[Senate Report 110-426]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 890
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-426
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009
_______
July 21 (legislative day, July 17), 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kohl, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3289]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3289)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2009
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $97,203,926,000
Amount of 2008 appropriations........................... 90,651,967,000
Amount of 2009 budget estimate.......................... 95,543,969,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2008 appropriations................................. +6,551,959,000
2009 budget estimate................................ +1,659,957,000
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Summary of the Bill:
Overview and Summary of the Bill............................. 5
Fiscal Constraints on the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee............................................... 5
Reports to Congress.......................................... 6
USDA Departmental Office of Ethics Activities................ 7
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary.............................. 8
Executive Operations................................. 10
Office of the Chief Information Officer.............. 11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer................ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights... 12
Office of Civil Rights............................... 13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 13
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental
Payments........................................... 13
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 14
Departmental Administration.......................... 14
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.......................................... 15
Office of Communications............................. 15
Office of Inspector General.......................... 16
Office of the General Counsel........................ 16
Office of the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics........................... 17
Economic Research Service............................ 18
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. 19
Agricultural Research Service........................ 19
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service............................................ 24
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs................................ 34
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service........... 34
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... 46
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration..................................... 49
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........ 50
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 50
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.............................. 52
Farm Service Agency.................................. 52
Risk Management Agency............................... 56
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.............. 57
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.................... 57
Title II:
Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment............................................ 60
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 61
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...... 70
Rural Housing Service.................................... 71
Rural Business--Cooperative Service...................... 79
Renewable Energy Program................................. 83
Rural Utilities Service.................................. 84
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services...................................... 90
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 90
Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign
Agricultural Service........................................... 100
Title VI:
Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 106
Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration........... 113
Title VII: General Provisions.................................... 114
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 117
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 117
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 118
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 118
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 121
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............ 121
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation,
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report.
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate
item headings.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 Committee
2008 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs.... 24,450,902 24,412,241
Title II: Conservation programs... 937,547 970,163
Title III: Rural economic and 2,333,957 2,887,855
community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs.. 60,056,845 65,011,562
Title V: Foreign assistance and 1,476,470 1,503,056
related programs.................
Title VI: Related agency and FDA.. 1,716,770 2,051,397
Title VII: General provisions..... -56,068 -100,048
-------------------------------------
Total, new budget 90,916,423 96,736,226
(obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs
include agricultural research, education, and extension
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm
income and support programs; marketing and inspection
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing,
economic and community development, and telecommunication and
electrification assistance; and various export and
international activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA].
Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces,
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on
agricultural and rural development programs and on other
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2009.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each
of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's
justifications for the funding levels are included in the
report.
The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects
the Department only to approve those applications judged
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
FISCAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITEE
Programmatic demands on the Appropriations subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies (Agriculture subcommittee) have escalated
at a rapid pace over the past several years. The President's
budget for agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee
for fiscal year 2009 demonstrates a major failure to recognize
the expectations of the American people who rely on programs
that provide basic safeguards for public safety and a
reasonable level of Federal support for basic services. This is
especially true for programs impacted by rapidly rising food
costs, some of which the President proposed to eliminate.
Similarly, while the President did propose a $500,000,000
increase in rental subsidies for rural families otherwise faced
with eviction this coming year, the budget also proposed to
eliminate more than $1,000,000,000 in single family housing
loans that would otherwise help rural households cope with the
ongoing housing crisis. The costs to maintain these vital
services are a responsibility taken seriously by the
Agriculture subcommittee which refuses to turn a blind eye on
those Americans who rely on these programs for protection and
to sustain a modest standard of living for their families.
The Congress has recently enacted a $300,000,000,000 farm
bill, yet that legislation failed to provide the United States
Department of Agriculture [USDA] the resources necessary to
carry out these expanding farm bill programs and that burden
has fallen squarely on the Agriculture subcommittee. Systems
failures experienced by USDA in recent years due to antiquated
technologies will only worsen given the new demands placed on
agency personnel and equipment without prudent investment to
maintain and upgrade human and technological capital. A new
Farm Bill will provide little benefit to the American people if
USDA is allowed to suffer further erosion in staffing
resources, tools for program administration, and workplace
safety requirements. The Agriculture subcommittee believes the
agencies under its jurisdiction should be provided resources
necessary to ensure that USDA lives up to its expectations as
one of the major departments of the Federal Government, and
should not be allowed to fall into decline.
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] holds a
responsibility for public heath and safety unequaled by any
other agency in the Federal Government. Every American relies
each and every day on items for which FDA is charged with
ensuring product safety and efficacy. Yet historic growth in
drug and device technologies and a rapid expansion in the
global marketplace for food and other products have placed
extraordinary pressure on FDA's comparatively modest resources.
As a result, American consumer confidence is at risk and
Americans are questioning the safety of the food they consume
and the pharmaceuticals and medical treatments their doctors
prescribe and pharmacists dispense. Clearly, providing
necessary resources to FDA is a paramount responsibility of the
Agriculture subcommittee.
For the reasons stated above, the fiscal constraints on the
Agriculture subcommittee for fiscal year 2009 are severe.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends programmatic increases
that are directly tied to the most basic of Federal
responsibilities. Namely, these include public (including food
and drug) safety, food security, family shelter, protection
from invasive species and related emergency threats, and
departmental/agency integrity (including workplace safety and
security). These limitations are sobering. However, given the
limited resources, the growing demands, and the expectations of
the American people, the Committee believes the priorities set
forth in this appropriations bill are the right and necessary
investments at this time.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report
request.
USDA DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE OF ETHICS ACTIVITIES
In order to streamline and make more efficient the USDA
Office of Ethics activities, the President's budget assumes the
transfer of $3,424,000 from multiple agencies within the
Department to a centralized Office of Ethics within the
Departmental Administration account. The Committee concurs with
this action and the account for each affected agency, as
reflected in the fiscal year 2008 level, includes a reduction
by the amount transferred to Departmental Administration for
this purpose.
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $5,061,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 19,749,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,174,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory
functions to Department employees and authorization of
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7
U.S.C. 450c-450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,174,000 for
the Office of the Secretary.
Animal Fighting.--The Committee is very concerned about
reports of illegal animal fighting activities and directs the
Secretary to work with relevant agencies on the most effective
and proper means for investigating and enforcing laws and
regulations regarding these activities.
