[House Report 106-157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-157
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000
_______
May 21, 1999.--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. 1906]
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 2000.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 recommendation compared with
FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2000 -------------------------------------
appropriation estimates recommendation FY 1999
appropriation FY 2000 estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Agricultural Programs.............................. $14,481,998,000 $20,174,117,000 $20,055,493,000 +$5,573,495,000 -$118,624,000
Title II--Conservation Programs............................. 793,072,000 866,820,000 800,012,000 +6,940,000 -66,808,000
Title III--Rural Economic and Community Development Programs 2,175,234,000 2,194,349,000 2,135,508,000 -39,726,000 -58,841,000
Title IV--Domestic Food Programs............................ 36,067,199,000 41,381,688,000 35,520,668,000 -546,531,000 -5,861,020,000
Title V--Foreign Assistance and Related Programs............ 1,196,718,000 1,056,853,000 1,160,191,000 -36,527,000 +103,338,000
Title VI--Related Agencies and FDA.......................... 1,046,138,000 1,209,355,000 1,169,700,000 +123,562,000 -39,655,000
Title VII--General Provisions............................... 0 0 1,000,000 +1,000,000 +1,000,000
Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 105-277)..................... 5,916,655,000 ................ ................ -5,916,655,000 .................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. \1\ 61,677,014,0 66,883,182,000 60,842,572,000 -834,442,000 \2\-6,040,610,000
00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes supplemental funding provided by H.R. 1141.
\2\ Includes Committee recommendations disapproving requested advance appropriations totaling $5,000,000,000.
For discretionary programs the Committee provides
$13,945,754,000, which is $253,754,000 more than the amount
available in fiscal year 1999 and $529,602,000 less than the
budget request. These amounts exclude emergency spending. If
emergency spending from fiscal year 1999 regular and
supplemental bills is included, the Committee provides
$13,987,754,000, which is $5,620,901,000 less than the amount
available in fiscal year 1999 and $530,602,000 less than 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 more than 272 million
Americans and many more people overseas.
Food safety remains one of the Committee's highest
priorities. The bill provides funding for 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 the effort to preserve the budget surplus
continues. There are very 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
allocations for budget authority and outlays in comparison with
fiscal year 1999. The Committee's recommended program levels
are based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on
mandatory programs.
constitutional authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII 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 on Appropriations 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
1999 appropriation...................................... $2,836,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 2,942,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 2,836,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -106,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act 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 $2,836,000, the same as the amount available
for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $106,000 below the
budget request.
The Secretary shall report to the Appropriations Committee
of the House and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate
biannually during fiscal year 2000 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 has included a general provision which limits
expenses related to advisory committees, panels, task forces,
and commissions to not more than $1,800,000. 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.
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 expects the Secretary to provide a report on
the status of identifying delinquent farm loan borrowers who
are also receiving program payments.
The Committee has included report language under APHIS that
encourages the Department to continue the use of Commodity
Credit Corporation funds to combat Citrus Canker in Florida.
The Committee notes that according to the budget
explanatory notes the Office of the Secretary's account is
carrying an unexpended balance of $4.7 million for Service
Center Implementation Team activities. The Committee encourages
the Secretary to work with the Chief Information Officer to use
these existing funds to continue implementation of Service
Center activities including the common computing environment.
The Committee notes that the ``management by committee''
structure currently in place at the USDA for service center
implementation, common computing environment, and
administrative convergence has not worked. The Committee
encourages the Department to establish a single source of
accountability for these activities.
The Committee does not establish a spending cap for these
activities, but rather directs the USDA to adhere to the
reprogramming requirements established in this bill.
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
1999 appropriation.................................... \1\ $5,620,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 6,622,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 5,620,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -1,002,000
\1\ Does not include transfer of $791,000 for Office of Energy from the
Economic Research Service.
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture, 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 $5,620,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $1,002,000
below the budget request.
National Appeals Division
1999 appropriation.................................... $11,718,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 12,699,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 11,718,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -981,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Committee Provisions
For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $11,718,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $981,000 below
the budget request.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
1999 appropriation.................................... $6,120,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 6,583,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 6,583,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +463,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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 $6,583,000, an increase
of $463,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
the same as the budget request.
office of the chief information officer
1999 appropriation.................................... \1\ $5,551,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 7,998,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 6,051,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +500,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -1,947,000
\1\ Does not include $28.7 million, $9.1 million, and $8.4 million for
year 2000 computer fixes funded through emergency supplemental funds.
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 $6,051,000, an increase
of $500,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
a decrease of $1,947,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
1999 appropriation.................................... $4,283,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 6,288,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 4,283,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -2,005,000
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 1999 and a decrease of
$2,005,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
1999 appropriation.................................... $613,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 636,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 613,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -23,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, ethics, 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
$613,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999
and a decrease of $23,000 below the budget request.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
1999 appropriation.................................... $137,184,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 166,364,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 166,364,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +29,180,000
2000 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. In fiscal year 1998, USDA began operations of
the Beltsville Office Facility.
Strategic Space Plan.--The Department's headquarters staff
is presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex
in downtown Washington, 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. During FY 1998,
the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This facility was
constructed with funds appropriated to the Department and is
located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland.
Occupancy by USDA agencies began in 1998 and will be completed
in fiscal year 1999.
Committee Provisions
For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments to GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$166,364,000, an increase of $29,180,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget
request.
Included in this amount is $115,542,000 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.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account:
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
[In thousands of dollars]
1999 2000 budget Committee
estimate request recommendation
Rental Payments............... $108,057 $115,542 $115,542
Building Operations........... 24,127 24,822 24,822
Strategic Space Plan.......... 5,000 26,000 26,000
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 137,184 166,364 166,364
Hazardous Waste Management
1999 appropriation.................................... $15,700,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 22,700,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 15,700,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -7,000,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous waste as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous waste in areas 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 1999 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the
budget request.
Departmental Administration
1999 appropriation.................................... $32,168,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 36,117,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 36,117,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +3,949,000
2000 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, equal opportunity and ethics,
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 $36,117,000, an increase of $3,949,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the
budget request.
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
1999 appropriation.................................... $3,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 10,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 3,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 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
1999 and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
1999 appropriation.................................... $3,668,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 3,805,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 3,668,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -137,000
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
1999 and a decrease of $137,000 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.
Office of Communications
1999 appropriation.................................... $8,138,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 9,300,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 8,138,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -1,162,000
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 1999 and a decrease of $1,162,000 below the
budget request.
Office of the Inspector General
1999 appropriation.................................... $65,128,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 68,246,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 65,128,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -3,118,000
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 $65,128,000, the same as the
amount available for fiscal year 1999, and a decrease of
$3,118,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is aware that the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) stopped conservation technical
assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on April
7, 1999 and is concerned about that action. The Committee
directs the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report to the
Committee on Appropriations, no later than 30 days after
enactment of this Act, on the following: a listing of states
where offices were closed, the amount of time they were closed,
the roles employees were given in lieu of providing technical
assistance to CRP lands, and the number, if any, of employees
laid off or furloughed as a result of this action.
In addition, the Committee directs the OIG to provide a
full accounting and analysis of the NRCS/FSA funding mechanisms
for CRP conservation technical assistance, and a determination
on whether USDA used all tools necessary to avoid stopping
conservation technical assistance on CRP lands.
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 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
1999 appropriation.................................... $29,194,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 32,675,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 29,194,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -3,481,000
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 $29,194,000, the same as the
amount available for fiscal year 1999, and a decrease of
$3,481,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
1999 appropriation.................................... $540,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 2,061,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 940,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +400,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -1,121,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service. The Under Secretary serves as chair of the Biobased
Coordinating Council of the Department which is responsible for
developing a list of biobased products to be considered for
environmental preferability.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $940,000, an increase of $400,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of
$1,121,000 below the budget request. Within the sum provided,
up to $400,000 is available for activities related to the
Biobased Coordinating Council, rather than $1,500,000 as
requested.
Economic Research Service
1999 appropriation.................................... \1\ $65,757,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 55,628,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 70,266,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +4,509,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. +14,638,000
\1\ Does not reflect the transfer of $791,000 for Office of Energy from
ERS to OCE or the transfer of $2 million to FPA in the Food and
Nutrition Service.
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 $70,266,000, an increase of $4,509,000
above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and an increase
of $14,638,000 above the budget request. The Committee has
provided $17,495,000, an increase of $300,000 above the budget
request, for studies and evaluations work under the Food and
Nutrition Service. Included in this total is $11,000,000 for
food stamp, $3,000,000 for child nutrition, and $3,495,000 for
WIC studies and evaluations. This work is to be carried out
within the Food and Consumer Economics Division which conducts
research and analysis on 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.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
1999 appropriation.................................... $103,964,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 100,559,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 100,559,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ -3,405,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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 $100,559,000, a decrease
of $3,405,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 1999
and the same as the budget request. Included in this amount is
$16,490,000 for the Census of Agriculture. The Census of
Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data every five
years on all aspects of the agricultural economy.
Agricultural Research Service
1999 appropriation.................................... \1\ $785,518,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 836,868,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 836,381,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +50,863,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -487,000
\1\ Excludes $23,000,000 provided for supplemental drug control research
and $4.500,000 transferred from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy provided by P.L. 105-277.
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, water and air sciences, 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 $836,381,000, an increase of $50,863,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and $487,000 below
the budget request.
Aflatoxin.--The Committee recognizes the promising research
which would prevent the formation of aflatoxin in field crops.
The Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group, which serves as a
liaison committee to USDA in directing aflatoxin research, has
recommended additional funding be made available to facilitate
expansion of a project in Arizona to use AF-36 to treat up to
20,000 acres during the 1999-2000 crop, and EPA has issued the
necessary permits for that purpose. While the Committee is
unable to provide additional funding due to budgetary
constraints, it expects the Secretary to instruct ARS, APHIS
and other agencies to provide the necessary assistance to
ensure that the expanded project is completed during this
fiscal year.
Agricultural law research.--The National Center for
Agricultural Law Research and Information is the primary
contributor of bibliographic agricultural law information to
the USDA National Agricultural Library. The Committee directs
the Agricultural Research Service to continue funding in fiscal
year 2000 for the National Center for Agricultural Law Research
located at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
Agricultural Telecommunications.--The Committee recognizes
the changing nature of technology and the way that it has
affected the delivery of agricultural research to local
communities. With fewer agents in the field to communicate the
latest agricultural information and research to farmers, there
is an increased demand for advanced technology to bring this
research to the farms in a timely manner. The Committee
provides $1 million for development of advanced technology to
facilitate delivery of research-based information to local
communities and individuals. This increase is directed to
American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC).
Animal Vaccines.--The Committee provides an increase of
$2,500,000 for a joint research project on advanced animal
vaccines and diagnostic applications between the University of
Connecticut and the University of Missouri.
Animal Waste, Illinois.--The Committee provides $200,000
for animal waste management and rural and urban interface.
Aquaculture research.--The Committee recognizes the need to
conduct fish health management research directed at meeting the
needs of the U.S. aquaculture industry including research on
improving yields, food quality, disease control, and stress
tolerance. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research
Service to continue funding in fiscal year 2000 for research
activities at the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research
Center located in Stuttgart, AR.
Aquaculture research.--The Committee provides $500,000 for
fiscal year 2000 for the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for the research of costs
related to bird predation on farm-raised fish and the
development of value added products for aquaculture from within
funds appropriated to Agricultural Research Service.
Aquaculture Systems.--Within the funds provided to the
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee recommends an
increase of $50,000 for research on developing new aquaculture
systems focused on rainbow trout at the University of
Connecticut.
Biological controls and agricultural research.--The
Committee provides $1 million for a Center for Biological
Controls and $1.5 million for Science Center of Excellence at
Florida A&M University.
Coffee and cocoa research.--The Committee notes that an
infestation of tropical fungal and pest diseases have had a
devastating impact on coffee and cocoa crop production. The
Committee provides an increase of $3 million for the
continuation of the disease resistance/alternative crop
research which was initiated as part of the Central/South
American Anti-Drug Initiative in the FY 1999 Omnibus
Appropriations bill.
Continuing Programs.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of 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 2000 at the same funding level
provided in fiscal year 1999: organics research management;
genetic characterization of soybean germplasm; development of
soybean germplasm and production systems for high yield and
drought prone environments; soybean diseases; wild rice
research; soil tilth, Ames, IA; emerging plant and animal
diseases; exotic infectious diseases; livestock management
systems; food safety, Ames, IA soybean, genetic work and
ongoing research at Ames, IA aimed at increasing the
productivity and profitability of soybean production and
processing; alternative grain-based fish feed project at the
ARS facility in Aberdeen, ID; areawide pest management research
to develop compounds to replace hazardous chemicals and to
expand IPM and area wide pest management practices to meet the
requirements resulting from the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA); poult enteritis mortality syndrome; work on the
biotechnology research and development corporation's research;
biological control of Western weeds; ARS Rice Research
Laboratory, Beaumont Texas; cotton ginning research; human
nutrition research; continued funding for the research project,
``Behavioral Ecology and Management of Insect Pests with
Semiochemicals'' in collaboration with the University of
Florida; ongoing formosan termite control and research program
at the Southern Regional Research Center; germplasm evaluation
and genetic improvement of oats and wild rice; disease and
insect control mechanisms for the enhancement of sugar
germplasm resistance; development and use of molecular
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 nonindigenous plant
pests in the Western U.S.; low sugar potatoes; 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; small grains research; plant genetics equipment;
developing integrated weed management systems for efficient
evaluation of temperate legumes and warm-season grass mixtures
in sustainable production systems; hops research; shallow
groundwater management systems for arid irrigated areas;
development and evaluation of new remote sensing technologies
to assess food and fiber production; rice genetics research;
enhancing rice grain quality; technology to enhance soybean oil
for food and non-food uses; ecologically based management of
salt cedar (tamarix) in the Western U.S.; defining the
molecular mechanisms of heavy metal chilation and sequestration
in plants; floriculture; barley and oat germplasm enhancement
and small grains germplasm evaluation and maintenance; reduced
herbicide inputs for effective weed management systems to
improve water quality; sensors and systems for site-specific
crop management to improve environmental quality; quantitative
genetic analysis and improvement of corn populations; genetics
of host resistance to pathogens in cereal crops; ecologically-
based pest management of selected insect pests of corn;
enhancement of strawberry, blueberry, and other small fruit
crops through molecular approaches and breeding; biology and
control of virus diseases of sorghum; exploration and
maintenance of fungi and plants for biorational control of
agricultural pests; improving resistance of peanut to
biological stress through germplasm and cultural enhancement;
characterization of induced cytokinin changes in wheat;
partitioning of photosynthate as influenced by genotype,
mycorrhizae and air enriched with CO2; residue
management and grass seed cropping systems for sustainable
agriculture; preservation of clonal genetic resources of
temperate fruit, nut, and specialty crops; parasite mite
control in honey bee colonies utilized in honey production and
crop pollination; the role of life strategies of
phytopathogenic bacteria in the epidemiology of foliar
diseases; tropical aquaculture feeds and culture technology,
development of shrimp feeds; ecologically-based technologies
for controlling ixodes scapularis and reducing lyme disease;
identification and characterization of quantitative trait loci
resistance to disease in chicken; optimizing reproduction
efficiency to enhance profit and sustainability of range beef
production; metabolism and nutritional management of prolific
sows during gestation and lactation; animal health consortium;
flavor optimization of major food crops through control of
metabolic processes; conversion of crops to products with
higher added value through directed molecular evolution;
thermomechanical processing of natural polymers; enhanced use
of plant proteins: identifying, isolating and relating
structures to properties; new crops for industrial products;
novel carbohydrate-based materials via bioconversion processes;
bioprocess and metabolic engineering technologies for biofuels
and value-added co-products; comparative textural analysis of
fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables; improving quality of
fresh and fresh-cut produce by preventing deterioration in cold
storage; postharvest handling and mechanization to minimize
damage for fruits; improved peanut product quality and
bioactive nutrient composition with genetic resources; develop,
evaluate and transfer technology to improve efficiency and
quality in peanuts; dietary assessments of rural older persons;
warmwater foodfish health management research; anaerobic
microbiological processes in animal waste management; improving
sugarcane productivity by conventional and molecular approaches
to genetic development; developing integrated weed management
systems for efficient and sustainable sugarcane production; and
research on phytoestrogens at the Southern Regional
Agricultural Research Center.
