe and productive environment. The funds provided in this bill are
$40 million below the budget request for conservation operations. The
bill also makes reductions in critical mandatory conservation programs
such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
(WHIP). Cuts in these worthy programs enabled the subcommittee to
maintain or slightly increase funding for other worthy discretionary
programs in this bill, but these tradeoffs mask the true impact of the
spending levels in this bill.
This bill also provides no funds for the Farmland
Protection Program because it is not authorized. We must step
up our efforts to protect America's prime farmland from urban
sprawl. Approximately 1.5 million acres of productive farmland
disappears nationally each year to urban development. This is
equivalent to two acres every minute. In many cases these lands
are an irreplaceable world resource as a source of flood,
fiber, fuels and forest products.
Other Issues
We are also concerned that the Committee could not do more
to prevent America's youth from smoking. The bill includes $34
million for the President's Tobacco Initiative, the same amount
provided for the current fiscal year. As astounding 4.5 million
12-17-year-olds smoke, and 3,000 young people under the age of
18 become regular smokers every day. The request of $134
million for the FDA Youth Tobacco Prevention initiative would
have simply enabled strict enforcement of laws against tobacco
sales to minors, and expanded FDA's education campaign to get
the word out that these laws are on the books. An overwhelming
ninety-two percent of Americans agree that young people should
be required to show an ID to purchase tobacco. This is a
mandate for action rarely seen and one that Congress should
heed.
This bill also includes a reduction of $10 million for the
mandatory Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) which
purchases commodities for individuals greatly in need of
assistance. Demand for food assistance through food banks and
soup kitchens is increasing due to implementation of welfare
reform. We are concerned that this reduction from the
authorized level would mean less food will reach the most
vulnerable Americans.
Another area of concern in this bill is funding for rural
development programs, particularly funding for rural water and
sewer programs. While we appreciate the increase of $30 million
provided over current levels for direct water and sewer loans,
we are concerned that this amount does not go far enough.
Additional funding must be found to address the backlog of
applications for technical assistance for financing for the
modern, affordable water and sewer service necessary to improve
the quality of life for thousands of rural Americans.
Conclusion
Again, we congratulate the Subcommittee Chairman for
fashioning what may be the best bill possible within the
allocation he was dealt. We appreciate his bipartisanship and
his sensitivity to balancing the burden of these tight funding
levels between the various constituencies served by this bill.
But we would be remiss if we failed to point out the serious
shortfalls that still exist for many programs. Without an
additional allocation of resources, we continue to betray our
commitment to American farmers and to all consumers who benefit
from the bounty they produce.
Marcy Kaptur.
Vice Fazio.
Jose Serrano.
Rosa DeLauro.
Nita Lowey.