Civil Rights.--Recent testimony presented by the Government
Accountability Office paints a very disturbing picture of the
management of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights. According to GAO, the office among other deficiencies,
is incapable of accurately tracking the number of complaints, a
most basic function. Because this has been an ongoing issue for
the Department, the Committee can only believe this is due to a
lack of commitment to the mission of the office. The Committee
directs the Secretary to personally review the situation, and
then develop and implement a plan that will effectively
eliminate the current backlog in a timely manner, while also
putting USDA on a footing to prevent a backlog from developing
in the future. The Secretary may not delegate this directive.
The Secretary shall submit the required plan to the Committee
no later than October 15, 2008.
Greenbook and Working Capital Fund Charges.--The Committee
is concerned that charges assessed to agencies by the USDA have
grown excessively over the last few years. The disclosure of
these charges to Congress is limited and may impact program
delivery. Beginning with the fiscal year 2010 budget submission
and for each year thereafter, the Committee directs the USDA to
explicitly present greenbook and working capital fund charges
for each agency in budget justifications, including prior year,
current year, and budget year charges, a description of how the
charges are assessed, and the proposed use of the funding that
has been charged to the agency.
Inherent Function of Government.--The Committee expects
that none of the funds recommended for Rural Development or the
Farm Service Agency should be used to enter into or renew a
contract for any activity that is best suited as an inherent
function of Government, without prior approval from the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, any function
that affects eligibility determination, disbursement,
collection or accounting for Government subsidies provided
under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of the
Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
International Humanitarian Food Assistance.--The Committee
continues its strong support for programs that provide
emergency food assistance throughout the world and work to
achieve sustainable food security. Contributions by individuals
with special expertise in humanitarian food assistance and
international agricultural challenges are extremely critical as
we witness a rising crisis of world hunger due in part to
climate change, shifting world commodity markets, civil unrest
and other factors. Funds are provided in this bill to support
the Borlaug Fellowship Program, authorized in the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Committee
believes this program will play an important role in expanding
the agricultural knowledge base throughout the world in order
to increase food production on a sustainable basis. In
addition, the Committee is aware of the ``Borlaug Dialogue''
(and its associated functions) which provides a forum for world
leadership related to international food assistance. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to support this activity and
for the Department to maintain a strong role in the fight
against world hunger.
The differing nutritional needs of populations,
particularly in areas with high incidents of HIV/AIDS and other
diseases, makes the composition and quality of foods available
through programs such as Public Law 480 and the McGovern-Dole
Food for Education Program extremely important elements in the
delivery of humanitarian food assistance. The Committee is
aware that the Department has taken actions within USDA during
fiscal year 2008 to ensure that food aid recipients have access
to products that better reflect dietary needs among varying
populations. However, these steps have not yet translated to
actual procurement and distribution changes in the field. The
Secretary is directed to continue working with the U.S. Agency
for International Development and affected stakeholders toward
modifications which are necessary to improve nutritional
benefits while maintaining efficiency in procurement and
payment practices. The Committee further requests the
Department to keep the Committee apprised of ongoing studies on
this subject.
Executive Operations
Executive operations were established as a result of the
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for
USDA policy officials and selected departmentwide services.
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Office of Homeland
Security.
CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $10,414,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 12,584,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,651,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis
related to domestic and international food and agriculture
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used
to develop outlook and situation material within the
Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,651,000
for the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for preferred procurement
and labeling for biobased products.
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $14,365,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 15,402,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,711,000
The National Appeals Division conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,711,000
for the National Appeals Division.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $8,212,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 9,054,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,449,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary
functions including development, presentation, and execution of
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy
officials and agency program managers in the decision-making
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative
programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,449,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $924,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 2,617,000
Committee recommendation................................ 974,000
The Office of Homeland Security formulates emergency
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of
Agriculture [USDA]. The Office directs and coordinates all of
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters,
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil
emergency planning and related activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $974,000 for
the Office of Homeland Security.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $16,246,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 18,305,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,527,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and
direction to the Department's information management and
information technology investment activities in support of USDA
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts.
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources
management projects, and implements standards to promote
information exchange and technical interoperability. In
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins,
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational
services are also provided to the Office of the General
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT
organization within the office of the Chief Information
Officer; this converged organization is named Information
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT
infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,527,000
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $5,809,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 6,221,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,954,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance,
and performance measurement activities within the Department.
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget,
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary,
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Office of Communications, and Executive Operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,954,000 for
the Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $847,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 897,000
Committee recommendation................................ 871,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
provides oversight of civil rights and related functions. This
includes coordination of the administration of civil rights
laws and regulations for employees of the Department of
Agriculture and participants in programs of the Department, and
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $871,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $20,353,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 21,551,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,798,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership
responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities.
These activities include employment opportunity as well as
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis,
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination,
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,798,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $668,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 739,000
Committee recommendation................................ 687,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics,
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for certain activities financed under the
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $687,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $194,878,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 231,105,000
Committee recommendation................................ 226,432,000
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.--
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building
Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in
leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area.
Annual appropriations finance payments to the General Services
Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services.
Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs
D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major
nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates
pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to
appeal. For the last several years the Department has
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $226,432,000
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year
2008 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 budget Committee
2008 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments................................................. 156,590 168,901 168,901
Building Operations............................................. 38,288 48,704 44,031
DHS Building Security........................................... .............. 13,500 13,500
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 194,878 231,105 226,432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Management
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $4,852,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 12,281,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,933,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,933,000 for
Hazardous Materials Management.
Departmental Administration
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $22,982,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 28,637,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,011,000
Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and
health management, real and personal property management,
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft
management, supply management, emergency preparedness, small
and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.
Departmental Administration is also responsible for
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies,
and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and
general officers of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,011,000
for Departmental Administration.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $3,768,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 4,099,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,877,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction
and coordination in the development and implementation of
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra-
and inter-governmental relations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,877,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations.
The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to
support congressional relations' activities at the agency
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this act, the
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency,
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these
transfers.