The Committee has reviewed and agrees with the President's
recommendation to fund research laboratories at Prosser, WA and
Mandan, ND. The Committee believes that these locations are
essential components of the Department's agricultural research
program.
Crops at Risk.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for a new
special grant.
Diaprepes Root Weevil (Diaprepes abbreviates).--The
committee recognizes the seriousness of the Diaprepes root
weevil and its impact on citrus, corn, sugarcane, ornamental
plants, cotton, yucca, papaya, and sweetpotato. It is important
this research be continued and the committee directs $400,000
to the University of Florida for research and eradication of
this pest.
Ft. Pierce, FL.--The committee recognizes the important
research currently being conducted at the Ft. Pierce laboratory
in FY 1999. The Committee recognizes the expanded role the
facility is providing in horticultural science research. The
Committee provides $600,000 to support additional research
scientists.
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, 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. The
Committee directs the ARS to provide the same funding level
that was provided in fiscal year 1999.
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. Funding should also be 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. The Committee directs the ARS to provide the same level of
funding for these projects as provided in fiscal year 1999.
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 $400,000 for continued cooperative research with the
University of Arkansas, University of Missouri, and Oregon
State University.
Floriculture and nursery crop research.--The Committee
notes that floriculture and nursery crops represent more than
10% of the total U.S. farm crop cash receipts. The Committee
provides an increase of $2 million to implement this research.
A portion of this funding should continue to be allocated to
university partners, including California University and
Cornell University, through cooperative agreements. Of the
additional funding, $200,000 is provided for research at Ohio
State University to support the Ornamental Plant Germplasm
Center.
Food Safety research.--The Committee recognizes that
research and new technology developments are needed to
identify, control and eliminate Listeria monocytogenes and
E.coli 0157:H7 pathogens contamination in foods. The Committee
provides an increase of $1 million to control and prevent
Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry
products and E.coli 0157:H7 in raw beef products. This
research, details of which would be prioritized through
discussion with meat and poultry producers and processors,
should be done in coordination with the Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service.
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 producedwhen the fungal pathogen invades the
developing grain kernel. The Committee is providing $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
supports funding of the Department's Food Genome Initiative.
The Committee directs the ARS to provide the same level of
funding for this project that was provided in FY 1999.
Golden Nematode.--The Committee provides an increase of
$200,000 to Cornell University to support golden nematode
research in plant breeding, nematology and activities involving
seed production and extension.
Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA.--The Committee
provides $250,000 for a greenhouse to maintain lettuce
germplasm for the preservation, maintenance, and evaluation of
germplasm.
Groundwater Salinity, Riverside, CA.--The Committee
provides $600,000 for continued research into groundwater
salinity in the Sacramento Valley.
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
$300,000 for research at Geneva, NY for vitally needed research
on rootstock development.
Human nutrition research.--The Committee recognizes the
ongoing efforts of the ARS Human Nutrition Centers and provides
an additional $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 from within funds
appropriated under Agricultural Research Service for the
Centers located at Little Rock, AR; Beltsville, MD; Boston, MA;
Houston, TX; San Francisco, CA; and Grand Forks, ND. These
resources will further research investigations on dietary
intake, and reduced risk of chronic diseases.
Lyme disease.--Within the amount provided for the
Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an
increase of $197,600 to continue support for the Northeast
Area-Wide Tick Control Project in order to achieve a dramatic
reduction of lyme ticks thereby reducing Lyme disease risks in
humans. The Committee also provides an increase of $172,900 for
an extramural research project on ecologically-based
technologies for controlling Ixodes Scapularis and reducing
Lyme disease. The Committee supports $200,000 for Lyme disease
cooperative research at New Haven, Connecticut.
Lettuce geneticist/breeder, Salinas, CA.--The Committee
provides $250,000 for a geneticist plant breeder at the ARS
research station at Salinas, CA.
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research.--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 $14,380,000 for methyl bromide research,
the same as the fiscal year 1999 funding level. The committee
expects ARS to devote a significant portion of this funding to
in-the-field research.
Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation.--The Committee is aware of
the importance of irrigation research in reducing risk and
increasing yields on the farm. The Committee directs ARS to
allocate $200,000 for cooperative research into irrigation
methods and technologies at the University of Missouri Delta
Center in Portageville, Missouri.
Organic Minor Crop Specialist, Salinas, CA.--The Committee
provides $250,000 for an organic minor crop specialist at the
ARS research station at Salinas, CA.
Plant Genetics Equipment.--The Committee directs the
Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund research into
plant genetics equipment.
Peanut Quality Research.--The Committee provides $1,000,000
for peanut quality research at ARS in Athens, GA.
Post-harvest and Controlled Atmosphere Chamber.--The
Committee provides $300,000 for a full-time scientist position
and the necessary resources to conduct research into post-
harvest and controlled atmosphere techniques aimed at reducing
insect and disease problems in lettuce destined for Japan and
other export markets.
Precision Agriculture, Alabama.--The Committee provides
$500,000 for global positioning system, geographic
informational system, and remote sensing for precision farming.
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 directs the ARS to
provide at least the same level of funding for this research in
FY 2000 that was provided in fiscal year 1999.
Red Snapper Aquaculture, Alabama.--The Committee provides
$600,000 for crucial research that would assist in the
scientific development of red snapper aquaculture, promote the
improvement of red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, and
assist in providing economic opportunities to coastal
communities.
Rice research.--The Committee recognizes the need for
evaluation and enhancement of rice germplasm. From within funds
appropriated under Agricultural Research Service, the Committee
provides an increase of $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 for the
National Rice Research Center located in Stuttgart, AR.
Risk Mitigation.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for a
new special grant.
Root diseases in wheat and barley.--The Committee directs
the ARS to provide at least the same level of funding for this
project in FY 2000 that was provided in FY 1999 for 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.
Safe Seafood, Massachusetts.--The Committee provides
$300,000 to conduct industry-wide research of fresh-water fish,
salt-water fish, mollusan shellfish, and other aquaculture.
Small fruits research.--The Committee directs the ARS to
provide funding at least at the FY 1999 level in FY 2000 for
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.
Sugarbeet research.--The Committee is aware of the need for
additional funding to adequately support the ARS sugarbeet
research program at Ft. Collins, CO to strengthen sugarbeet
research at the ARS laboratory. The Committee directs the ARS
to fund this project in FY 2000 at least at the funding level
as in FY 1999.
Sustainable Vineyard Practices Position.--The Committee
provides $300,000 for a new USDA ARS sustainable vineyard
practices position at UC, Davis. This research position will be
responsible for development of biologically and environmentally
sound practices for grape growing which enhance compatibility
with soil, water, air, and biotic resources.
Tropical Aquaculture.--The committee recognizes the
economic benefits of the expansion of the market for ornamental
tropical fish, the committee directs $200,000 for ongoing
research at the Ruskin Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory.
U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory.--The
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for the U.S. Plant
and Water Conservation Laboratory in Lubbock, TX.
Buildings and Facilities
1999 appropriation.................................... $56,437,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 44,500,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 44,500,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ -11,937,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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
$44,500,000, a decrease of $11,937,000 below the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget
request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's provisions:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 Committee
estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
California:
Western Regional Research Center, Albany.. $2,600 $2,600
Western Human Nutrition Lab, Davis........ 9,000 9,000
Illinois:
National Center for Agricultural 1,800 1,800
Utilization Research, Peoria.............
Louisiana:
Southern Regional Research Center, New 5,500 5,500
Orleans..................................
Maryland:
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center... 13,000 13,000
New York:
Plum Island Animal Disease Center......... 8,200 8,200
Pennsylvania:
Eastern Regional Research Center, 4,400 4,400
Philadelphia.............................
-------------------------
Total, Buildings and Facilities......... $44,500 $44,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Arboretum, District of Columbia.--From within
amounts available due to savings and slippage in the Buildings
and Facilities account, the Committee directs the Agricultural
Research Service to obligate up to $500,000 for engineering and
design to implement the new Master Plan for the National
Arboretum, with emphasis on a new entrance off Bladensburg
Road. The Committee notes that the budget request estimates
that the Buildings and Facilities account will have an
unobligated balance of $84,000,000 available at the start of
fiscal year 2000, with $63,000,000 remaining available at the
end of the year. While these funds are committed to various
projects, the Committee expects that this work at the National
Arboretum can be financed within existing funds.
Reprogrammings.--The Committee will consider reprogramming
requests for the following projects from within amounts
available due to savings and slippage in the Buildings and
Facilities account:
Avian Disease Oncology Laboratory (East Lansing, MI)
Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory
(Maricopa, AZ)
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
1999 appropriation.................................... $481,216,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 468,965,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 467,327,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ -13,889,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -1,638,000
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 $180,545,000, the same as the amount available
for fiscal year 1999 and $26,873,000 above the budget request.
For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides
an appropriation of $21,932,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and $2,050,000 above the budget
request.
For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee
University, the committee provides an appropriation of
$29,676,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1999 and $1,941,000 above the budget request.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000 Committee
enacted estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
ACTIVITIES
Payments Under Hatch Act..... $180,545 $153,672 $180,545
Cooperative forestry research 21,932 19,882 21,932
(McIntire-Stennis)..........
Payments to 1890 colleges and 29,676 27,735 29,676
Tuskegee....................
Special Research Grants (P.L.
89-106):
Aegilops cylindricum 360 0 360
(jointed goatgrass) (WA)
Aflatoxin (IL)........... 113 0 113
Agriculture based 250 0 250
industrial lubricants
(IA)....................
Agricultural 131 0 131
diversification (HI)....
Agricultural diversity/ 250 0 250
Red River Corridor (MN/
ND).....................
Agriculture water usage 300 0 264
(GA)....................
Alliance for food 300 0 200
protection (NE, GA).....
Alternative crops (ND)... 550 0 550
Alternative crops for 100 0 100
arid lands (TX).........
Alternative marine and 308 0 308
fresh water species (MS)
Alternative salmon 400 0 400
products (AK)...........
Animal science food 1,521 0 1,521
safety consortium (AR,
IA, KS).................
Apple fire blight (MI, 500 0 500
NY).....................
Aquaculture (LA)......... 330 0 330
Aquaculture (MS)......... 592 0 592
Aquaculture (VA)......... 100 0 100
Aquaculture product and 750 0 750
marketing development
(WV)....................
Babcock Institute, (WI).. 400 0 400
Binational agriculture 400 2,000 400
research and development
Biodiesel research (MO).. 152 0 152
Brucellosis vacinos (MT). 150 0 150
Center for animal health 113 0 113
and productivity (PA)...
Center for innovative 381 0 381
food technology (OH)....
Center for rural studies 200 0 200
(VT)....................
Chesapeake Bay 150 0 150
agroecology (MD)........
Chesapeake Bay 385 0 385
aquaculture.............
Citrus tristeza.......... 500 0 750
Coastal cultivars (GA)... 0 0 200
Competitiveness of 680 0 680
agricultural products
(WA)....................
Contagious equine metitis 250 0 250
(KY)....................
Cool season legume 329 0 329
research (ID, WA).......
Cotton research (TX)..... 200 0 (\2\)
Cranberry/blueberry (MA). 150 0 150
Cranberry/blueberry 220 0 220
disease & breed (NJ)....
Dairy and meat goat 63 0 63
research (TX)...........
Delta rural 148 0 148
revitalization (MS).....
Designing foods for 250 0 250
health (TX).............
Drought mitigation (NE).. 200 0 200
Ecosystems (AL).......... 500 0 500
Environmental research 486 0 400
(NY)....................
Environmental risk 100 0 200
factors/cancer (NY).....
Expanded wheat pasture 285 0 285
(OK)....................
Farm and rural business 87 0 87
finance (IL)............
Feed barley for rangeland 600 0 600
cattle (MT).............
Floriculture (HI)........ 250 0 250
Food and Agriculture 800 0 800
Policy Research
Institute (IA, MO)......
Food irradiation (IA).... 200 0 200
Food marketing policy 400 0 400
center (CT).............
Food processing center 42 0 42
(NE)....................
Food quality (AK)........ 350 0 350
Food Safety.............. 5,000 (\1\) 5,000
Food safety (AL)......... 300 0 300
Food systems research 225 0 225
group (WI)..............
Forestry (AR)............ 523 0 523
Fruit and vegetable 320 0 320
market analysis (AZ, MO)
Generic commodity 212 0 198
promotion research and
evaluation (NY).........
Global change............ 1,000 1,567 1,000
Global marketing support 127 0 127
service (AR)............
Grain sorghum (KS)....... 106 0 106
Grass seed cropping 423 0 423
systems for a
sustainable agriculture
(WA, OR, ID)............
Human nutrition (IA)..... 473 0 473
Human nutrition (LA)..... 752 0 752
Human nutrition (NY)..... 622 0 622
Hydroponic tomato 200 0 200
production (OH).........
Illinois-Missouri 1,184 0 1,184
Alliance for
Biotechnology...........
Improved dairy management 296 0 296
practices (PA)..........
Improved fruit practices 445 0 445
(MI)....................
Infectious disease 250 0 250
research (CO)...........
Institute for Food 1,250 0 1,250
Science and Engineering
(AR)....................
Integrated production 180 0 180
systems (OK)............
International 250 0 250
agricultural market
structures and
institutions (KY).......
International arid lands 400 0 400
consortium..............
Iowa biotechnology 1,564 0 1,564
consortium..............
Livestock and dairy 475 0 475
policy (NY, TX).........
Lowbush blueberry 220 0 220
research (ME)...........
Maple research (VT)...... 100 0 100
Meadowfoam (OR).......... 300 0 300
Michigan biotechnology 675 0 675
consortium..............
Midwest advanced food 423 0 423
manufacturing alliance..
Midwest agricultural 592 0 592
products (IA)...........
Milk safety (PA)......... 250 0 250
Minor use animal drugs... 550 550 550
Molluscan shellfish (OR). 400 0 400
Multi-commodity research 364 0 364
(OR)....................
Multi-cropping strategies 127 0 127
for aquaculture (HI)....
National biological 254 254 254
impact assessment.......
Nematode resistance 127 0 127
genetic engineering (NM)
Non-food uses of 64 0 64
agricultural products
(NE)....................
Oil resources from desert 175 0 175
plants (NM).............
Organic waste utilization 100 0 100
(NM)....................
Pasture and forage 225 0 225
research (UT)...........
Peach tree short life 162 0 162
(SC)....................
Pest control alternatives 106 0 106
(SC)....................
Phytophthora root rot 127 0 127
(NM)....................
Plant, drought, and 150 0 150
disease resistance gene
cataloging (NM).........
Postharvest rice straws 300 0 0
(CA)....................
Potato research.......... 1,300 0 1,300
Precision agriculture 500 0 500
(KY)....................
Precision agriculture 1,000 0 1,000
(MS)....................
Preharvest food safety 212 0 212
(KS)....................
Preservation and 226 0 226
processing research (OK)
Rangeland ecosystems (NM) 200 0 200
Regional barley gene 400 0 400
mapping project.........
Regionalized implications 294 0 294
of farm programs (MO,
TX).....................
Rice modeling (AR)....... 296 0 296
Rural Development Centers 523 423 523
(PA, IA (ND), MS, OR,
LA).....................
Rural policies institute 644 0 644
(NE, IA, MO)............