Office of Communications
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $9,273,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 9,961,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,514,000
The Office of Communications provides direction,
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of
useful information through all media to the public on USDA
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the
Department and the many associations and organizations with an
interest in USDA's mission areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,514,000 for
the Office of Communications.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $79,492,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 85,766,000
Committee recommendation................................ 81,517,000
The Office of the Inspector General was established October
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
452). This act expanded and provided specific authorities for
the activities of the Office of the Inspector General which had
previously been carried out under the general authorities of
the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control
of audit and investigative activities within the Department,
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and
coordination of program-related audit and investigation
activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and
investigative activities is large and includes administrative,
program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative
branches of the government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,517,000
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee
recommendation includes the fiscal year 2008 level for OIG to
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
Audit.--The Delta Regional Authority [DRA] Act of 2000
mandates that the OIG conduct recurring audits of the DRA. The
August 2006 audit of DRA's grant process found no anomalies,
which resulted in no monetary recoveries to DRA or USDA and
produced no substantial recommendations. Since DRA receives
funding from USDA annually, OIG currently has authority to
audit DRA at any time. The Committee believes that continuing
this audit mandate will further dilute resources within the OIG
and potentially distract from more urgent oversight work. A
general provision is included that terminates the audit
mandate.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $38,952,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 42,852,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,083,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings;
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial
proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,083,000
for the Office of the General Counsel.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $592,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 609,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical
information. The Office has oversight and management
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $609,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
Biofuels Internship Program.--The Department is encouraged
to study the value of creating an internship pilot program that
would focus on producing agricultural biofuels from biomass. In
determining the value of creating this internship program, the
Department should consider allowing economically disadvantaged
and minority students pursuing an undergraduate program in
agriculture with direct relevance to biofuels and renewable
energy to gain practical work experience through placements
within Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of Energy, private companies, and non-profit
organizations. The Department should evaluate whether this
internship program would enhance ongoing efforts to develop a
skilled workforce in the area of alternative energy, and
contribute to related national efforts to enhance agriculture
production and economic development in the U.S. agriculture
sector.
Invasive Species.--The Committee recognizes the increasing
threat of the invasive species Phragmites to wetlands and
wildlife in many national watersheds including the Great Lake,
Chesapeake Bay, Upper Mississippi, and the Platte River, and
therefore there is a need to research and find cost efficient
means for the long term control and reduction of Phragmites.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to address this emerging
problem.
Methyl Bromide.--The Committee is aware that the Department
is working with the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] on a
meta-analysis of methyl bromide. The Committee supports this
analysis and encourages the Department to continue to work with
the EPA until the results are complete.
Northwest Michigan Horticultural Research Station.--The
Committee is aware of the significant contributions the
Northwest Michigan Horticultural Research Station has made to
cherry growers throughout the United States, particularly in
Utah. The Committee encourages the Department to strongly
support the work of the research station and to provide
additional funds, as available, for enhanced research.
REE Reorganization.--The Committee notes the intent of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to improve the
coordination of the Department's research portfolio. The USDA's
research and education system has been and remains a key to
maintaining a safe, economic, and abundant supply of food and
fiber for the American people. The Department's research and
education programs must continue to be effective and efficient
to meet the difficult and complex issues confronting farmers,
ranchers, industry and consumers alike. The Committee expects
that the reorganization, once in place, will avoid duplication
and layering of administrative functions. Indeed, the Congress
expects management efficiencies, if not cost savings, as a
result of the newly authorized legislation. Appropriations, as
noted elsewhere in this report, are limited and spending is
constrained.
In this regard, the Committee directs the Secretary to
provide the Committee fiscal year 2008 baseline amounts for
management funding levels for each of the four mission-area
agencies as well as REE operations at headquarters; any
administrative and management contracts issued at headquarters;
and greenbook and working capital funds costs. These reports
and associated costs will provide the Committee with a baseline
to compare reorganization costs and to ensure the American
people that USDA is committed to reduced bureaucracy and
enhanced program results.
Economic Research Service
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $77,324,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 82,106,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,209,000
The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and
other social science information and analysis for public and
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the
general public and to help the executive and legislative
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and
rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,209,000
for the Economic Research Service. The Committee directs that
no less than the fiscal year 2008 level be used to carry out
the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $162,137,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 153,475,000
Committee recommendation................................ 149,115,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]
administers the Department's program of collecting and
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely
projections of current agricultural production and measures of
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural
sector which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical
assistance, and training to developing countries.
The Service is also responsible for administration of the
Census of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings,
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops,
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,115,000
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Included in
this amount is $37,265,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
Chemical Use Data.--The Committee directs NASS to carry out
the Chemical Use Data study. Further, the Committee expects the
agency not to disrupt ongoing market analysis reporting and to
notify the Committee in advance of any termination of other
ongoing NASS activities.
Organic Data Collection.--The Committee encourages NASS to
take all necessary steps, including a follow-up Census of
Agriculture survey, to collect in-depth coverage on acreage,
yield, production, inventory, production practices, sales and
expenses, marketing channels, and demographics of the organics
industry.
Potato Objective Yield Survey.--The Committee expects NASS
to continue the potato objective yield survey.
Agricultural Research Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $1,120,635,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 1,037,016,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,134,084,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil,
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity;
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental
conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information
and library services through traditional library functions and
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public
and private organizations, and individuals.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for
conducting and leading the national agricultural research
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas:
research on broad regional and national problems, research to
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to
meet national emergencies, research support for international
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and
Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of
technical information and technical products which bear
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil,
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural
products by observing practices that will maintain a
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's
balance of payments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,134,084,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
The Committee recognizes the successful history of ARS, the
premier in-house USDA research agency, and strongly supports
ongoing research activities vital to protecting this Nation's
food supply, environment, rural communities, and working toward
energy independence.
The fiscal year 2009 appropriation includes $15,125,000 for
pay costs and $3,000,000 for research enhancements for food
security in specific areas of pests and disease affecting
domestic production and to support the USDA mission in fighting
world hunger. Of the total appropriation for fiscal year 2009,
the Committee recommends $1,115,959,000 to continue ongoing
research programs and activities at the locations and at levels
no less than provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee
concurs with the President's fiscal year 2009 proposal as it
relates to the following: Invasive Weed Management Research;
Lyme Disease 4 Poster Project; Mosquito Trapping Research/West
Nile Virus; National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant;
NutriCore/Nutrition Interventions; Source Water Protection
Initiatives; and Vector-Borne Diseases. In addition, the
Committee provides the following directives:
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory.--The
fiscal year 2009 budget request proposes to relocate the
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory [ABADRL]
from its current location in Laramie, Wyoming. Before deciding
whether it is appropriate to relocate the lab, the Committee
requests ARS to provide a report describing the current status
of the laboratory's facilities and research. Additionally, the
Committee requests ARS to provide an assessment of no fewer
than two locations that could serve as the new location of
ABADRL. When selecting the locations to assess, ARS should
consider the facilities, capacity, expertise, and synergies
relevant to fulfilling and expediting the ABADRL mission that
are offered by each potential location. Any remarkable fiscal
issues should also be noted.