Russian wheat aphid (CO). 200 0 200
Seafood and aquaculture 305 0 305
harvesting, processing,
and marketing (MS)......
Small fruit research (OR, 300 0 300
WA, ID).................
Southwest consortium for 338 0 338
plant genetics and water
resources...............
Soybean cyst nematode 475 0 475
(MO)....................
STEEP III--water quality 500 0 500
in Northwest............
Sustainable agriculture 0 0 300
(CA)....................
Sustainable agriculture 445 0 445
(MI)....................
Sustainable agriculture 95 0 95
and natural resources
(PA)....................
Sustainable agriculture 59 0 59
systems (NE)............
Sustainable beef supply 500 0 500
(MT)....................
Sustainable pest 400 0 400
management for dryland
wheat (MT)..............
Swine waste management 500 0 500
(NC)....................
Tillage, silviculture, 212 0 212
waste management (LA)...
Tomato wilt virus (GA)... 200 0 200
Trade and policy (ND).... 0 300 300
Tropical and subtropical 2,724 0 2,724
research................
Turkey carnavirus (IN)... 200 0 200
Urban pests (GA)......... 64 0 0
Vidalia onions (GA)...... 100 0 100
Viticulture consortium 1,000 0 1,000
(NY, CA)................
Water conservation (KS).. 79 0 79
Water quality............ 3,461 (\1\) 3,461
Weed control (ND)........ 423 0 423
Wetland plants (LA)...... 600 0 600
Wheat genetic research 261 0 261
(KS)....................
Wood utilization research 5,136 0 5,136
(OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI,
ID, TN).................
Wool research (TX, MT, 300 0 300
WY).....................
Unspecified reduction.... 0 0 -550
------------------------------------------
Total, Special Research 63,116 5,094 62,916
Grants................
==========================================
Improved pest control:
Emerging pest/critical 200 467 200
issues..................
Expert IPM decision 177 260 177
support system..........
Integrated pest 2,731 2,731 2,731
management..............
Minor crop pest 8,990 10,711 8,990
management (IR-4).......
Pest management 1,623 4,200 1,623
alternatives............
Pesticide impact 1,327 (\1\) 1,327
assessment..............
------------------------------------------
Total, Improved pest 15,048 18.369 15,048
control...............
==========================================
Competitive research grants:
Animals.................. 29,000 49,000 29,000
Markets, trade and 4,600 8,000 4,600
development.............
Nutrition, food safety 16,000 28,000 16,000
and health..............
Natural resources and the 20,500 32,000 20,500
environment.............
Plants................... 41,000 69,000 41,000
Processes and new 8,200 14,000 8,200
products................
------------------------------------------
Proportional reduction... 0 0 -13,889
------------------------------------------
Total, Competitive 119,300 200,000 105,411
research grants.......
==========================================
Animal Health and Disease 5,109 4,775 5,109
(Sec. 1433).................
Alternative crops............ 750 .......... 750
Critical Agricultural 600 .......... 600
Materials Act...............
1994 Institutions research .......... 667 .................
program.....................
Graduate fellowship grants... 3,000 3,000 3,000
Institution challenge grants. 4,350 4,350 4,350
Multicultural scholars 1,000 1,000 1,000
program.....................
Hispanic education 2,850 3,183 2,850
partnership grants..........
Secondary agriculture 500 .......... 500
education...................
Aquaculture Centers (Sec. 4,000 4,000 4,000
1475).......................
Sustainable agriculture...... 8,000 8,500 8,000
Capacity building grants 9,200 9,200 9,200
(1890 institutions).........
Payments to the 1994 1,552 1,500 1,552
Institutions................
Federal Administration:
Agriculture development 564 .......... 564
in the American Pacific.
Agriculture waste 250 .......... 250
utilization (WV)........
Alternative fuels 218 .......... 218
characterization
laboratory (ND).........
Animal waste management 250 .......... 250
(OK)....................
Center for Agricultural 355 .......... 355
and Rural Development
(IA)....................
Center for North American 87 .......... 87
Studies (TX)............
Cotton research (TX)..... (\2\) 0 200
Data information system.. 1,000 2,000 1,000
Geographic information 844 .......... 844
system..................
Mariculture (NC)......... 250 .......... 250
Mississippi Valley State 583 .......... 583
University..............
National Center for 300 .......... 300
Peanut Competitiveness..
Office of extramural 310 588 310
programs................
Pay costs and FERS....... 1,100 1,100 1,100
Peer panels.............. 350 350 350
PM-10 study (CA, WA)..... 873 .......... 873
Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, 3,354 .......... 3,354
HI, MS, MA, SC).........
------------------------------------------
Total, Federal 10,688 4,038 10,888
Administration........
==========================================
Total, Research and 481,216 468,965 467,327
Education Activities..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For FY 2000, this program is proposed to be funded under Integrated
Activities.
\2\ Project funded under special research grants in fiscal year 1999,
under Federal Administration in fiscal year 2000.
Citrus tristeza virus research.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of Citrus tristeza Virus (CTV) research. The
project was funded at $750,000 in FY 1998 and $500,000 in FY
1999 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 $750,000 is provided in that account in FY
2000 for CTV research. The balance is to remain in support of
the in-house Ft. Pierce citrus research program.
National Rural Behavioral Health Center.--In light of the
continuing frequency of recent devastating natural disasters,
the Committee urges the Secretary to examine the Department's
full range of programs and services that might be employed to
assist residents of rural areas deal with the emotional impact
of these disasters. In particular, the Committee is aware of
the outstanding work being done by the National Rural
Behavioral Health Center at the University of Florida. Working
in the wake of Hurricane Andrew and the North Dakota floods,
the Center has developed model programs for training extension
agents who are often the first responders in natural disasters,
in crisis intervention and stress management, and to better
equip them to deliver behavioral health programs to the victims
of natural disasters. The Committee urges the Department,
within this and other accounts, to provide support for the
Center to build on its initiative and to extend the knowledge
gained so that it might be used to assist rural victims of such
disasters throughout the nation.
Peanut allergies.--The Committee recognizes the severe
difficulties that peanut allergies cause to individuals with
sensitivity to this important commodity. Progress is being made
in developing vaccines to alleviate the effects of peanut and
other food allergies. To continue the progress in the research
efforts, the Committee directs that $300,000 be redirected from
the competitive researchgrant program for process and new
products, administered through the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service and these monies be directed to Peanut
Allergy Research.
Special Research Grants.--One project (Cotton Research) is
tranferred from funding under ``Special Research Grants'' to
``Federal Administration''.
Secondary Agriculture Education.--The Committee will expect
that grants under this program will be awarded no later than
January 1, 2000.
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
1999 appropriation.................................... ($4,600,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................. (4,600,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (4,600,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 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 (30 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 1999 and the same as the budget request.
Extension Activities
1999 appropriation.................................... $437,987,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 401,603,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 438,987,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +1,000,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. +37,384,000
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 $438,987,000 an increase of $1,000,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and an increase of
$37,384,000 above the budget request.
The following table reflects the amount provided by the
Committee:
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000 Committee
enacted estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Lever 3(b) & 3(c)............... $276,548 $257,753 $276,548
Smith Lever: 3(d)
Farm safety....................... 3,000 ......... 3,000
Food and nutrition education 58,695 61,043 58,695
(EFNEP)..........................
Food safety....................... 7,365 (\1\) 7,365
Indian reservation agents......... 1,714 5,000 1,714
Pest management................... 10,783 12,269 10,783
Pesticide applicator training..... ......... 1,500 ..........
Pesticide impact assessment....... 3,214 (\1\) 3,214
Rural development centers......... 908 908 908
Sustainable agriculture........... 3,309 3,309 3,309
Water quality..................... 9,561 (\1\) 9,561
Youth at risk..................... 9,000 10,000 9,000
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee............ 25,843 25,090 25,843
1890 facilities grants................ 8,426 12,000 8,426
Renewable Resources Extension Act..... 3,192 3,192 3,192
Rural health and safety education..... 2,628 ......... 2,628
Extension services at the 1994 2,060 3,500 2,060
institutions.........................
---------------------------------
Subtotal........................ 426,246 395,564 426,246
=================================
Federal Administration and special
grants:
Ag in the classroom............... 208 476 208
Beef producers' improvement (AR).. 197 ......... 197
Delta teachers academy............ 3,500 ......... 3,500
Diabetes detection, prevention 550 ......... 550
(WA).............................
Extension specialist (AR)......... 99 ......... 99
Extension specialist (MS)......... 100 ......... 100
General administration............ 4,787 5,563 5,787
Income enhancement demonstration 246 ......... 246
(OH).............................
Integrated cow/calf resources 300 ......... 300
management (IA)..................
National Center for Agriculture 195 ......... 195
Safety (IA)......................
Pilot tech. transfer (OK, MS)..... 326 ......... 326
Pilot tech. transfer (WI)......... 163 ......... 163
Range improvement (NM)............ 197 ......... 197
Rural development (NM)............ 280 ......... 280
Rural development (OK)............ 150 ......... 150
Rural rehabilitation (GA)......... 246 ......... 246
Wood biomass as an alternative 197 ......... 197
farm product (NY)................
---------------------------------
Total, Federal Administration... 11,741 6,039 12,741
=================================
Total, Extension Activities..... 437,987 401,603 438,987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed to be funded under Integrated Activities account.
Farm *A*Syst/AgrAbility.--Within the funds provided for
Extension Activities, $500,000 for Farm *A*Syst voluntary
pollution prevention programs, and $3,055,000 for AgrAbility,
of which $1,000,000 is displayed under general administration.
4-H After School Program, Los Angeles, CA.--Within the
funds provided for extension activities, the Committee expects
consideration for a $420,000 innovative 4-H after school
program to be administered by the Los Angeles County
Cooperative Extension Office of the University of California.
integrated activities
1999 appropriation.................................... 0
2000 budget estimates................................. $72,844,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 10,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +10,000,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -62,844,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. Water
Quality, Food Safety, and Pesticide Impact Assessment Special
Research Grants and Smith Level 3(d) programs previously shown
under Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are
proposed under this account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000 Committee
enacted estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Activities:
Small farm initiative....................................... .............. $4,000,000 ..............
Water quality............................................... (\1\) 16,204,000 ..............
Food safety................................................. (\1\) 15,000,000 ..............
Pesticide impact assessment................................. (\1\) 4,640,000 ..............
Crops at risk from FQPA implementation...................... .............. 3,000,000 ..............
FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems.... .............. 10,000,000 ..............
Methyl bromide transition program........................... .............. 5,000,000 ..............
Food recovery and gleaning.................................. .............. 15,000,000 ..............
Unspecified integrated activities........................... .............. .............. 10,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Integrated Activities.............................. (\1\) 72,844,000 10,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Special research grants and Smith-Lever 3(d) programs for water quality (totaling $13,022,000 in fiscal year
1999), food safety (totaling $12,365,000 in fiscal year 1999), and pesticide impact assessment (totaling
$4,541,000 in fiscal year 1999) are proposed to be funded under Integrated Activities for fiscal year 2000.
Committee Provisions
For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $10,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of
$62,844,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommends restoration of the related special
research grants and Smith-Lever 3(d) programs to the fiscal
year 1999 levels and recommends an appropriation under this new
account to be applied to those programs showing most promise.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
1999 appropriation.................................... $618,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 641,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 618,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -23,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders and various programs; veterinary services; and
plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$618,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999
and a decrease of $23,000 below the budget request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and Expenses
1999 appropriation.................................... $425,803,000
2000 budget estimate \1\.............................. 435,445,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 440,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +18,197,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. +8,555,000
\1\ Does not include additional resources from the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct appropriation.
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 1999 FY 2000 Committee
enacted request provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:
Ag. quarantine inspection.... $30,648 $34,576 $34,576
User fees \1\................ 88,000 95,000 87,000
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, AQI.......... 118,648 129,576 121,576
======================================
Cattle ticks................. 4,627 4,627 5,114
Foot-and-mouth disease....... 3,803 3,803 3,803
Import/export inspection..... 6,815 7,166 7,166
International programs....... 7,539 8,262 8,262
Fruit fly exclusion and 22,970 25,204 25,204
detection...................
Screwworm.................... 30,301 30,301 30,301
Tropical bont tick........... 407 407 407
--------------------------------------
Total, Pest and Disease 195,110 209,346 201,833
Exclusion.................
======================================
2. Plant and Animal Health
Monitoring:
Animal health monitoring and 63,389 67,989 67,989
surveillance................
Animal and plant health 5,855 6,116 6,116
regulatory enforcement......
National Animal Health 0 1,218 627
Emergency Management System.
Pest detection............... 6,426 6,685 6,685
--------------------------------------
Total, Plant and Animal 75,670 82,008 81,417
Health Monitoring.........
======================================
3. Pest and Disease Management
Programs:
Aquaculture.................. 567 567 667
Biological control........... 8,160 8,160 8,160
Boll weevil.................. 16,209 3,320 16,209
Brucellosis eradication...... 11,864 9,527 9,527
Emerging plant pests......... 1,410 3,510 3,510
Golden nematode.............. 435 580 580
Gypsy moth................... 4,366 4,366 4,366
Imported fire ant............ 1,000 0 400
Noxious weeds................ 424 2,129 2,129
Pink bollworm................ 1,048 1,048 1,548
Pseudorabies................. 4,567 4,567 4,567
Scrapie...................... 2,991 2,991 2,991
Tuberculosis................. 4,920 4,920 4,920
Wildlife Services operations. 29,997 28,161 29,997
Witchweed.................... 1,506 1,506 1,506
--------------------------------------
Total, Pest and Disease 89,464 75,352 91,077
Management Programs.......
======================================
4. Animal Care:
Animal welfare............... 9,175 9,690 10,175
Horse protection............. 361 384 384
--------------------------------------
Total, Animal Care......... 9,536 10,074 10,559
======================================
5. Scientific & Technical
Services:
Biotechnology/environmental 7,393 9,054 9,054
protection..................
Integrated systems 3,500 3,696 3,369
acquisition.................
Plant methods development 4,693 4,693 4,693
labs........................
Veterinary biologics......... 10,345 10,555 10,555
Veterinary diagnostics....... 15,622 16,973 16,973
Wildlife Services methods 10,365 9,589 10,365
devel.......................
--------------------------------------
Total, Scientific and 51,918 54,560 55,009
Technical Services....
======================================
6. Contingency fund.............. 4,105 4,105 4,105
======================================
Total, Salaries and $425,803 $435,445 $444,000
Expenses..............
Recap:
Appropriated................. 337,803 340,445 357,000
AQI User Fees................ 88,000 95,000 87,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include additional resources provided in the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 direct
appropriations.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI).--The Committee
provides an appropriation of $87,000,000 for the agricultural
quarantine inspection user fee program, a decrease of
$1,000,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a
decrease of $8,000,000 below the budget request.
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 $1,845,000 for support and
expansion of rabies control including domestic programs and
international collaboration. The Committee expects the program
to target rabies in raccoons in the midwestern and eastern
states and coyotes and gray foxes in Texas. Of this amount, the
Committee expects a minimum of $400,000 to be targeted to
rabies problems in New York state.
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 provides the same level of funding for
wildlife services operations as for fiscal year 1999 and
directs the Department to maintain at least the current level
of aviation operations and aviation safety.
The Committee provides $500,000 for research and evaluation
of nicarbazin as a means of controlling goose and other avian
populations to increase airport safety.
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.
Imported Fire Ant.--The Committee supports the development
of a program for the control, management, and eradication of
the imported fire ant and provides $400,000 for this program of
which $58,000 is for fire ant management, control and
eradication in New Mexico.
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.
Methods Development.--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 1999 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.