Biomass Feedstock.--The Committee directs that fiscal year
2008 funding for precision agriculture at the Northern Great
Plains Research Laboratory in Mandan, ND, shall be made
available to expand biomass feedstock research at that
location.
Center for Agroforestry.--The Committee expects that the
funds made available for the Center for Agroforestry be used to
continue research into all five temperate-zone agroforestry
practices applicable in Midwestern states.
Combating World Hunger.--Agricultural research, exemplified
by the work of the ARS, is a leading reason for the U.S.
prominence in food production throughout the world. However, we
continue to witness devastating images of people in undeveloped
and developing countries struggle with chronic hunger. The toll
of that struggle on the human spirit is appalling and the costs
in lives and the redirection of resources from other parts of
the world to meet growing international assistance needs argues
strongly for the development of sustainable food systems in
those countries now dependent on foreign assistance. To help
meet that need, the Committee recommendation includes
$1,000,000 for research in the area of agriculture production
designed to assist farming regions in which populations are now
the beneficiaries of international food assistance.
Human Nutrition.--The Committee recognizes the need to
investigate diet-related health problems, which include obesity
and its associated illnesses and that these needs are
particularly great in rural and Native American communities.
Accordingly, the Committee continues support for the ARS Grand
Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, which provides unique
contributions related to these nutrition-related challenges and
maintains funding for the Center. Further, the Committee
directs the agency to continue development of the Center's
programs to address obesity and diet-related health issues in
rural and Native American communities, the study of minerals
and other nutrients contained in widely consumed foods
contributing to healthy diets, and the role of nutrition in
preventing chronic diseases among all Americans.
The Human Nutrition Centers, including the Center in Little
Rock, Arkansas, focus on the effects of dietary factors and
nutritional status (including body composition) on disease
prevention and maintenance of good health. The Committee
recommends that particular attention be given to critical
periods of development and vulnerable stages of life (including
the nutritional status of women at the time of conception;
nutritional issues during pregnancy and lactation; and diets,
nutrition, and the development of eating behaviors during
childhood, adolescence, and later stages of life). The
Committee further recommends attention to disease prevention of
cancer, cardiovascular disease, and bone and muscle disease.
Other extremely important areas requiring continued attention
include brain development and cognitive function in children;
maintenance of cognitive function and vision in the elderly;
the developmental origins of adult health and disease; the
effects of non-nutrient bioactive food components; the
development, function, and enhancement of the immune system;
the understanding of dietary influences on inflammation; and
gene/nutrient interactions.
The Committee is aware of need for upgrades of the
Metabolic Diet Facility at the Human Nutrition Research Center
on Aging at Tufts University and encourages ARS to initiate
such improvements from within available funds.
National Agricultural Library [NAL] Digitop.--The NAL
initiated a digitop information service in 2004 to
electronically deliver published information about agriculture,
forestry, and related fields to individuals, universities, and
other institutions and customers. This program provides
continuous access to key data bases, journals, and other
electronic resources. The Committee expects the NAL to complete
its plan to encompass its total portfolio of services under the
digitop umbrella and provide a report on the status of this
activity.
Phytoestrogen Research.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of phytoestrogen research at the Southern Research
Center in collaboration with the Center for Bioenvironmental
Research at Tulane and Xavier Universities and the Laboratory
for Soy Products and Health at the University of Toledo.
Funding in this bill is provided to support research to
characterize phytoestrogenic compound and determine structure
activity relationships in animal system bioassays.
Pollinator Recovery.--The Committee continues its strong
concern for reports of Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD] and
indications that this threat to the U.S. food supply is
spreading. Honey bees and other pollinators perform a vital
function relating to the production of much of our fruit and
vegetable production, and the threat of CCD places this
production at high risk. The Committee provides a total of
$10,439,000 for ARS research related to pollinator species,
including an increase of $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2008
level specifically tied to research on the cause and control of
CCD. The Committee requests a report on the progress of the
agency relating to CCD, the specific areas of pollinator
research conducted at the various ARS locations, and the manner
in which those activities relate to the subject of CCD.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee is aware
that at present there is no Great Lakes research program
directed to the problem of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS]
or other emerging diseases in fish. There is a critical need
for the monitoring, diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and
prevention of VHS and other such diseases, and the Committee
encourages ARS to work with research institutions around the
Great Lakes to ascertain the extent to which VHS is present in
U.S. waters, develop an effective vaccine to VHS, and establish
the genetic basis for resistance to VHS in fish.
Wheat Stem Rust.--The rapid spread of the wheat stem rust
known as Ug99, from East Africa to the Arabian Peninsula and
most recently to the Middle East is of great concern to the
Committee. Ug99 is a very virulent strain of stem rust and
could threaten 80 percent of the world's wheat supply
(including wheat production in the United States) if resistant
varieties of wheat are not developed. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to speed efforts to develop
Ug99 resistant wheat varieties.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $46,752,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 13,220,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,995,000
The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the
regular account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,995,000
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research
Service.
Modern research facilities are an important part of the
ability of ARS to meet the objectives of its mission purpose,
and the Committee recommends funding to ensure that
modernization and upgrades of facilities are achieved.
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all
ongoing projects. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations for Agricultural Research Service
Buildings and Facilities:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Research Center; Pullman, WA.............. 1,870
Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory; 1,780
Alcorn State, MS.....................................
Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT............... 1,600
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory; Bowling 1,390
Green, KY............................................
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV....... 1,000
ARS Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT........... 5,561
Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du 2,558
Sac, WI..............................................
Forage-Animal Production Research Facility; Lexington, 2,085
KY...................................................
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station; Hagerman, ID 695
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center; 2,000
Stoneville, MS.......................................
National Plant and Genetics Security Center; Columbia, 2,086
MO...................................................