Citrus Canker.--The Committee notes that the Department has
allocated $25,000,000 from Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
emergency funds to combat citrus canker in Florida. The
Committee commends the Department for this decision and its
collaboration with state agencies in Florida. The Committee
recognizes that the eradication of citrus canker is a long-term
challenge and encourages the Department to continue use of CCC
funds for this critical endeavor
Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Committee is aware of the
serious threat to trees in New York and other states and
directs the Department to continue its prevention and
eradication efforts using CCC emergency funds and Emerging
Plant Pest funds as necessary.
Aquaculture.--The Committee provides an appropriation of
$667,000 for aquaculture of which $100,000 is to support a
wildlife biologist at the northwest Florida Aquaculture Farm in
Blountstown, FL to serve north Florida, southeast Alabama and
southwest Georgia.
Boll Weevil.--The Committee encourages APHIS to continue to
provide monitoring and technical assistance as needed for
cotton boll weevil detection and eradication in New Mexico.
Brucellosis.--The Committee directs the Department to
provide assistance to the Idaho Wildlife Brucellosis Plan
including as much funding as possible.
Blackbird.--The Committee urges the Department to
implement, if feasible, a baiting program to control blackbird
damage to sunflowers.
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.--Of the funds
provided in this account the Committee provides not less than
$750,000 for the National Poultry Improvement Program.
Pink Bollworm Eradication.--The Committee recognizes the
significant economic losses caused by pink bollwork infestation
in Arizona, California, New Mexico and western Texas. The
Committee understands that growers in Arizona plan to begin a
three (3) year cost-shared PBW eradication program, which
combines the use of sterile moths, Bt cotton varieties and
limited application of conventional pesticides, and that this
program will be expanded to include New Mexico and western
Texas over the next six (6) years. While the Committee was
unable to increase funding to the level requested by growers
for the APHIS cost-share, it understands that initiation of
this program is time sensitive. The Committee therefore expects
the Secretary to instruct APHIS to utilize all available
resources to provide financial assistance, in addition to the
direct appropriation and grower assessments, to operate the
program during this fiscal year.
APHIS Operations at Miami International Airport.--Miami
International Airport (MIA) is the nation's busiest
international cargo and second busiest international passenger
airport, handling over 2 million tons of cargo and 34 million
passengers annually. The Committee is concerned about
increasing delays in time in transit, duties and processing
paperwork burdens attributable to shipment of goods and
arriving passengers at MIA. The Committee therefore encourages
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide additional
positions for APHIS cargo and passenger inspection operations
at MIA.
Buildings and Facilities
1999 appropriation.................................... $7,700,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 7,200,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 7,200,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ -500,000
2000 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
$7,200,000, a decrease of $500,000 below the amount available
for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget request.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
1999 appropriation.................................... $48,831,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 60,182,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 49,152,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +321,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -11,030,000
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
$49,152,000, an increase of $321,000 above the amount available
for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $11,030,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee has included $321,000 for wholesale market
development as it relates to identifying alternative market
strategies and enhancing marketing opportunities for small
farmers.
The Committee expects implementation of the Organic
Certification Program to continue and that a final rule will be
published in fiscal year 2000.
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 expects the AMS to assist in determining the
feasibility of upgrading the Montgomery State Farmers Market in
Montgomery, Alabama.
The Committee encourages the AMS to assist in determining
the feasibility of a regional farmers market in Suffolk County,
New York.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
1999 limitation....................................... ($60,730,000)
2000 budget limitation................................ (60,730,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (60,730,000)
Comparison:
1999 limitation................................... ................
2000 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, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1999 and the same as the budget request.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply
(Section 32)
Marketing Agreement and Orders
1999 appropriation...................................... ($10,998,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (12,443,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (12,443,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +1,445,000
2000 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 1998 through 2000:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 current FY 2000 current
FY 1998 actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of customs receipts)......... $5,730,107,608 $5,701,865,817 $5,735,557,955
Less transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service......................... -5,151,391,000 -5,048,150,000 -4,935,199,000
Commerce Department................................ -65,734,190 -66,426,288 -69,920,523
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, transfers................................. -5,217,125,190 -5,114,576,288 -5,005,119,523
========================================================
Budget authority....................................... 512,982,418 587,289,529 730,438,432
Unobligated balance available, start of year........... 233,868,235 131,966,602 105,588,209
Recoveries of prior year obligations................... 11,455,285 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Available for obligation........................... 758,305,938 719,256,131 836,026,641
Less obligations:
Commodity procurement:
Child nutrition purchases...................... 400,000,000 400,000,000 400,000,000
Emergency surplus removal...................... 194,774,097 141,800,922 115,000,000
Diversion payments............................. 0 54,000,000 0
Disaster relief................................ 15,200,000 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, commodity procurement................. 609,974,097 595,800,922 515,000,000
========================================================
Administrative funds:
Commodity purchase service..................... 6,175,767 6,869,000 8,584,000
Marketing agreements and orders................ 10,189,472 10,998,000 12,443,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, administrative funds.................. 16,365,239 17,867,000 21,027,000
========================================================
Total, obligations........................... 626,339,336 613,667,922 536,027,000
========================================================
Carryout..................................... 131,966,602 105,588,209 299,999,641
========================================================
Unobligated balance available, end of year... 131,966,602 105,588,209 299,999,641
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Provisions
For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the
Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of
$12,443,000, an increase of $1,445,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget
request.
Payments to States and Possessions
1999 appropriation.................................... $1,200,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 1,200,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 1,200,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 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 1999 and the same as the budget
request.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Salaries and Expenses
1999 appropriation.................................... $26,787,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 26,448,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 26,448,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ -339,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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 $26,448,000, a decrease
of $339,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
the same amount as the budget request.
The Committee has included an increase of $636,000 for
packer competition and industry concentration, and an increase
of $750,000 for poultry compliance activities.
Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses
1999 limitation......................................... ($42,557,000)
2000 budget limitation.................................. (42,557,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (42,557,000)
Comparison:
1999 limitation..........................(.........................)
2000 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, the same as the
amount available for fiscal year 1999 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
1999 appropriation...................................... $446,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 469,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 446,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -23,000
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
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the
Committee provides an appropriation of $446,000, the same as
the amount provided for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of
$23,000 below the budget request.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1999 appropriation.................................... $616,986,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 652,955,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 652,955,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +35,969,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $652,955,000, an increase of
$35,969,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
the same as the budget request.
The Committee has provided the full amount requested in the
fiscal year 2000 budget for the Food Safety Initiative and
inspection costs.
The Committee directs FSIS to produce a report describing
the operation of its recall coordinator. The report should
include the number of individuals in the recall coordinator's
office, their job descriptions and the total office budget for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The report should further include a
description of the scope of the recall coordinator's authority
and how the coordinator works with industry and with other
federal agencies. The report should also include a description
of the coordinator's activities during several recent meat and/
or poultry recalls. The report should be delivered to the
Committee no later than January 30, 2000.
Food safety activities are one of the highest priorities of
the Congress and the Administration. In February, the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published proposed rules
to allow the use of irradiation on red meat. Approval of these
rules will provide important progress for safer food products.
The Secretary is urged to accelerate the review and approval of
the proposed rules. Additionally, the Committee directs the
FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to promptly
complete their December 1995 proposal to harmonize and improve
the efficiency of procedures used by the agencies for reviewing
and approving the use of substances, including irradiation, in
meat and poultry products. The Committee expects such a
regulation would eliminate duplicative review and unnecessary
delays in the approval of irradiation for USDA regulated
products.
FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
1999 appropriation...................................... $572,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 595,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 572,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -23,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency (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 $572,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1999 and a decrease of $23,000 below 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
1999 appropriation........................................ \1\ $714,499,0 ($211,265,000) \1\($925,764,000)
00
2000 budget estimate...................................... 794,839,000 (211,378,000) (1,006,217,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 794,839,000 (211,378,000) (1,006,217,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................... +80,340,000 (+113,000) (+80,453,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................. .............. ................ ..................
\1\ Excludes $40,000,000 in supplemental funding provided by P.L.
105-277 and supplemental funding of $42,753,000 provided by H.R. 1141,
which passed the House on March 24, 1999.
Committee Provisions
For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA),
the Committee provides an appropriation of $794,839,000 and
transfers from other accounts of $211,378,000, for a total
program level of $1,006,217,000. This is an increase of
$80,453,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999
(excluding supplementals) and the same as the budget request.
The Committee expects the Agency to target lending in farm
loan and assistance programs to those in most economic need.
Conservation Reserve Program.--The Committee directs,
pursuant to P.L. 99-198, Title 12, section 1230 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 as amended, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to extend the deadline for the completion of the
thinning of pine trees on lands enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) to October 1, 2003.
County Offices.--The Committee is concerned about any
Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when
the FSA office network is essential to helping farmers address
critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee
reiterates its strong view that no county office closure or
consolidation should occur except in those locations for which
closures and relocations are supported by rigorous analysis to
ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available
to the public will not be reduced.
state mediation grants
1999 appropriation...................................... $2,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 4,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 4,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +2,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................................
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 $4,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000 above
the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and the same as the
budget request.
Dairy Indemnity Program
1999 appropriation...................................... $450,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 450,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 450,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 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 program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
Committee Provisions
For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an
appropriation of $450,000, the same as the amount available for
fiscal year 1999 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
1999 loan level.........................................($2,284,958,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (3,008,734,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (3,008,734,000)
Comparison:
1999 loan level..................................... (+723,776,000)
2000 budget estimate................................................
Note.--Excludes supplemental 1999 appropriations of $31,405,000 provided
by P.L. 105-277 to support a loan level of $540,510,000 and supplemental
1999 appropriations of $109,609,000 to support a loan level of
$1,095,000,000 provided by H.R. 1141, which passed the House on March
24, 1999.
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 2000 for the agricultural credit insurance fund
programs are:$559,422,000 for farm ownership loans, of which
$128,049,000 is for direct loans and $431,373,000 is for guaranteed
loans; $2,295,284,000 for farm operating loans, of which $500,000,000
is for direct loans, $97,442,000 is for guaranteed subsidized loans,
and $1,697,842,000 is for guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $1,028,000 for
Indian tribe land acquisition loans; $53,000,000 for emergency disaster
loans; and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.
agriculture credit programs
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 Committee
FY 1999 level estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm loan programs:
Farm ownership:
Direct...................................................... ($85,651) ($128,049) ($128,049)
Guaranteed.................................................. (425,031) (431,373) (431,373)
Farm operating:
Direct...................................................... (500,000) (500,000) (500,000)
Unsubsidized guaranteed..................................... (948,276) (1,697,842) (1,697,842)
Subsidized guaranteed....................................... (200,000) (97,442) (97,442)
Emergency disaster.............................................. (25,000) (53,000) (53,000)
Indian tribe land acquisition................................... (1,000) (1,028) (1,028)
Boll Weevil Eradication......................................... (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, farm loans......................................... ($2,284,958) ($3,008,734) ($3,008,734)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AExcludes $540,510,000 in 1999 supplemental loan level provided by P.L. 105-277 and $1,095,000,000 in 1999
supplemental loan level provided by H.R. 1141, which passed the House on March 24, 1999.
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy subsidy expenses
1999 appropriation........................................... $54,465,000 $35,238,000 $219,861,000
2000 budget estimate......................................... 42,379,000 34,941,000 214,161,000
Provided in the bill......................................... 42,379,000 34,941,000 214,161,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation....................................... -12,086,000 -297,000 -5,700,000
2000 budget estimate..................................... ............... ............... ...............
AExcludes supplemental 1999 appropriations of $31,405,000 provided by P.L. 105-277 and supplemental 1999
appropriations of $109,609,000, including $4,000,000 in loan program expenses, provided by H.R. 1141, which
passed the House on March 24, 1999.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
Program Account. Appropriations to this account will be used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 2000, as well
as for administrative expenses.
committee provisions
The following table reflects the costs of loan programs
under credit reform:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1999 estimate FY 2000 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................ $12,822,000 $4,827,000 $4,827,000
Guaranteed............................................ 6,758,000 2,416,000 2,416,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 19,580,000 7,243,000 7,243,000
=====================================================
Farm operating:
Direct................................................ 34,150,000 29,300,000 29,300,000
Guaranteed unsubsidized............................... 11,000,000 23,940,000 23,940,000
Guaranteed subsidized................................. 17,480,000 8,585,000 8,585,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 62,630,000 61,825,000 61,825,000
=====================================================
Boll weevil eradication................................... 1,440,000 0 0
Indian tribe land acquisition............................. 153,000 21,000 21,000
Emergency disaster........................................ 5,900,000 8,231,000 8,231,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies................................. 89,703,000 77,320,000 77,320,000
=====================================================
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expenses................................... 209,861,000 209,861,000 209,861,000
Administrative expenses................................. 10,000,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses.................................. $219,861,000 $214,161,000 $214,161,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AExcludes supplemental 1999 appropriations of $31,405,000 provided by P.L. 105-277 and supplemental 1999
appropriations of $109,969,000, including $4,000,000 in loan program expenses, provided by H.R. 1141, which
passed the House on March 24, 1999.
The committee directs the Secretary to consider State
Agencies authorized to carry out boll weevil eradication
program and eligible to receive APHIS cost share with respect
to their bill weevil eradication efforts as eligible grower
organizations for the purposes of the FSA Boll Weevil
Eradication Loan Program. The committee also directs the
Secretary to make funds available under the Boll Weevil
Eradication Loan Program to eligible grower organizations who
may be able to get credit from other sources if such private
credit cannot be made at similar rates and terms to those
available under this program.
Risk Management Agency
1999 appropriation...................................... $64,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 70,716,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 70,716,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +6,716,000
2000 budget estimate................................................
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 $70,716,000, an increase of $6,716,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the
budget request.
Support Services Bureau
Appropriations Act, 1999.............................. ................
Budget Estimate, 2000................................. $74,050,000
Provided in the bill.................................. ................
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -74,050,000
Since 1993, the county-based agencies have been
implementing streamlining plans to cut red tape and colocate
offices in the same county, with the goal of providing ``one-
stop service'' for USDA customers. The next phase involves
converging the administrative organizations of these separate
agencies. The Budget proposes the establishment of a new
Support Services Bureau (SSB) account to centrally fund the
administrative support services common to each of the county-
based agencies. This account would directly support the ongoing
Service Center Modernization initiative. The SSB would reflect
the combined costs of the agencies' administrative functions
and would allow common services such as information technology,
financial management, and human resources to be shared among
the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Rural Development (RD)
mission area, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
The SSB would be financed by a combination of direct
appropriations and transfers from the serviced agencies. The
establishment of a single account would provide an efficient
mechanism to effect the necessary fund transfers to support the
bureau.
Committee provisions
The Committee recommends no direct appropriation for the
Support Services Bureau. If the Department wishes to proceed
with this organizational structure, it is the Committee's view
that it should be financed entirely by administrative transfers
from the services agencies.
Administrative Convergence.--The Committee reiterates its
strong view that no office consolidation should occur except in
those locations for which closures and relocations are
supported by rigorous analysis to ensure such actions are cost
effective, and that services available to the public will not
be reduced.
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
1999 appropriation....................................\1\ $1,504,036,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 997,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 997,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. -507,036,000
2000 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Estimated amounts. The 1999 appropriations bill provided such sums
as may be necessary to administer the program. The FY 2000 proposed
appropriation will do the same. In FY 2000 the budget proposes to apply
a portion of the unobligated balance to cover expenses in FY 2000 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 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $60 per crop per policy, or $200 for all
crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap of $600
regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At
least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers
who participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and
certain other farm programs. 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. 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 provided in fiscal year 1999 and 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. 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
1999 appropriation.................................... $8,439,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. \1\ 14,368,000,0
00
Provided in the bill.................................. 14,368,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +5,929,000,000
2000 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 $14,368,000,000, an
increase of $5,929,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 1999 and the same as the budget request.
Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste Management
1999 limitation......................................... ($5,000,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (5,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (5,000,000)
Comparison:
1999 limitation.....................................................