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center; Hilo, HI.. 2,000
Poultry Science Research Facility; Starkville, MS..... 1,780
Sugarcane Research Laboratory; Houma, LA.............. 3,200
Systems Biology Research Facility; Lincoln, NE........ 1,390
-----------------
Total........................................... 30,995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee
directs ARS, when planning and designing the National Plant and
Genetics Security Center, to include plans for expanded
vivarium capacity.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The
mission is to work with university partners and customers to
advance research, extension, and higher education in the food
and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $668,286,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 535,277,000
Committee recommendation................................ 629,871,000
The research and education programs administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal
entree to the university system of the United States to support
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2)
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.); and the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and
assist the State institutions to conduct agricultural research
and education through the State agricultural experiment
stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the 1890 land-
grant institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia
State University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by
other eligible institutions.
The research and education programs participate in a
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $629,871,000
for research and education activities of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service. In addition to the
appropriation for research and education activities, this bill
makes available an additional $68,000,000 in mandatory funding
for research related to organics, specialty crops, beginning
farmer and rancher, and renewable energy research. Therefore,
CSREES will have a total of $697,871,000 in funding for
research and related activities in fiscal year 2009, which is
an increase of $29,585,000 above the previous year.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for research and education activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act............................... 205,602
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis)....... 26,031
Payments to 1890 Institutions.......................... 43,104
Special research grants:
Advanced genetic technologies, University of 481
Kentucky Research Foundation......................
Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX 149
Aegilops cylindrica/Biomass (jointed goatgrass), 200
Washington State University.......................
Agricultural diversity, University of Minnesota, 200
Crookston.........................................
Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives, 248
Pennsylvania State University.....................
Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas 300
AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............
Alliance for food protection, University of 130
Nebraska..........................................
Animal disease research, University of Wyoming..... 258
Animal Health, Forages for Advancing Livestock 291
Production Project, KY............................
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University 1,000
of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State
University, Kansas State University...............
Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York 200
State Agricultural Experiment Station, University
of Michigan.......................................
Aquaculture product & marketing development, West 521
Virginia University...............................
Aquaculture, Louisiana State University 200
Agricultural Center...............................
Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry 385
Experiment Station................................
Aquaculture, North Carolina State University....... 242
Armillaria root rot, Michigan State University..... 111
Asparagus technology and production, Washington 184
State University..................................
Avian bioscience, University of Delaware........... 100
Barley for Rural Development, Montana State 547
University, University of Idaho...................
Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University. 223
Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State 894
University, Mississippi State University..........
Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and 187
Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University...
Center for One Medicine............................ 250
Center for Public Land and Rural Economies, Utah 223
State University..................................
Center for rural studies, University of Vermont 261
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..........
Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of 180
Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..
Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida...... 200
Competitiveness of agricultural products, 350
Washington State University and the University of
Washington........................................
Cool season legume research, North Dakota State 250
University, University of Idaho, Washington State
University........................................
Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality, 368
University of Georgia.............................
Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers, 480
The State University of New Jersey................
Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts... 118
Crop integration and production, South Dakota State 275
University........................................
Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M 100
University........................................
Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State 372
University........................................
Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State 187
University........................................
Designing foods for health, Texas AgriLife 500
Research, College Station, TX.....................
Detection and Food Safety, Auburn University, AL... 1,862
Drought management, Utah State University.......... 670
Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, 575
Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas
AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............
Environmentally safe products, University of 200
Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..
Floriculture, University of Hawaii................. 259
Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University...... 298
Food safety, Texas AgriLife Research, College 74
Station, TX.......................................
Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California 750
Functional Genomics, Utah State University......... 1,192
Future foods, University of Illinois............... 450
Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease, 849
Mississippi State University......................
Global change UV/B radiation, Colorado State 1,500
University........................................
Grain sorghum, Kansas State University, Texas Tech 548
University........................................
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable 150
agriculture, Oregon State University, University
of Idaho, Washington State University.............
Great Basin Environmental Program, University of 225
Nevada--Reno......................................
High Performance Computing, Utah State University.. 559
Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research 526
Center, Baton Rouge, LA...........................
Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural commodities, 642
University of Idaho...............................
Infectious disease research, Colorado State 609
University........................................
Institute of Agriculture--Phytosensors for Crop 745
Security, University of Tennessee.................
Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical 200
Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems,
Purdue University.................................
Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and 447
Extension, Utah State University..................
Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State 112
University........................................
Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY, 200
Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX......
Livestock waste, Iowa State University............. 196
Lowbush Wild Blueberry research, University of 184
Maine.............................................
Managed Drainage System for Crop Production, 250
University of Missouri--Columbia..................
Maple research, University of Vermont College of 165
Agriculture and Life Sciences.....................
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, 365
University of Nebraska............................
Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue 200
University........................................
Midwest poultry consortium, Iowa State University.. 250
Milk safety, Pennsylvania State University......... 821
Montana Sheep Institute, Montana State University.. 270
National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, 655
Colorado State University, Cornell University,
University of Georgia.............................
National Center for Soybean Technology, University 735
of Missouri--Columbia.............................
Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico 223
State University..................................
Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of 400
Nevada--Reno......................................
New Century Farm, Iowa State University............ 300
New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY.............. 559
New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for 697
Agriculture, Mississippi State University.........
Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State 187
University........................................
Organic cropping, Oregon State University.......... 149
Organic cropping, Washington State University...... 264
Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State 74
University........................................
Peach tree short life research, Clemson University, 208
SC................................................
Pierce's disease, University of California......... 1,500
Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable 149
Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, Texas
AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............
Potato Cyst Nematode, University of Idaho.......... 372
Potato research, Oregon State University, 750
University of Idaho, Washington State University,
University of Maine...............................
Precision agriculture, Auburn University, AL....... 446
Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky 502
Research Foundation...............................
Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University.... 151
Protein utilization, Iowa State University......... 600
Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State 1,000
University........................................
Ruminant nutrition consortium, University of 600
Nebraska--Lincoln, South Dakota State University..
Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University..... 228
Seed technology, South Dakota State University..... 300
Small fruit research, Oregon State University, 300
University of Idaho, Washington State University..
Soil and Environmental Quality, University of 75
Delaware..........................................
Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated 187
Agriculture, New Mexico State University..........
Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico 250
State University..................................
Soybean research, National Soybean Research 500
Laboratory at the University of Illinois..........
Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of 175
Agriculture.......................................
Sustainable agriculture & natural resources, 142
Pennsylvania State University.....................
Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University.. 200
Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable 250
Resources, Virginia Tech..........................
Sweet Sorghum for Energy Production, University of 149
Nebraska--Lincoln.................................
Swine and other animal waste management, North 372
Carolina State University.........................
Tillage, silviculture, waste management, Louisiana 200
State University..................................
Tri-state joint peanut research, Auburn University, 440
AL................................................
Tropical and subtropical research/T-STAR, 800
University of Hawaii..............................
Uniform farm management program, University of 250
Minnesota.........................................
Virtual plant database enhancement project, 626
Missouri Botanical Garden.........................
Viticulture consortium, Cornell University, 1,200
University of California..........................
Water conservation, Kansas State University........ 74
Water use efficiency and water quality 368
enhancements, University of Georgia...............
Wetland plants, Louisiana State University......... 200
Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University.... 256
Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State 237
University........................................
Wood utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, 4,841
OR, TN, WV).......................................
----------------
Total, special research grants................... 50,749
================
Improved pest control:
Expert IPM decision support system................. 154
Integrated pest management......................... 2,379
IR-4 minor crop pest management.................... 11,368
Pest management alternatives....................... 1,412
----------------
Total, Improved pest control..................... 15,313
================
1994 institutions research program..................... 1,610
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative............... 200,000
Agriculture and Rural Policy Research.................. 2,602
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving 3,196
institutions education grants.........................
Alternative crops...................................... 819
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)........................ 3,928
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions)........... 13,592
Critical Agricultural Materials Act.................... 1,083
Graduate fellowships grants............................ 3,859
Hispanic education partnership grants.................. 6,046
Institution challenge grants........................... 5,654
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management........... 983
Multicultural scholars program......................... 981
Payments to the 1994 institutions...................... 3,319
Secondary agriculture education........................ 983
Sustainable agriculture research and education......... 14,399
Resident instruction grants for insular areas.......... 745
Veterinary Medical Services Act........................ 5,000
Federal administration:
Agriculture development in the American Pacific, 372
University of Hawaii..............................
Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State 485
University........................................
Agriculture-based industrial lubricants, University 405
of Northern Iowa..................................
Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, 250
California State University.......................
Aquaculture Research, Rhode Island Coastal 298
Resources Management Council......................
Aquaculture, Cheyney University, PA................ 164
Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS 511
Botanical research, Utah State University.......... 670
Center for North American studies, Texas AgriLife 200
Research, College Station, TX.....................
Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania 340
Department of Agriculture.........................
Cotton research, Texas Tech University............. 300
Council for Agriculture and Technology, Ames, IA... 112
Electronic Grants Administration System............ 2,136
Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD.... 500
Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University... 112
Feed efficiency, West Virginia University.......... 112
Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, 250
University of Central Florida.....................
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen F. Austin 298
State University, TX..............................
Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center 187
MATRIC, Iowa State University.....................
Mississippi Valley State University................ 1,067
NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of 150
Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the
University of Maine...............................
Office of Extramural Programs...................... 440
Pay Cost........................................... 4,973
Peer Panels........................................ 397
PM-10 air quality study, Washington State 150
University........................................
Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS... 1,367
Research, Education, and Economics Information 2,704
System............................................
Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS........ 229
Shellfish, University of Rhode Island.............. 261
Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern 300
Mississippi.......................................
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, 223
OH................................................
Water pollutants, Marshall University, WV.......... 410
----------------
Total, Federal administration.................... 20,373
================
Total, CSREES Research and Education Activities.. 629,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000,000 for the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative [AFRI].
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 specifies priority areas within the newly created
Agriculture Food and Research Initiative [AFRI], including a
emphasis on conventional (classical) plant and animal breeding.
The Committee strongly concurs with the intent of this section,
and requests a report from the agency as to its plans for
implementing the intent of this important conventional/
classical plant and animal breeding requirement.
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced
human resources development in the agricultural and related
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee
continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's
agricultural research enhancement awards program (including
USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
Agriculture and Rural Policy Research.--The Secretary is
authorized to make grants and take other actions under 7 U.S.C.
3155 for research and related activities concerning public
policy and trade agreements and their effect on the farm and
agricultural sector; the environment; rural families,
households, and economies; and consumers, food, and nutrition.
The Committee recommends $2,602,000 for activities under this
authority.
Of the amount available for Agriculture and Rural Policy
Research [ARPR], $1,213,000 is provided for the Food and
Agriculture Policy Institute [FAPRI]. Of the amount available
for FAPRI, $200,000 shall be provided to continue a cooperative
agreement with the University of Wisconsin relating to dairy
policy and $149,000 shall be used to conduct analysis of
rangeland, cattle, and hay with the University of Nevada--Reno.
In addition, of the amount available for ARPR, $889,000
shall be available for the Rural Policies Research Institute
and $500,000 shall be available for the National Drought
Mitigation Center.
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends
$3,196,000 for grants to individual eligible institutions or
consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii,
with grant funds to be awarded equally between Alaska and
Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242.
The Committee directs the agency to fully comply with the use
of grant funds as authorized.
Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $819,000 for
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption
needs and encourages the Department to seek stakeholder input
and to provide funds in a manner that reaches those areas most
likely to see expansions in canola production.
Community Food Projects.--The Committee expects the
Department of Agriculture to consider as fully eligible for
Community Food Project [CFP] grants any program that encourages
the effective use of community resources to combat hunger and
the root causes of hunger through the recovery of donated food,
distribution of meals to nonprofit organizations, and the
training of unemployed and underemployed adults for careers in
food service. The Committee considers such programs to meet the
requisite eligibility standards for CFP grants in that they
meet the food needs of low-income people, increase the self-
reliance of communities in providing their own food needs, and
plan for long-term solutions to address such needs.
Floriculture and Tropical and Subtropical Research.--The
Committee provides funding to carry out floriculture research
in Hawaii and expects priorities of this activity (as defined
by industry stakeholders) to include the maintenance and
improvement of germplasm of orchid, anthurium, and protea to
derive and release new commercial varieties and continue
research on disease resistance and insect control. The
Committee also provides funding for tropical and subtropical
research and supports the current mechanism of solicitation,
recommendation and distribution of funds through the Pacific
Basin and Caribbean Basin Administration Groups.
Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource
research were an integral part of the National Research
Initiative, the predecessor program to the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative [AFRI]. As this program has grown, however,
the allocation of AFRI funds by CSREES for research on forestry
and related natural resource topics has fallen behind. In the
future, the Committee directs the AFRI program administrator to
put a greater emphasis on AFRI funding for forestry and natural
resources topics with a goal of eventually providing at least
10 percent of the total funds provided for AFRI for forestry
and natural resources related research on topics including:
woody plant systems, including large scale efforts to sequence
the genome for several economically important tree species,
technologies for enhanced pest and disease resistance, and
increased tree growth rates; management of complex forest
ecosystems, including issues of forest health, productivity,
economic sustainability, and restoration; assessing alternative
management strategies, with emphasis on risk analysis,
geospatial analysis including landscape implications,
consideration of ecological services, providing decision
support systems; and development of nanotechnology and
biorefining technologies for the forest products sector as
critical to enhancing global competitiveness and energy
security.
National Veterinary Medical Services Act.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to carry out the National
Veterinary Medical Services Act [NVMSA]. In speaking of
previous funding levels for this purpose, the Secretary has
noted that ``the modest appropriations to date make
implementation of this section [NVMSA] impractical''. The level
recommended by the Committee is a substantial increase from
fiscal year 2008 and this amount coupled with previously
appropriated funds will provide the level necessary to
implement this program. Therefore, the Committee fully expects
the Secretary to implement NVSMA in fiscal year 2009 which will
be an important step to place critically necessary animal
health practitioners in Rural America and as an important
element in support of homeland security. The Committee further
requests a report on implementation of this program.
Special Research Grants.--The Committee recognizes the
vital relationships between Federal research activities and
land grant institutions and firmly supports the importance of
congressionally recognized research priorities. The Special
Research Grants program was authorized by the Congress to
promote research among these partners in specific areas of need
to meet emerging and long-term national and regional
challenges.
The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible
institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as
Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the
purpose of conducting research and related activities to
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the
food and agricultural sciences of the United States. The
authorizing statute directs that these grants be provided
through State-Federal partnerships to promote excellence of
such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the
development of regional research centers, and to generally
support these activities among the States, the regions, and the
Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can
only be awarded if it the proposed activity has undergone
scientific peer review and that the grantee submit an annual
report to the Secretary describing the results of the research
or related activity and the merits of the results.
Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its
intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants
awarded under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included
requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth
explanations of prospective research objectives, and an
understanding that grantees should not expect indefinite fiscal
assistance from the Committee under this authority. In
addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that
ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to specific research
projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on emerging
important research priorities and result in a less efficient
Federal investment in agricultural and related research.
For fiscal year 2009, the Committee continues its
responsibility of expressing congressional interest and
intervention in setting research priorities through the
investment of Federal funds. As the Committee has expressed in
previous years, specific problems require specific objectives
and specific attention. Therefore, the individual research
activities described in this report are intended to accomplish
the objectives set forth in this report and are not intended to
extend into ongoing, long-term, indefinite research endeavors.
The Secretary is encouraged to work with grantees to ensure
that research conducted with these funds is set to achieve
specific objectives and to refrain from undertaking research of
an indefinite nature. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide a report by March 1, 2009 regarding the status of grant
awards for fiscal year 2009 and the specific objectives to be
sought in each case.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native
Americans by building educational capacity at these
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention,
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation,
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund,
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count;
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $453,157,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 431,753,000
Committee recommendation................................ 464,272,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges,
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics,
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs,
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the
colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State
and county extension offices in each State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct
educational programs to improve American agriculture and
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $464,272,000
for extension activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for extension activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c)..................... 288,393
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
Farm safety........................................ 4,726
Food and nutrition education [EFNEP]............... 65,557
Indian reservation agents.......................... 2,979
New technologies for extension..................... 1,549
Pest management.................................... 9,791
Sustainable agriculture............................ 4,568
Youth at risk...................................... 7,968
Youth farm safety education and certification...... 463
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia 37,643
State University Colleges.............................
1890 facilities grants................................. 17,267
Extension services at the 1994 institutions............ 3,298
Renewable Resources Extension Act [RREA]............... 4,008
Rural health and safety education...................... 1,738
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database................. 806
Federal administration:
Ag in the Classroom................................ 553
Childhood Farm Safety, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, 74
Urbandale, IA.....................................
Conservation technology transfer, University of 400
Wisconsin Extension...............................
Dairy education, Iowa State University............. 169
E-commerce, Mississippi State University........... 246
Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, 475
Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX......
Extension specialist, Mississippi State University. 98
General administration............................. 7,433
Health education leadership, University of Kentucky 628
Research Foundation...............................
Iowa vitality center, Iowa State University........ 223
National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa 168
Community College.................................
Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin 800
Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public
Institutions......................................
Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev 496
Foundation, OH....................................
Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables, University of 350
Wisconsin Extension...............................
Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State 223
University, Oklahoma State University.............
Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight, 298
University of Maine...............................
Range improvement, New Mexico State University..... 223
Rural technologies, Maui Economic Development 150
Board, HI.........................................
Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic 111
Garden, Glencoe, IL...............................
Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin 400
Extension and Growing Power.......................
----------------
Total, Federal administration.................... 13,518
----------------
Total, CSREES Extension Activities............... 464,272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $55,850,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 20,120,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,850,000
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,850,000
for integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations for integrated activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Quality........................................... 12,649
Food Safety............................................. 14,596
Regional Pest Management Centers........................ 4,096
Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation.................. 1,365
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems 4,388
Methyl Bromide Transition Program....................... 3,054
Organic Transition Program.............................. 1,842
---------------
Total, section 406................................ 41,990
===============
International Science and Education Grants Program...... 1,986
Critical Issues Program................................. 732
Regional Rural Development Centers Program.............. 1,312
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative (Homeland 9,830
Security)..............................................
---------------
Total, CSREES Integrated Activities............... 55,850
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $6,395,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 6,930,000
Committee recommendation................................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee does not include a recommendation for this
program. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
provides $15,000,000 for this activity and repeals the
authorization for appropriations.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $716,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 792,000
Committee recommendation................................ 737,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock,
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services;
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $737,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $867,322,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 919,137,000
Committee recommendation................................ 860,989,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas
of activity, as follows:
Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic
activities.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations;
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the
agency.
Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These
activities include inspection of certain establishments that
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets,
and monitoring certain horse shows.
Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs
other regulatory activities, including the development of
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness;
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication
programs in other functional components; applied research to
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $860,989,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
The following table reflects the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2009 budget Committee
2008 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION:
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI]................. 26,874 27,059 26,979
Cattle Fever Ticks....................................... 7,600 9,907 7,833
Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease............ 8,634 4,000 7,000
Fruit Fly Exclusion & Detection.......................... 60,298 67,406 61,088
Import/Export............................................ 11,158 13,576 12,963
Overseas Technical & Trade Operations.................... ............... 19,369 15,725
Screwworm................................................ 27,559 28,797 27,635
Trade Issues Resolution & Management..................... 12,417 ............... ...............