2000 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 1999 and the
same as the budget request.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
1999 appropriation...................................... $693,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 721,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 693,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -28,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
Committee Provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$693,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999
and a decrease of $28,000 below the budget request.
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
1999 appropriation.................................... $641,243,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 680,679,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 654,243,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +13,000,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. -26,436,000
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 $654,243,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of
$26,436,000 below the budget request. The Committee notes that
approximately $25,000,000 in the budget request was for
programs that would not have a direct impact on maintaining the
field network of Federal employees. The Committee has included
$15,000,000 in each of the last four fiscal years for the
grazing lands conservation initiative and expects the agency to
continue this funding level in fiscal year 2000.
The Committee does not concur with the budget request to
transfer $31,050,000 from the Conservation Operations account
to the Support Services Bureau.
The Committee has included a limitation that allows 120,000
additional acres to be enrolled in the wetlands reserve program
instead of the 199,826 additional acres as the budget proposes;
and a limitation on the funding level for the environmental
quality incentives program (EQIP) 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: $400,000 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;
$250,000 to address agriculture non-point source pollution in
the Onondaga Lake Watershed; $600,000 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; $250,000 for technical assistance for
environmental restoration activities for Beaver Swamp Brook;
$100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Iowa; $100,000 for
the Potomac and Ohio River Basin soil nutrient project; and,
fiscal year 1999 funding and staffing levels in support of
Chesapeake Bay activities.
The Committee is aware that the NRCS has implemented new
accountability systems. The Committee encourages NRCS to use
these systems to identify and document appropriate technical
assistance levels for all conservation programs including the
conservation reserve program, wetlands reserve program, and the
EQIP.
The Committee recognizes the long-term nature of the
technical assistance work associated with EQIP contracts, and
recommends that the technical assistance component be
reimbursed for all costs associated with new and existing
contracts.
The Committee encourages the NRCS to allocate 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 expects the USDA to give consideration for
utilizing financial or educational assistance under EQIP for
pilot work to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of best
management practices to assist livestock producers in the
Bosque River watershed in Texas.
The Committee expects the NRCS to give consideration to the
Toledo Harbor Pilot Project to reduce sedimentation from
agricultural run-off.
watershed surveys and planning
1999 appropriation.................................... $10,368,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 11,732,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 10,368,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -1,364,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public
Law 83-566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of
the Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), and section
6 of the Act provided for the establishment of the River Basin
Surveys and 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 $10,368,000, the same as the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $1,364,000
below the budget request.
watershed and flood prevention operations
1999 appropriation.................................... $99,443,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 83,423,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 99,443,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. +16,020,000
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 $99,443,000, the same as
the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and an increase of
$16,020,000 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: the four pilot projects in North
Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; the Chino
Hills Dairy Preserve Project in San Bernardino, California; the
Stillwater Creek Flood Project in Oklahoma; and the McCoy Wash
Watershed Project in Blythe, California.
The Committee expects the NRCS to provide financial
assistance to the Salinas Valley Water Project in Monterey
County, California.
resource conservation and development
1999 appropriation.................................... $35,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 35,265,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 35,265,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +265,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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 $35,265,000, an increase of
$265,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
the same as the budget request. The Committee expects the USDA
to fund new RC&D areas.
forestry incentives program
1999 appropriation...................................... \1\ $6,325,000
2000 budget estimate....................................................
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. -6,325,000
2000 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Does not reflect $10 million in emergency funding provided by Public
Law 105-277.
The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
313), as amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its
purpose is to encourage the development, management, and
protection of nonindustrial private forest lands. 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.
farmland protection program
1999 appropriation.................................... ................
2000 budget estimate.................................. \1\ $50,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................. ................
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. -50,000,000
\1\ The budget proposes funds to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
The Farmland Protection Program is authorized by section
388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (7
U.S.C. 7201). Its purpose is to protect farmland from urban
development and other nonagricultural land conversions;
preserve farmland for future generations; maintain, restore,
and enhance ecosystems; protect historical landscapes, scenic
beauty, and open space; and sustain rural economic stability
and development.
committee provisions
The Committee has not included a proposal to transfer
$50,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
Farmland Protection Program.
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing 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
1999 appropriation...................................... $588,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 612,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 588,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -24,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural
Utilities Service.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural
Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of
$588,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 1999
and a decrease of $24,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is aware of extensive damage to the
properties of borrowers participating in various rural
development programs in Oklahoma and Kansas due to recent
severe tornadoes. The Committee urges the Department to assist
these borrowers wherever possible to recover from their losses.
The Committee notes that the Department's detailed budget
request documents backlogs of applications in a number of rural
development programs. Many deserving and eligible applicants
for rural development resources cannot be served because of
budget shortfalls. The Committee directs the Department to use
its resources only on programs that directly benefit applicants
for rural development assistance.
The Committee notes that an Office of Rural Development was
created in the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs USDA to work
with the new HUD office to avoid duplication of efforts and to
refer qualified applicants for rural development assistance to
HUD when appropriate.
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: assistance to a water and
sewer project in Capitan, NM; a grant for the Agri-Edge
Development Program in Syracuse, NY; capacity building for the
State of New York; assistance to the Agribusiness Center in
Bulloch County, GA; support for water and sewer systems in the
communities of Reno Beach/Bono, Wauseon and Curtice, OH; a
Rural Business Enterprise Grant for the Rural Opportunities
Enterprise Center, Inc. to support projects in the Mid-Hudson
Valley (New York) region; support for a Consolidated Rural
Service Delivery System Demonstration Project in the State of
New York; a grant to Florida A&M University to establish a
rural development program at the University of Florida/IFAS
North Florida Research and Education Center to serve as a focus
for rural economic community development; continued support for
the Renewable Resources Research Institute, which represents
agriculture producers and cooperatives in South Dakota, North
Dakota, Minnesota and Colorado to increase farmers' income
through development and commercialization of value-added
products; a grant to upgrade water lines as a result of
increased poulty and livestock operations in the County of
Lawrence (Alabama); assistance to Ninth District Development
Financing, Inc. to promote tourism in southwest Virginia;
funding for a new community health center in Haysi, VA; funds
for purchase and repair of a building in Craig County, VA, for
use as an industrial shell building; a rural business
enterprise grant to create a regional industrial park for
Bland, Giles, Craig, Montgomery, Pulaski, Roanoke and Wythe
counties and the cities of Radford, Roanoke and Salem in
Virginia; rural business enterprise grants for small business
incubators in southwest Virginia; renovation of a commercial
building in Bristol, VA, for use as a small business incubator;
a Small Business Innovation Research Grant for renovation of an
industrial shell building in Glen Lyn, VA; a project to provide
water, including safe drinking water, to the Shinnecock Indian
Tribe of Suffolk County, Long Island, NY; support for expansion
of the Peconic Bay Aquaculture project in Suffolk County, NY; a
rural business enterprise grant for the Allegheny Highlands
(Virginia) Economic Development Authority for a high technology
industrial park; support for the development of value-added
processing and marketing capabilities for the Oregon Albacore
tuna industry; the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, for rural,
economic, and business development activities through a
revolving loan fund; the City of Thomas, West Virginia, for the
acquisition and renovation of facilities to support the Virtual
County Store/Mountain Made project; funding for technical
assistance provided by the National Drinking Water
Clearinghouse at West Virginia University; funding for the
North Carolina Institute of Health and Safety in Agriculture
(``Agromedicine Institute'') for delivery of health services to
farmers and farming communities; funding for development of
agri-tourism projects in Vermont; a grant to Rural Enterprises,
Inc. of Durant, OK, for an innovative tax exempt bond program
for assistance to rural communities; a rural business
enterprise grant for the Self-Help Credit Union (North
Carolina) for assistance to low-income entrepreneurs; and
funding for the Land Stewardship Alliance (Maryland) for a
public outreach and education campaign to support and
revitalize local agricultural communities; and grant assistance
to Morgan County, TN for water line extensions and funds for a
water reservoir feasibility study.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established
review procedures.
rural community advancement program
1999 Appropriations..................................... $722,686,000
2000 Budget estimate.................................... 670,103,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 666,103,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. -56,583,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -4,000,000
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
310B(b) 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 1999 FY 2000 Committee
level estimate provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing:
Community facility loans:
Guaranteed............... 0 0 0
Direct................... $22,917 $15,150 $15,150
Community facility grants.... 6,869 13,237 19,237
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, housing...... 29,786 28,387 34,387
======================================
Business:
Business and industry loans:
Guaranteed............... 9,673 31,100 15,000
Direct................... 0 0 0
Rural business enterprise 38,220 35,970 34,000
grants......................
Rural business opportunity 0 5,000 3,500
grants......................
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, business..... 47,893 72,070 52,500
======================================
Utilities:
Water and waste disposal
loans:
Guaranteed............... 0 0 0
Direct................... 129,430 63,900 63,900
Water and waste disposal 512,761 503,000 512,570
grants......................
Solid waste management grants 2,816 2,746 2,746
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, utilities.... 645,007 569,646 579,216
======================================
Total, loans and grants $722,686 $670,103 $666,103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has provided bill language to allow state
rural development directors to transfer up to 25 percent
between funding streams as long as the transfers do not result
in more than 10 percent transferred nationally.
The Committee provides $3,500,000 for the Rural Business
Opportunity Grant (RBOG) program. The Committee directs the
Department to use its transfer authority under the RCAP to add
additional funds for the RBOG program as needed. The Committee
directs the Department to use RBOG funds for regional economic
plan activities on behalf of local governments and their
designees. Of the funds provided for the RBOG program, the
Committee directs the Department to use $1,000,000 for
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural
Economic Area Partnerships.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to provide
adequate technical service for centrally owned and managed
cluster well systems. Therefore, the Committee supports the
WellCare program, and recognizes needs that can be filled
through the water and waste disposal loan and grant program.
Of the funds provided under the RCAP for rural community
programs, the Committee has set aside $6,000,000 for grants for
a Rural Community Development Initiative. These funds are
intended to increase capacity-building among non-profit and
not-for-profit community development organizations. The
Committee intends that, in awarding grants, the Department
gives highest priority to those organizations that can directly
provide assistance to rural America, particularly to the rural
poor and to individuals and communities that do not currently
benefit from USDA and other federal programs.
The Committee further intends that funds should be made
available to qualified national and multi-state intermediary
organizations and that the Department require these
organizations to provide matching funds.
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
1999 loan level....................................... ($4,251,717,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................. (4,575,052,000)
Provided in the bill.................................. (4,832,687,000)
Comparison:
1999 loan level................................... (+580,970,000)
2000 budget estimate.............................. (+257,635,000)
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to Section 517 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural
housing loans for single family homes, rental and cooperative
housing, farm labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans, are repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor
housing insured loans are made either to a farm owner or to a
public or private nonprofit organization to provide modest
living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor.
Loan programs are limited to rural areas which include towns,
villages, and other places of not more than 10,000 population,
which are not part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in
areas with a population in excess of 10,000, but less than
20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan
statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for
low- and moderate-income borrowers.
committee provisions
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1999 level FY 2000 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Low-income family housing (sec. 502):
Direct......................................... ($965,313) ($1,100,000) ($1,337,632)
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................ (3,000,000) (3,200,000) (3,200,000)
Rental housing (sec. 515).......................... (114,321) (100,000) (120,000)
Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................. (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
Housing repair (sec. 504).......................... (25,001) (32,396) (32,400)
Farm labor (sec. 514).............................. (20,000) (25,001) (25,000)
Credit sales of acquired property.................. (16,930) (7,503) (7,503)
Site loans (sec. 524).............................. (5,152) (5,152) (5,152)
Self-help housing land development fund............ (5,000) (5,000) (5,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, loan authorization........................ ($4,251,717) ($4,575,052) ($4,832,687)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA changed the subsidary rule from 2.32% to 3.1% when interim regulations were published. The new rule
will provide $74,839,000 in loans.
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
subsidy subsidy expenses
1999 appropriation..................................... $192,265,000 $5,020,000 $360,785,000
2000 budget estimate................................... 155,877,000 20,000,000 383,879,000
Provided in the bill................................... 184,083,000 20,000,000 377,879,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................... -8,182,000 +14,980,000 +17,094,000
2000 budget estimate................................. +29,000,000 ................. -6,000,000
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 2000, 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 costs of the loan programs
under credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal
year 1999 amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as
set by the Office of Management and Budget.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1999 level FY 2000 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct......................................... $114,100 $93,830 $114,100
Unsubsidized guaranteed........................ 2,700 19,520 19,520
Housing repair (sec. 504).......................... 8,808 9,900 9,900
Farm labor (sec. 514).............................. 10,406 11,308 11,308
Rental housing (sec. 515).......................... 55,160 39,680 47,616
Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538)................. 2,320 480 480
Credit sales of acquired property.................. 3,492 874 874
Housing site dev. (sec. 524)....................... 17 4 4
Self-help housing land development fund............ 282 281 281
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................ $197,285 $175,877 $204,083
RHIF expenses:
Administrative expenses............................ $360,785 $383,879 $377,879
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rental assistance program
1999 appropriation ..................................... $583,397,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 440,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 583,400,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +3,000
2000 budget estimate................................ +143,400,000
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 $583,400,000, an increase of $3,000 above the
amount available in fiscal year 1999 and an increase of
$143,400,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 2000.
The Committee notes that the Administration requested a
significant cut in rental assistance for fiscal year 2000 with
an additional $200,000,000 requested as advance appropriations
for fiscal year 2001. According to Administration officials,
this was done largely as an accounting device to divert fiscal
year 2000 money from rural development to other programs. The
Committee believes it is important to maintain the integrity of
the rental assistance program and other rural development
programs and directs the Administration to submit budget
requests that reflect the reality of one-year appropriations
bills.
mutual and self-help housing grants
1999 appropriation...................................... $26,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 30,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 28,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +2,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -2,000,000
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 $28,000,000, an increase of
$2,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a
decrease of $2,000,000 below the budget request.
rural housing assistance grants
1999 appropriation...................................... $41,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 54,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 50,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +9,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -4,000,000
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 $50,000,000, an increase
of $9,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 1999
and a decrease of $4,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommends consideration of a pilot project
in Salinas, CA, under the Rural Housing Assistance Grants
Program, to provide home ownership for farm workers and workers
involved in the processing of farm products.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Administrative
expenses Transfers Total expenses
1999 level................................................ $60,978,000 ($360,785,000) ($421,763,000)
2000 budget estimate...................................... 61,979,000 (383,879,000) (445,858,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 61,979,000 (377,879,000) (439,858,000)
Comparison:
1999 level............................................ +1,001,000 (+17,094,000) (+18,095,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................. ................ (-6,000,000) (-6,000,000)
.........
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 $61,979,000, an increase
of $1,001,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999
and the same as the budget request.
The Committee directs the Department to ensure that
personnel levels in the Rural Housing Service are sufficient to
address customer needs and to make this first priority in the
budgeting of the funds provided.
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
1999 loan level......................................... ($33,000,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (52,495,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (52,495,000)
Comparison:
1999 loan level..................................... (+19,495,000)
2000 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 2000, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Committee Provisions
For the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, the
Committee provides for a loan level of $52,495,000, an increase
of $19,495,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 1999
and the same as the budget request.
estimated loan subsidy and administrative expenses levels
Direct loan Administrative
subsidy expenses
1999 appropriation.................. $16,615,000 $3,482,000
2000 budget estimate................ 22,799,000 3,337,000
Provided in the bill................ 22,799,000 3,337,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.............. +6,184,000 -145,000
2000 budget estimates........... ................ ................
.........
rural economic development loans program account
estimated loan level
1999 loan level......................................... ($15,000,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (15,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (15,000,000)
Comparison:
1999 loan level..........................(.........................)
2000 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 and 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, the
same as provided for fiscal year 1999 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
Direct loan subsidy
1999 appropriation...................................... \1\ $3,783,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 3,453,000
Provided in the bill.................................... \1\ 3,453,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. -330,000
2000 budget estimate................................................
\1\ Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit
payments as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rural cooperative development grants
1999 appropriation...................................... $3,300,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 9,000,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 6,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +2,700,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -3,000,000
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.
Cooperative Research Agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204. The funds are used for Cooperative Research Agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities to address critical
operational, organizational and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Committee Provisions
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $6,000,000, an increase of
$2,700,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a
decrease of $3,000,000 below the budget request. The total
includes $1,500,000 for cooperative research grants.
Of the funds provided, not to exceed $1,500,000 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
1999 appropriation........................................ $25,680,000 ($3,482,000) ($29,162,000)
2000 budget estimate...................................... 24,612,000 (3,337,000) (27,949,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 24,612,000 (3,337,000) (27,949,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................... -1,068,000 -145,000 -1,213,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. ................ ................ ................
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
$24,612,000, a decrease of $1,068,000 below the amount provided
in fiscal year 1999 and the same as 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
1999 loan level.........................................($1,561,500,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (1,070,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (2,411,500,000)
Comparison:
1999 loan level..................................... +850,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................ +1,341,500,000
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 Committee encourages the Administrator to fully utilize
the discretionary authority provided in the Rural
Electrification Act, as amended, when such use will facilitate
mergers among Rural Utility Service borrowers and doing so will
help to ensure the availability of long term, reliable and
reasonably priced electricity in rural areas.
The following table reflects the loan levels for the rural
electrification and telecommunications loan program account:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1999 enacted FY 2000 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electrification and telecommunications loans program
account.
Loan authorizations:
Direct loans:
Electric 5%....................................... ($71,500,000) ($50,000,000) ($121,500,000)
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............................... (295,000,000) (250,000,000) (295,000,000)
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ (741,500,000) (650,000,000) (791,500,000)
=====================================================
FFB loans:
Electric, regular................................. (700,000,000) (300,000,000) (1,500,000,000)
Telecommunications................................ (120,000,000) (120,000,000) (120,000,000)
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ (820,000,000) (420,000,000) (1,620,000,000)
=====================================================
Total, Loan authorizations...................... ($1,561,500,000) ($1,070,000,000) ($2,411,500,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 1999 enacted FY 2000 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Direct loans:
Electric 5%........................................... $9,324,000 $450,000 $1,095,000
Telecommunications 5%................................. 7,343,000 560,000 840,000
Treasury rate: Telecommunications................. 810,000 2,370,000 2,370,000
Muni-rate: Electric............................... 25,842,000 9,175,000 10,827,000
FFB loans: Regular Electric....................... 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies............................... 43,319,000 12,555,000 15,132,000
=====================================================
RETLP administrative expenses............................. 29,982,000 31,046,000 31,046,000
Total, Rural electrification and telecommunications 73,301,000 43,601,000 46,178,000
loans program account..............................
(Loan authorization)...................................... (1,561,500,000) (1,070,000,000) 2,411,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2000, as well
as for administrative expenses.
RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL
1999 loan level......................................... ($157,509,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................... (175,000,000)
Provided in the bill.................................... (175,000,000)
Comparison:
1999 loan level..................................... (+17,491,000)
2000 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 the 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, an increase of $17,491,000 above
the level for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal
year 1999 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
1999 appropriation.................. $4,174,000 $3,000,000
2000 budget estimate................ (\1\) (\2\)
Provided in the bill................ 3,290,000 3,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.............. -884,000 ................
2000 budget estimate............ ................ ................
\1\ Up to $3,290,000 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 2000, as well as for administrative
expenses.
DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM
Loan level Subsidy level Grants
1999 appropriation............................................ ($150,000,000) $180,000 $12,500,000
2000 budget estimate.......................................... (200,000,000) 700,000 20,000,000
Provided in the bill.......................................... (200,000,000) 700,000 16,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation........................................ (+50,000,000) +520,000 +3,500,000
2000 budget estimates..................................... ................ .............. -4,000,000
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was
authorized by the Food Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990, as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve
the quality of phone services, 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 $16,700,000, an increase
of $4,020,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999
and a decrease of $4,000,000 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: a grant to Florida State University and the Harbor
Branch Oceanographic Institution to utilize distance learning
technologies in the field of marine aquaculture; continued
funding for Daemen College, in Amherst, NY for a telemedicine
project in four western New York counties; continued funding
for the Community Hospital TeleHealth Consortium demonstration
project to improve health services for medically underserved
areas in Louisiana; funding for the Telecommunications Center
for Education, an initiative of the University Colleges of
Technology of the State University of New York to provide
training and educational opportunities to develop a skilled
workforce in rural communities.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to established
review procedures.
alternative agricultural research and commercialization revolving fund
cooperative agreements
1999 appropriation...................................... $3,500,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 10,000,000
Provided in the bill....................................................
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. -3,500,000
2000 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 agricultural
commodities.
Committee Provisions
The Committee does not provide funding for the Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund for
fiscal year 2000.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Transfer from
Appropriation loan accounts Total, RUS, S&E
1999 appropriation........................................ $33,000,000 ($32,982,000) ($65,982,000)
2000 budget estimate...................................... 34,107,000 (34,046,000) (68,153,000)
Provided in the bill...................................... 34,107,000 (34,046,000) (68,153,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................... +1,107,000 +1,064,000 +2,171,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. ................ ................ ................
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 $34,107,000, an
increase of $1,107,000 above the amount available for fiscal
year 1999 and the same as the budget request.
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
1999 appropriation...................................... $554,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 576,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 554,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -22,000
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, nutrition and consumer activities. The
Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the
Food and Nutrition Service.
committee provisions
For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services the Committee provides $554,000, the same
amount as provided in fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of
$22,000 below the budget request.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an
organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in
this country. Nutrition 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, the District of Columbia, 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
nutrition 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 Farmers Market Nutrition 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.
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). Funding for the Farmers Market Nutrition Program is
also included.
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.
Food Donations Programs.--Nutritious agricultural
commodities are provided to residents of the Federated States
of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is
provided to distributing agencies to assist them in meeting
administrative expenses incurred. Funding is provided for use
in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS
administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all
disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are
provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.
Food Program Administration.--This account represents most
salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion (CNPP). As of September 30, 1998, there were 1,557
full-time permanent and 107 part-time and temporary employees
in the agency. There were 539 in the Washington headquarters
and 1,025 in the field, which includes 820 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 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
1999 appropriation..................................... $4,128,747,000 ($5,048,150,000) ($9,176,897,000)
2000 budget estimate................................... 4,635,768,000 (4,929,268,000) (9,565,036,000)
Provided in the bill................................... 4,611,829,000 (4,935,199,000) (9,547,028,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................. +483,082,000 (-112,951,000) (+370,131,000)
2000 budget estimate............................... -23,939,000 (+5,931,000) (-18,008,000)
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 William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, contains a number of child
nutrition provisions. These include:
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).--Reauthorizes the
program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for
private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.
School Breakfast Program (SBP).--(1) Authorizes a pilot
project to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to
all students without regard to family income; and (2) requires
participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection
conducted by a State or local agency.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).--Authorizes
payments for snacks provided to children through age 18 in
after-school programs. Permanently authorizes and provides
funds for demonstration projects to expand services to homeless
children and family day care homes in low-income areas.
Beginning on July 1, 1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program
and the Homeless Summer Food Service Program transfer into
CACFP.
National School Lunch Program (NSLP).--(1) Significantly
expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in
after-school care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in
needy areas; and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a
food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.
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 $9,547,028,000, an increase of $370,131,000 above the
amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of
$18,008,000 below the budget request. Of the total amount
provided, $4,611,829,000 is by direct appropriation and
$4,935,199,000 is by transfer from Section 32.
Child Nutrition Programs:
School lunch program................................ $5,480,010,000
School breakfast program............................ 1,421,789,000
Child and adult care food program................... 1,769,766,000
Summer food service program......................... 314,946,000
Special milk program................................ 17,551,000
State administrative expenses....................... 120,104,000
Commodity procurement and computer support.......... 406,499,000
School meals initiative............................. 10,000,000
Food safety education............................... 2,000,000
Coordinated review effort........................... 4,363,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... $9,547,028,000
The Committee provides $10,000,000 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; $800,000 for the National Food Service
Management Institute cooperative agreement for food service;
$400,000 for print and electronic food service resource
systems; and $3,200,000 for other activities.
The Committee does not recommend funding for the school
breakfast pilot project. Even though the Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 was enacted over seven months ago,
the USDA testified that there is no plan in place for selecting
the six pilot sites. The Committee is concerned that the pilot
project, as authorized, would spend nearly 77 percent of the
funds ($10,000,000 out of $13,000,000) on evaluations.
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)
1999 appropriation...................................... $3,924,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 4,105,495,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 4,005,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +81,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -100,495,000
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 William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998, Public Law 105-336, reauthorizes the program through
2003 and added several provisions to the program. The act
requires that an individual seeking certification or
recertification in the program must provide documentation of
family income.
Infant Formula Rebate Contracts.--The act permits State
agencies to award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder
offering the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State
agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that
the weighted average retail price for different brands of
formula in that State does not vary by more than 5 percent.
The WIC farmers' market nutrition program (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 $4,005,000,000, an increase of $81,000,000
above the amount available in fiscal year 1999 and a decrease
of $100,495,000 below the budget request.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request estimated
the amount of carryover funds from fiscal year 1998 to be $100
million. The President's fiscal year 2000 request increased the
amount of carryover funds to $155 million. The latest estimate
by the Department indicates that the final amount of carryover
funds into fiscal year 1999 will be $175 million.
The President's fiscal year 2000 request includes projected
carryover funds of $100 million from fiscal year 1999. However,
the latest estimate indicates that carryover funds will be at
least $125 million. The Committee believes that the funding
level recommended in this account provides adequate resources
to maintain a monthly participation level of at least 7.4
million pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, and
infants and children up to age five. The Committee notes that
the participation level through the first five months of fiscal
year 1999 has averaged 7.33 million per month.
The Committee maintains language regarding the Farmers
Market Nutrition Program that makes the first $10 million
available for that program within 45 days of the enactment of
this Act with the balance becoming available upon the
determination that funds are not needed to maintain caseload.
The Committee is concerned that when our Nation's military
personnel are transferred to overseas posts they are no longer
eligible for WIC benefits. The Committee encourages the
Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of Defense
to provide a solution to this problem.
The WIC program generates revenue through the use of infant
formula rebates. However, the Committee is concerned that since
rebates began, infant formula costs appear to have risen far
greater than inflation, and the number of suppliers has
declined dramatically.
The Committee notes that by law $10 million of WIC
carryover funds from one fiscal year into the next fiscal year
must be used to improve WIC financial management systems. The
Committee encourages the USDA to work with the New York WIC
Statewide Information Systems as they undergo a comprehensive
reeningeering of their WIC program.
The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
food stamp program
1999 appropriation\1\................................... $22,585,106,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 27,284,444,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 21,577,444,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. -1,007,662,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -5,707,000,000
\1\ Reflects additional funding of $500,000 apportioned pursuant to P.L.
105-379 for a study for a national database for Federal means-tested
public assistance programs.
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 1998, twenty-seven systems (Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Hawaii, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennyslvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont) and the District of
Columbia are statewide and eight systems (California, Georgia,
Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and
Wyoming) 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 nutrition
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
$21,577,444,000, a decrease of $1,007,662,000 below the amount
available in fiscal year 1999 and a decrease of $5,707,000,000
below the budget request. The total amount includes
$100,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 2000;
$1,268,000,000 for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and
$100,000,000 for the emergency food assistance program.
The Committee recommends no advance appropriation for
fiscal year 2001, a decrease of $4,800,000,000 below the budget
request. The Committee does not concur with the budget request
for a $1,000,000,000 reserve for the food stamp program, but
provides $100,000,000 the same amount as fiscal year 1999.
The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and
evaluations under the Economic Research Service.
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 believes the agency should focus more on
preventive strategies to combat retailer trafficking of food
stamps. Two years ago, 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.
The Committee also agrees with a previous 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.
Commodity Assistance Programs
1999 appropriation...................................... $131,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... \1\ 155,215,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 141,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +10,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -14,215,000
\1\ Includes funding for TEFAP, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and
the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.
The Commodity and the 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.
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.
TEFAP provides grant funds to state agencies to assist in
the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for
needy individuals.
Committee Provisions
The Committee provides an appropriation of $141,000,000 for
the commodity assistance program, an increase of $10,000,000
above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and a decrease
of $14,215,000 below the budget request.
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program was reduced by
$10,000,000 due to a 1998 carryover in the program. The
Committee has included $96,000,000 in order to maintain the
caseload and state administrative expense level available in
fiscal year 1999.
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 does not concur with the budget request to
fund the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in this account.
food donations programs
1999 appropriation...................................... $141,081,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 151,081,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 141,081,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -10,000,000
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 nuclear-affected islands. This program
attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in low-income
households by providing nutritious agricultural commodities to
eligible persons. It also provides funding for use in non-
presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with disaster relief.
Committee Provisions
For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an
appropriation of $141,081,000, the same amount as the amount
available for fiscal year 1999, and a decrease of $10,000,000
below the budget request. Included in this amount is
$140,000,000 for the nutrition program for the elderly.
The budget request included an increase of $10,000,000 for
the nutrition program for the elderly. However, an increase in
the USDA portion of this program will not allow more meals to
be served. Funding for the operation of the program, also known
as Meals on Wheels, is contained in the Labor-HHS
appropriations
bill. USDA provides a cash reimbursement for each meal served.
Increasing funding for the program will not increase
participation in the program. It will only increase the per
meal reimbursement rate by 4 cents. The elderly feeding program
has not been authorized since 1995, but the Committee continues
to fund this program.
food program administration
1999 appropriation\1\................................... $108,561,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 119,841,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 108,561,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation..................................................
2000 budget estimate................................ -11,280,000
\1\ Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of
$2,000,000 (P.L. 105-277) for studies and evaluations.
The food program administration appropriation provides for
most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service, which includes the child nutrition programs;
special 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 Food
Donations Programs, including 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 nutrition assistance
programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the
following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to state agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the states and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing progress toward program
objectives; and (4) carrying out regular staff support
functions.
Committee Provisions
For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided
$108,561,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year
1999, and a decrease of $11,280,000 below the budget request.
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 continues to believe 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.
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager
Transfer from
Appropriation loan accounts Total, FAS
1999 appropriation............................................ $136,203,000 ($4,266,000) ($140,469,000)
2000 budget estimate.......................................... 137,768,000 (4,506,000) (142,274,000)
Provided in the bill.......................................... 137,768,000 (4,506,000) (142,274,000)
Comparison:
1999 appropriation........................................ +1,565,000 (+240,000) (+1,805,000)
2000 budget estimate...................................... .............. (............. (...............
.....) ...)
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 $137,768,000 and transfers of
$4,746,000 for a total program level of $142,274,000, an
increase of $1,805,000 above the amount available for fiscal
year 1999 and the same as 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 2000. No discretionary funds are provided to the
Foreign Agricultural Service to convert CCC-funded programs to
discretionary funding.
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 commends the Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS) for its recent efforts to ensure fair representation for
all rice producers and all types of rice in the Foreign Market
Development (FMD) program. The Committee expects the Department
to continue to provide fair and equal treatment to rice
producers in every state in managing the FMD and other export-
related programs.
The Committee expects that no appropriated funds will be
used to pay for travel and other expenses of non-U.S.
Government employees participating in the Reverse Trade Mission
Program.
The Committee expects the Department to allocate all
resources necessary to advance the interests of American
farmers, ranchers and consumers in the next round of trade
negotiations under the framework of the World Trade
Organization. This includes reallocation of current spending,
if necessary.
The Committee notes that the Department has proposed
funding the Foreign Market Development/Cooperator Program from
the CCC instead of from appropriated funds. The Committee
directs the Department to notify the Committees on
Appropriations before making this change.
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 2000 and beyond, as well as for administrative
expenses.
Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing
countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or
for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit
terms) for use under section 104; and for furnishing
commodities to carry out the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended (title I).--Title I of the 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 following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy
levels, and administrative costs for all Public Law 480
programs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 enacted Committee
\1\ FY 2000 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Program Account:
Title I--Credit sales:
Program level.................................. ($219,724,000) ($150,324,000) ($214,582,000)
Direct loans................................... (203,475,000) (138,324,000) (200,582,000)
Ocean freight differential..................... 16,249,000 12,000,000 14,000,000
Loan subsidies................................. \2\176,596,000 114,062,000 165,400,000
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level.................................. (837,000,000) (787,000,000) (837,000,000)
Appropriation.................................. 837,000,000 787,000,000 837,000,000
Title III--Commodity grants:
Program level.................................. (25,000,000) (0) .................
Appropriation.................................. 25,000,000 0 .................
Salaries and expenses:
General Sales Manager.......................... 1,035,000 1,093,000 1,093,000
FSA............................................ 815,000 845,000 845,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 1,850,000 1,938,000 1,938,000
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level............................ (1,081,724,000) (937,324,000) (1,051,582,000)
Appropriation............................ 1,056,695,000 915,000,000 1,018,338,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes credit level of $760,205,541, subsidy of $635,620,285, and administrative expenses of $2,000,000,
associated with food assistance to Russia funded through the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation.
\2\ Excludes rescission of $30,000,000 proposed by H.R. 1141, which passed the House on March 24, 1999.
The Committee has provided bill language allowing transfer
authority, not to exceed 15 percent, among titles I, II, and
III of PL 480.
The Committee expects that monetized funds from food aid
shipments to the Newly Independent States be used only for
agricultural privatization and reform.
CCC Export Loans Program Account
administrative expenses
1999 appropriation.................................... $3,820,000
2000 budget estimate.................................. 4,085,000
Provided in the bill.................................. 4,085,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................ +265,000
2000 budget estimate.............................. ................
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 2000 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.
committee provisions
For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $4,085,000, an increase of
$265,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
the same as the budget request.
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
Prescription
Appropriation drug user fee Total, FDA, S&E
1999 appropriation....................................... $970,867,000 $132,273,000 $1,103,140,000
2000 budget estimate..................................... 1,109,950,000 145,434,000 1,255,384,000
Provided in the bill..................................... 1,072,950,000 145,434,000 \1\ 1,218,384,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation................................... +102,083,000 +13,161,000 +115,244,000
2000 budget estimate................................. -37,000,000 ................ -37,000,000
\1\ Excludes amounts for the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), at $14,817,000; Export Certification at
$1,030,000; Freedom of Information at $1,061,000; and Certification Fund at $3,877,000.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the principal
consumer protection agency of the Federal Government. The
agency's mission and sole objective is to protect and promote
the public health through its science-based core activities of
premarket review and postmarket assurance. FDA has jurisdiction
over a wide variety of products that effect every person, every
day: foods and cosmetics; human and animal drugs; biologics
including blood and vaccines; medical devices; and radiological
products. FDA activities assure that these products are safe
and effective, as well as properly labeled.
FDA works extensively with stakeholders--industry,
consumers, and other interested parties--to: (1) set food and
product standards; (2) evaluate the safety and efficacy of new
drugs and medical devices before they are marketed; (3) conduct
and sponsor research studies to detect health hazards and
violations of laws or regulations, and improve the agency's
base of scientific knowledge to allow for better regulatory
decision-making; (4) inform business firms and consumers about
FDA-related topics; (5) work with state and local agencies to
develop programs that will supplement or complement those of
FDA; (6) maintain surveillance over foods, drugs, medical
devices and electronic products to ensure that they are safe,
effective, and honestly labeled; and (7) take legal action when
necessary to remove violative products from the marketplace and
to prosecute firms or individuals that violate the law.
FDA must respond to fulfill several challenges in order to
meet statutory requirements and its mission: research and
development-fueled pressures on regulatory responsibilities;
greater product complexity driven by breakthroughs in
technology; growth in the recognized adverse effects associated
with product use; unpredictable new health and safety threats;
emerging challenges in the international arena; and the
increased volume and diversity of imports.
committee provisions
For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee
provides a total direct appropriation of $1,072,950,000 for
salaries and expenses, and makes available an additional
$145,434,000 in fees collected under the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act, for a total of $1,218,384,000. This is an increase of
$115,244,000 above the total amount available in fiscal year
1999 and a decrease of $37,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommends full funding of the budget
request, with the exception of increases requested for seafood
inspection and for tobacco.
Docket No. 95N-0304 (Ephedra).--The Committee directs that
the agency shall not proceed with 62 Federal Register (June 4,
1997) Docket No. 95N-0304 without using sound science to assure
strict compliance with the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act, and use of adverse event reports in a manner
consistent with previous rulemakings and agency policy. The
Committee directs the agency to report to the Committee no
later than 180 days after enactment the methodology used to
determine compliance.
Generic Drugs.--Health care costs continue to represent a
significant burden to federal health care programs and the
American consumer. Over the next five years approximately $22
billion in sales of brand name drugs will come off patent.
Millions in savings can occur through the use of generic drug
alternatives. The FDA will be able to help provide these
significant cost savings only if it has adequate resources to
review and approve generic drug applications in a timely
manner. FDA's average approval time is still three times longer
than the six-month statutory requirement. Therefore, the
Committee strongly supports the budget request increase of $1.9
million for the Office of Generic Drugs. These funds will be
used to increase staffing levels by not less than 11 FTE's.
Imported Food.--The Committee is concerned about a report
issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in April 1998
evaluating the current regulatory system for imported foods.
That report identified substantial deficiencies in the
coordination between FDA and the U.S. Customs Service. The
Committee directs FDA to report by March 1, 2000 on activities
undertaken to improve coordination and cooperation with Customs
and in the inspection and regulation of imported foods,
including a timetable for implementation.
Seafood Inspection.--The appropriations request included
detailed authorization language which would transfer seafood
inspection activities from the National Marine Fisheries
Service to the Food and Drug Administration. In addition to the
transfer of funds and personnel, the budget request for the
Food and Drug Administration includes an increase of $3,000,000
related to this transfer. The Committee feels strongly that
this is a matter to be addressed by the authorization
committee, and therefore has not included the requested
authorization language, and has not provided the related
$3,000,000.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--Within
funds provided for Food Safety activities, the Committee
provides a total of $3,000,000 for the National Center for Food
Safety and Technology.
Tobacco.--On April 26, 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to
review a decision by a federal appeals court holding that the
Food and Drug Administration has no authority to regulate
tobacco products. Pending the Supreme Court's review, the
Committee recommends maintaining the program at the fiscal year
1999 level of $34,000,000, and has not approved the budget
request for an additional $34,000,000 to double the
appropriation for this activity.
The Committee requires that FDA provide a report, 90 days
after the enactment of this bill, on the effects of reducing
illegal tobacco sales to minors and the effect on compliance,
through use of automated identification systems, such as those
found on drivers licenses and other identification cards. This
report should, at a minimum, include the following information:
the cost of imposing such a requirement on retailers, both
large and small; if such a system would work in all states; and
if there are ways to circumvent the machines and reduce their
effectiveness.
The Committee requires FDA to explore the possibility of
providing retailers with ``on the spot'' results of compliance
checks to assist retailers in responding appropriately to
violations. While the majority of letters are sent to retailers
following compliance checks within two weeks, it would be more
beneficial if such notice were provided even more quickly. FDA
should develop a pilot program to test out this concept, while
ensuring the safety of the minor who is involved in the
attempted purchase and not allowing clerks to notify other
retailers in the same area that FDA is doing compliance checks.
FDA should keep the Committee informed about this program.
Recommendations by activity.--The Committee recommends that
of the total amount provided: (1) $265,955,000 shall be for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2)
$316,760,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and related field activities in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $138,114,000 shall be for the Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) $52,473,000
shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5)
$164,411,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health and for related field activities in the
Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $33,679,000 shall be for the
National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) $34,000,000
shall be for the Office of Tobacco; (8) $25,855,000 shall be
for Rent and Related activities, other than the amounts paid to
the General Services Administration; (9) $100,180,000 shall be
for payments to the General Services Administration for rent
and related costs; and (10) $86,957,000 shall be for other
activities, including the Office of the Commissioner, the
Office of Policy, the Office of External Affairs, the Office of
Operations, the Office of Management and Systems, and central
services for these offices. Funds may be transferred from one
specified activity to another with the prior approval of the
Committee.
Waste-management Education and Research Consortium.--Within
sums provided for food safety, the Committee directs the Food
and Drug Administration to provide $100,000 for the Waste-
management Education and Research Consortium (WERC) to assist
in minimizing microbial hazards. Based on the model for its
environmental design contest, WERC will conduct a design
contest for students, faculty, and industry to find innovative
solutions to ground water treatment and use in produce.
Antibiotic Resistance in Livestock.--A General Accounting
Office report to Congress in April 1999 reflects the difference
of opinion between USDA and HHS about the potential risks
associated with the use of human antibiotics in animals and to
what extent on-farm antibiotic use contributes to resistance.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Health and Human Services to implement the GAO
report's recommendation and develop a joint strategy for
addressing resistance. The USDA and the FDA are directed to
report to Congress by January 2000 on that strategy, which
should include a proposed timetable and budget for conducting a
comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the risk to human
health posed by on-farm antibiotic use. For food-borne
pathogens, the assessment should compare the level of risk
posed by other uses to the risk posed by on-farm antibiotic
use. The report should also detail how the results of the risk
assessment will be incorporated into regulations governing the
approval and use of on-farm antibiotics.
Human-Use Antibiotics Used in Livestock Production.--The
Committee is concerned about the potential human health risks
associated with the use of human medicines, such as antibiotics
in livestock production, including the development of
antibiotic resistance in foodborne and other bacteria. In a
July 1998 report prepared for the USDA and the FDA, the
National Academy of Sciences concluded that ``there is a link
between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development
of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease'' but
that ``information gaps hinder the decision-making and policy
process for regulatory approval and antibiotic use in food
animals.'' Accordingly, the Committee directs the FDA to report
to the Committee by January 2000 on human health risks
associated with the uses of approved antibiotics in animals in
the United States and on the status of FDA's development of
regulations on data submission requirements for entry in an
electronic data base on the use of antibiotics in animals that
may compromise human therapies in the United States.
Furthermore, the Committee directs the USDA to submit a report
on the status of its research on the effectiveness of the use
of growth promoting antibiotics in animals that may compromise
human therapies and on alternatives to this practice.
Premarket Notification Program.--The Committee recognizes
FDA's efforts in improving its premarket review process for
food additive petitions. However, much more needs to be done.
Implementation of the food contact substances Premarket
Notification (PMN) program, as authorized by the FDA
Modernization Act, is one way to achieve substantial
improvement. The Committee encourages FDA to continue
development of the PMN program. The President's Budget Request
included a proposal to fund the PMN program through additive
user fees. The Committee supports enactment of such authorizing
legislation, and requests that the Administration submit this
proposed legislation to Congress and begin negotiations with
the affected industry on the specifics of the legislation. The
goal of these activities should be for implementation of this
program in fiscal year 2000.
buildings and facilities
1999 appropriation...................................... $11,350,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 31,750,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 31,750,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +20,400,000
2000 budget estimate................................................
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
$31,750,000, an increase of $20,400,000 above the amount
available for fiscal year 1999 and the same as the budget
request.
Arkansas Regional Laboratory.--The Committee approves the
full amount of the budget request of $3,000,000 which will go
towards a portion of the third and final phase of the overall
Arkansas Regional Laboratory project at Jefferson, Arkansas.
This phase will provide for the renovation of the existing
Building 50 in its entirety for joint Office of Regulatory
Affairs and National Center for Toxicological Research
administrative support space and the restoration of the
laboratory project site.
Independent Agencies
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1999 appropriation...................................... \1\ $61,000,000
2000 budget estimate.................................... 67,655,000
Provided in the bill.................................... 65,000,000
Comparison:
1999 appropriation.................................. +4,000,000
2000 budget estimate................................ -2,655,000
\1\ Does not include $356,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for Year
2000 compliance.
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 $65,000,000, an increase of
$4,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 1999 and
a decrease of $2,655,000 below the budget request.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
1999 limitation....................................... ($35,800,000)
2000 budget estimate.................................. (\1\)
Provided in the bill.................................. (35,800,000)
Comparison:
1999 limitation................................... ................
2000 budget estimate.............................. (+35,800,000)
\1\ The Farm Credit Administration submitted a budget of $35,800,000 for
fiscal year 2000.
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, the same as
the amount available for fiscal year 1999.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill
for fiscal year 2000 are fundamentally the same as those
included in last year's appropriations bill.
Section 713. Language is included to provide that subsidy
authority for certain housing loan programs remains available
until expended to cover obligations made in certain fiscal
years.
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 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 120,000 acres.
Section 729. Language is included to prohibit funds from
being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture
and Food Systems.
Section 730. This provision restores the eligibility of
certain communities for rural development programs pending
revision of population and other criteria.
Section 731. 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 732. Language is included that prohibits funds from
being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.
Section 736. Language is included that limits funds for the
emergency food assistance program and appropriates funds for
Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
Section 737. Language is included that prohibits the use of
funds for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Transfer of Unexpended Balances
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 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 3(f)(2) of rule XIII.
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 requires a portion of 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 among 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.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 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.
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. 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.
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 2000 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. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--Language is
included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from
providing training to non-CFTC personnel.
24. 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, 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 711: This provision provides that none of the
funds in this Act may be made available to pay indirect
costs charged against agricultural research, education,
or extension grants awarded by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service in excess of
19 percent of total direct costs, except for grants
available under the Small Business Innovation and
Development Act.
Section 712: 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 713: This provision provides that subsidy
authority for certain housing loan programs remains
available until expended to cover obligations made in
certain fiscal years.
Section 714: This provision allows funds made
available in fiscal year 2000 for the Rural Development
Loan Fund Program Account; Rural Telephone Bank Program
Account; the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunications Loans Program Account; and the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund 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 2000 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; and the food
safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service may use cooperative agreements.
Section 717: This provision provides that the Natural
Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative
agreements.
Section 718: Provides that not more than 5 percent of
Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be
retired in fiscal year 2000. 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 719: Provides that of the funds made
available, not more than $1,800,000 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, the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act.
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
approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board for acquisition of new
information technology systems or significant upgrades.
Section 724: Language is included that requires
certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in
Appropriations Acts.
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 limit the amount
of funds available for the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program to $174,000,000.
Section 727: Language is included to prohibit
contract acreage payments to a producer who plants wild
rice on contract acreage unless the contract payment is
reduced by an acre for each acre planted to wild rice.
Section 728: Language is included to limit enrollment
of acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program to 120,000
acres.
Section 729: Language is included to prohibit funds
from being used to carry out the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems.
Section 730: Language is included that defines rural
areas for certain business programs that were in place
prior to the enactment of P.L. 104-127.
Section 731. 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 732. Language is included that prohibits
funds from being used to carry out the Conservation
Farm Option program.
Section 733: Language is included that prohibits
funds from being used to prepare a budget submission to
Congress that assumes reductions from the previous
year's budget due to user fee proposals unless the
submission also identifies spending reductions which
should occur if the user fees are not enacted.
Section 734: Language is included that prohibits the
establishment of the Office of Community Food Security
or any similar office without the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress.
Section 735: Language is included that prohibits the
use of the funds made available by this Act or any
other Act for the National Swine Research Center.
Section 736: This provision limits the amount of
funds available for the emergency food assistance
program and provides $1,000,000 for a fellowship
program on hunger.
Section 737: Language is included that prohibits
funds made available by this Act to issue rules,
regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) 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):
The bill proposes no changes in existing law.
Appropriations Not Authorized By Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
Dairy Indemnity Program
Elderly Feeding Program
Emerson-Leland Hunger Fellowships
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
The bill proposes no rescissions.
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that 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 from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. 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............................................... 13,988 14,542 13,988 14,542
Mandatory................................................... 50,295 33,088 47,076 32,467
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 64,283 47,630 61,064 47,009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five-Year Outlay Projections
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...................................... 61,064
Outlays:
2000.............................................. 47,009
2001.............................................. 4,253
2002.............................................. 593
2003.............................................. 329
2004 and beyond................................... 457
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 2000 and beyond.
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.................................. 18,230
Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom.......... 15,527
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2000, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), 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
2000, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the
required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall
apply any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2000 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 2000 budget estimates, as amended, for such departments
and agencies, as modified by congressional action, and in
addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual state, district, and county offices.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule
XIII of the Rules 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: May 19, 1999.
Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 2000.
Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
Description of motion: To provide $94,377,000 of emergency
appropriations for the direct cost of direct and guaranteed
loans in the amount of $1,511,330,000 for farm ownership loans,
operating loans, and emergency loans.
Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 30 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bond Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay
Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey
Mrs. Emerson Mr. Forbes
Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey Mrs. Northup
Mr. Olver Mr. Packard
Mr. Pastor Mr. Peterson
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Porter
Mr. Price Mr. Rogers
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sabo Mr. Taylor
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
rollcall no. 2
Date: May 19, 1999.
Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 2000.
Motion by: Mr. Nethercutt.
Description of motion: To prohibit the President from
restricting exports to any country of food, other agricultural
products, medicines, or medical supplies or equipment unless
the President waives this prohibition for national security
reasons.
Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 28 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt Mr. Boyd
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Callahan
Mr. Cunningham Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Dickey Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Emerson Mr. Forbes
Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger
Mr. Istook Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Kolbe Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Latham Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. Moran Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Lewis
Mr. Olver Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Pastor Mr. Miller
Mr. Peterson Mr. Mollohan
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Obey
Mr. Sabo Mr. Packard
Mr. Sununu Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Porter
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Price
Mr. Walsh Mr. Regula
Mr. Wamp Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
rollcall no. 3
Date: May 19, 1999.
Measure: Agriculture Appropriations Bill, FY 2000.
Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
Description of motion: To provide $500,000,000 of emergency
appropriations for use in the program authorized by section 32
of the Act of August 24, 1935, for strengthening Markets,
Income and Supply.
Results: Rejected 23 yeas to 28 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham
Mrs. Emerson Mr. Forbes
Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson
Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Meek Mr. Latham
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Obey Mr. Packard
Mr. Olver Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor Mr. Porter
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Regula
Mr. Price Mr. Rogers
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sabo Mr. Sununu
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
A series of economic disasters are taking place throughout
farm country. At some point--and better sooner than later--
Congress must come to grips with this crisis and fashion
appropriate remedies. While this bill makes a reasonable effort
to apportion the scarce resources available to the Agriculture
Subcommittee, it makes little contribution to addressing the
extraordinary situation facing rural America.
In saying this, we mean no criticism of Chairman Skeen or
our colleagues on the Agriculture Subcommittee. On the
contrary, the Chairman and the subcommittee were faced with the
difficult task of allocating a very restricted sum of money,
and in our view did as well as could be done under the
circumstances. While each of us might have made different
decisions regarding various details, on balance the bill seems
a reasonable effort to stretch a limited sum of money as far as
possible. Chairman Skeen approached this task in a spirit of
good will and cooperation, and deserves commendation for his
efforts. But none of this changes the reality that the bill
simply does not do enough to address the depression-level
prices prevailing in many sectors of the farm economy.
The breakdown of rational budgeting in Congress
The Agriculture Subcommittee's dilemma reflects the near-
complete breakdown of rational budgeting in Congress. For
whatever reason, elements in the Majority secured the adoption
of a congressional budget resolution which calls for total
domestic appropriations to be cut roughly 10 percent below the
current year's level and 13.5 percent below what CBO estimates
is necessary to maintain current services. Some apparently find
this goal appealing in the abstract. However, implementing this
goal through actual appropriations bills would produce cuts in
government services that we believe would be opposed by a
majority in Congress as well as a majority of the American
public.
Faced with this situation not of his making, the Chairman
of the Appropriations Committee has come up with a temporary
solution to get the appropriations process moving. He
proposed--and the committee adopted--``302(b)'' allocations
that put resources into a handful of domestic appropriations
bills believed sufficient to allow them to move forward. The
Agriculture bill is in this group. However, this temporary
solution leaves a number of other domestic appropriations bills
with allocations that would require large cuts below the
current year's level. Few believe that these other bills will
even be taken up in the House under these draconian
allocations. The hope seems to be that something will turn up
later to resolve the impasse--perhaps some end-of-season
negotiation surrounding another huge omnibus appropriations
bill, perhaps some sudden discovery of additional resources, or
perhaps widespread use of emergency exceptions, budgetary
gimmicks, and timing shifts.
Many friends of rural America have asked whether the
Agriculture appropriations bill is better off moving ahead now
or waiting for whatever future solution is used to passthe
domestic appropriations bills that have received grossly insufficient
allocations. There seems no clear answer to that question. Where this
process is headed is impossible to predict. But the fact that these
questions are even being asked is a sad commentary on the breakdown of
budgeting in the House of Representatives.
The crisis in rural America
We must consider this bill in the context of the crisis
facing American farm families. While the U.S. economy is
enjoying near-record prosperity, this wealth is not flowing to
every community. It is barely trickling into our farmers'
pockets.
Farmers continue to experience significant declines in
agricultural commodity prices that began more than a year ago.
The price declines experienced by wheat and cattle producers
during the last couple of years have expanded to the feed
grains, oilseed, cotton, pork, and now the dairy sectors. In
some instances, prices are lower than during the late 1940s.
Coupled with that is the increasing cost of production and farm
equipment. As a result, total farm debt is estimated to be $170
billion at the end of 1998, up 3 percent, on top of a 6 percent
increase the year before.
Farm land values began declining in a number of Midwestern
states during the last half of 1998. The drop in income,
coupled with declining asset values for many producers, means
many will have difficulty obtaining credit. Those who do obtain
credit will use it for cash expenses rather than investment,
and will find themselves squeezed as they try to repay debt out
of current income.
Many producers who struggled with cash flow in 1998
resulting from low prices and adverse weather will likely see
their problems worsen in 1999. USDA predicts the greatest
strain in 1999 will be on field crops. For the 1998 wheat,
corn, soybean, upland cotton, and rice crops, net income will
be 17 percent below the previous five-year average, and for
1999 crops current projections show income 27 percent below the
previous five-year average. While the equity level of farmers
is relatively high, farm lenders report that farmers are
depleting equity at a faster rate than earlier in the decade.
And unlike the 1980s, many are opting out of farming rather
than taking on more debt to weather the crisis.
Certainly, more must be done to keep the American family
farmer from becoming an endangered species. The government
cannot by itself solve this problem or ensure prosperity in
rural America. But government can help, and has a
responsibility to do so. We need to devise measures to help
lift prices and sustain incomes. And we need policies to
address some of the underlying causes of these problems, such
as the disturbing increases in concentration in the
agricultural industry--affecting both inputs and marketing
opportunities.
The agricultural appropriations bill reported by our
committee does a number of useful things, but it can hardly be
considered adequate in the context just described. When our
farmers need a home run, this bill is at best a bunt to get on
first base.
Funding levels in the bill
In terms of the overall level of discretionary
appropriations, this bill is at most roughly even with FY 1999,
and in some sense represents a sharp decline. Strictly
speaking, the bill provides an increase totaling about $250
million, or 1.8 percent, compared to regular FY 1999
appropriations. But that comparison ignores the numerous
emergency supplemental appropriations made for farm programs in
FY 1999.
When just the emergency appropriations for two on-going
programs--farm credit and FSA salaries and expenses--are added
to the FY 1999 total, the FY 2000 level in the bill represents
an increase of just 0.2 percent. And when all emergency
supplemental appropriations are counted in the FY 1999 total,
the FY 2000 bill is about $6.4 billion (31 percent) below FY
1999. Finally, the bill represents a cut of $531 million (3.7
percent) below the Administration's request for FY 2000.
But the more important question is not how much the bill
spends but rather what the bill does--and doesn't do. Without
question, the bill has some good features. For example, it
provides substantial increases for the Food and Drug
Administration to help process requests for drug approvals and
increase the safety of our food supply. It also includes
increases for the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and
Inspection Service. Further, the measure provides badly needed
additional funds to some rural housing and rural development
programs. It also contains some needed increases for
agricultural research, pest and disease control through APHIS,
and NRCS conservation operations, even though these increases
may fall short of what many believe necessary.
Funding for farm programs
But on the minus side--and perhaps most significantly for
farmers facing plunging prices--the bill makes no provision for
continuing any of the emergency assistance provided in the FY
1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act or in the recently passed
supplemental appropriations bill. For example, it doesn't
continue the market loss payments enacted last Fall, the
subsidy for crop insurance premiums, or the extra ``section
32'' funds for hog producers contained in the most recent
supplemental. It also makes no provision for disaster loss
payments or for the various disaster assistance programs funded
in the two emergency packages. And it also contains no new
initiatives to support farm incomes or remove surpluses from
markets.
We are also concerned that in many areas the bill falls
short of what is needed simply to continue many of the basic
on-going programs of the Department of Agriculture.
For example, it reduces USDA farm loan and loan guarantee
programs below the current year levels. These programs serve as
lenders (and loan guarantors) of last resort in farm country.
As commodity prices have fallen, bankers have been requiring
more farmers to obtain USDA guarantees for their loans, and
growing numbers of farmers have found it necessary to rely on
the USDA direct lending programs. During the first half of FY
1999, demand for these programs grew 65 percent compared to a
year earlier.
While the bill provides the amount requested by the
Administration for FY 2000, these amounts are well below the
levels that have turned out to be necessary this year. For
example, the bill provides for $128 million in direct farm
ownership loans in FY 2000, less than half of the FY 1999 level
of $286 million (including supplemental appropriations). It
provides for just $97 million in guaranteed farm operating
loans with interest subsidies--less than one-fifth of the FY
1999 level of $542 million. Unless there is a near-miraculous
recovery in the farm economy, the bill's farm credit levels
will be grossly inadequate in FY 2000.
If the bill were enacted with these levels, one or more
emergency supplemental appropriations would almost certainly be
needed to replenish the farm lending programs during FY 2000.
Thus, once again farmers will be waiting for a supplemental
appropriation to get the credit they need for spring planting.
This year, Congress took almost three months to provide the
necessary funds--during which time several key farm credit
programs ran completely out of money. This bill sets the stage
for a repetition of this unfortunate process next spring.
The same is true for Farm Service Agency staff--the workers
who handle the paperwork for loan deficiency payments, disaster
assistance, farm credit and similar programs. The levels in the
bill would reduce county office staff by about 650 positions
relative to this year. (The bill provides the Administration's
request, but recent events have shown that request to be
plainly inadequate.) Another year of large backlogs and months-
long waits for farm payments seems to be in the making. This is
not only unfair to farmers, its also unfair to the very
dedicated FSA staff members, many of whom have been working
extraordinarily long hours in an effort to clear backlogs and
deliver necessary services.
Further, the bill reduces funding for food aid programs.
These programs provide the dual benefit of removing some
surplus commodities from the U.S. market while at the same time
helping those in need. Taking only regular appropriations into
account, the basic ``Food for Peace'' donation programs (PL 480
titles II and III) would decline by $25 million next year. When
one also takes into account the special funding provided in FY
1999 for a Russian food aid program (more than $800 million)
and the supplemental appropriation of $149 million (primarily
for Kosovo refugees) just adopted, it becomes clear that total
new funding for food aid will decline considerably in FY 2000--
at the same time that commodity surpluses are driving down farm
prices in the U.S.
We are also concerned about the level of funding for
control of agricultural pests and diseases through the USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The bill
does provide some increases in this area, and that's good.
However, the subcommittee was unable to bring funding for
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Services up to the level
that the Administration believes necessary. This program is the
essential first line of defense against introduction of pests
and diseases from foreign countries. Some recent arrivals that
slipped through our defenses--such as citrus canker and the
Asian long-horned beetle--are now wreaking havoc in some parts
of the country. While it may not be humanly possible to detect
and exclude each and every dangerous pest and disease, we need
to be sure that APHIS has the resources it needs to do the very
best job it can.
Funding for nutrition programs
The agriculture bill is also designed to address important
needs that extend well beyond farm country. In particular, the
bill funds a number of nutrition programs, which help low-
income children, pregnant women, and senior citizens obtain
adequate and nutritious foods--while also helping to increase
demand for the products of American agriculture.
The largest of the appropriated nutrition programs is the
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and
Children--popularly known as ``WIC''. This program enjoys
widespread support--in part because it is recognized to be an
excellent investment in health. Each dollar spent on WIC is
estimated to yield more than three dollars in savings to the
government through reduced spending on programs such as
Medicaid. The bill does increase funding for WIC a bit, and we
applaud that increase. However, it rejects the President's
proposal to increase the number of participants to 7.5 million
(out of an estimated 8.5 million people potentially eligible).
It also appears to fall $25 to $45 million short of the amount
needed just to maintain the WIC program at roughly 7.4 million
participants next year.
The bill also rejects the Administration's request for a
$10 million increase for nutrition programs for the elderly,
which would have provided the first increase in per-meal
subsidy in a number of years. It also fails to fund the
recently authorized school breakfast pilot program, which is
designed to provide a rigorous evaluation of the educational
and nutritional benefits of making school breakfasts available
to all students in a school. Finally, it denies any of the
increase requested by the President for federal administration
of the food and nutrition programs (including Food Stamps and
Child Nutrition as well as WIC and other programs). These
increases were requested in part to strengthen program and
financial integrity and better prevent fraud and abuse.
Funding for conservation programs
The bill also falls short in funding for important
conservation programs. Several farm conservation programs that
actually receive their funding on a direct spending
basisthrough authorizing legislation are once again subject to
limitations in this appropriations bill. These limitations hold
spending below currently authorized levels. The only real purpose of
the limitations is to produce offsetting savings to help fit the
appropriations bill within a very tight budget allocation. Among other
things, these limitations--
limit new enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve Program
to 120,000 acres in FY 2000 (rather than the 199,286
acres funded in authorizing law);
limit funding for the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) to $174 million in FY 2000
(rather than the $200 million provided for in
authorizing law); and
prohibit any spending on the Conservation Farm Option
program in FY 2000 (authorizing law provides $35
million).
The bill also appropriates none of the funding requested by
the President for the Farmland Protection Program, which
provides matching funds to states to acquire conservation
easements on farm lands. Finally, it provides about $26 million
less than requested by the President for the basic Conservation
Operations account at the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Conclusion
In summary, Chairman Skeen and the subcommittee have
certainly tried to do the best that could be done with the hand
that was dealt. Unfortunately, however, the bill falls short of
what is needed to seriously address the urgent problems facing
farm families and rural America in general. It is certainly
true that the appropriations process cannot provide a
comprehensive legislative solution to farm problems. Action by
the authorizing committees and others is essential. However,
under different circumstances the Agriculture appropriations
bill could have made a greater contribution to the process. And
one thing is absolutely clear: no matter what forum or
legislative vehicle is chosen, it is essential that Congress
seriously begin work on a response to the crisis in farm
country, and do so quickly as possible.
Marcy Kaptur.
Rosa L. DeLauro.
Maurice D. Hinchey.
Sam Farr.
F. Allen Boyd, Jr.