Tropical Bont Tick....................................... 421 435 425
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion................... 154,961 170,549 159,648
==================================================
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING:
Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance.................. 122,507 143,585 124,146
Animal & Plant Health Reg. Enforcement................... 12,352 13,694 12,583
Avian Influenza.......................................... ............... 59,849 59,849
Biosurveillance.......................................... 1,977 ............... ...............
Emergency Management Systems............................. 15,265 18,380 15,619
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza........................ 51,047 ............... ...............
National Veterinary Stockpile............................ ............... 8,166 3,739
Pest Detection........................................... 27,530 31,363 27,776
Select Agents............................................ 4,221 5,997 4,259
Wildlife Disease Monitoring & Surveillance............... ............... 1,300 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring........... 234,899 282,334 247,971
==================================================
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT:
Aquaculture.............................................. 6,807 3,787 6,920
Biological Control....................................... 9,514 10,158 9,737
Brucellosis.............................................. 9,465 9,211 9,584
Chronic Wasting Disease.................................. 17,682 10,391 17,808
Contingency Funds........................................ 993 4,195 3,025
Cotton Pests............................................. 37,008 14,162 29,590
Emerging Plant Pests..................................... 126,964 145,498 127,549
Golden Nematode.......................................... 801 845 816
Grasshopper.............................................. 6,597 4,577 6,456
Gypsy Moth............................................... 4,769 4,994 4,843
Imported Fire Ant........................................ 1,885 2,158 1,893
Johne's Disease.......................................... 10,539 3,319 6,821
Low Pathogen Avian Influenza............................. 15,610 ............... ...............
Noxious Weeds............................................ 1,776 1,150 1,773
Plum Pox................................................. 2,184 3,225 2,195
Private Land Initiative for Invasive Species............. ............... 500 ...............
Pseudorabies............................................. 2,385 2,532 2,446
Scrapie.................................................. 17,978 17,487 18,145
Tuberculosis............................................. 15,289 16,948 15,393
Wildlife Services Operations............................. 74,919 73,258 74,163
Witchweed................................................ 1,504 1,532 1,510
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management.................. 364,669 329,927 340,667
==================================================
ANIMAL CARE:
Animal Welfare........................................... 20,498 21,522 20,894
Horse Protection......................................... 494 499 497
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Animal Care.................................. 20,992 22,021 21,391
==================================================
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES:
Biosecurity.............................................. 1,938 ............... ...............
Biotechnology Regulatory Services........................ 11,729 16,306 11,877
Environmental Compliance................................. 2,627 2,874 2,669
Plant Methods Development Labs........................... 9,483 10,818 9,712
Veterinary Biologics..................................... 16,541 19,580 16,922
Veterinary Diagnostics................................... 23,093 33,241 23,511
Wildlife Services Methods Development.................... 17,755 19,579 17,986
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services............ 83,166 102,398 82,677
==================================================
MANAGEMENT:
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure.............. 4,474 5,029 4,474
Physical/Operational Security............................ 4,161 6,879 4,161
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Management................................... 8,635 11,908 8,635
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, APHIS........................................... 867,322 919,137 860,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is unable to recommend the full increases
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. However, the Committee does
recommend increases for a number of specific animal and plant
health programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
continue use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit
Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as
identified in the President's budget and any additional
emergencies as the Secretary determines necessary.
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes an appropriation of $26,979,000 for the AQI
appropriated account to conduct preclearance quarantine
inspections of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles
destined for movement from the State of Hawaii to the
continental United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United
States Virgin Islands.
Interline Activities.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,750,000 for interline activities in Hawaii. The
State of Hawaii is currently under a Federal quarantine for
fruit flies. This quarantine requires the predeparture
inspection of all airline passengers and luggage departing
Hawaii for the U.S. mainland. Although APHIS currently provides
funding to pay for inspections at the Honolulu airport, this
funding will pay for federally required inspections for flights
originating at neighbor island airports and connecting in
Honolulu.
Phytosanitary Standards.--The Committee urges the
Department to establish protocols that allow shipment of
untreated fruits and vegetables grown in Hawaii to cold-weather
States during winter months while maintaining reasonable
assurances that potential transshipment of such produce will
not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards of warm weather
States. The Committee also urges the Department to follow the
same scientific principles used to justify rules for foreign
imports in promulgating rules for exports from Hawaii to the
U.S. mainland.
Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $61,088,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection
program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2008 level shall
be used to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving
into the United States as well as activities at U.S. borders.
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $124,146,000 for the animal health monitoring and
surveillance program.
Animal Identification.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,787,000 to continue implementation of the National
Animal Identification System.
Bio-safety.--The Committee recommendation includes $240,000
to address bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant
strains of bacterial pathogens in the State of Vermont.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee
recommendation includes $17,799,000 to continue the ongoing BSE
surveillance program.
Disease Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,400,000 to work with North Dakota State University
and Dickinson State University to develop, test, and implement
the use of RFID tags for animal identification, strengthening
pathogen diagnostic and identification capabilities and
pinpointing problem areas in the traceback systems and methods
to resolve them.
National Farm Animal Identification and Records.--The
Committee recommendation includes $343,000 to allow additional
producers to participate in the National Farm Animal
Identification and Records Project, which electronically
identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from
birth to slaughter within 48 hours in order to combat animal
disease outbreaks.
New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $404,000 for the New Mexico
Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection
and reporting system for infectious animal diseases.
Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,550,000 for a cooperative
agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection to continue work carried out by the
Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium. The Wisconsin
Livestock Identification Consortium serves as a national model
and laboratory for premise registration, a critical first step
for nationwide animal identification efforts. This work is key
to national efforts to improve the traceability of livestock
and manage potential animal diseases thereby protecting public
health and safety.
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $12,583,000 for the animal and plant health regulatory
enforcement program to support Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.
Avian Influenza
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $59,849,000 for avian influenza activities.
Delmarva Peninsula.--The Committee is aware of the large
poultry industry on the Delmarva Peninsula and the presence of
live poultry markets in the Mid-Atlantic region. In preparation
for a possible introduction of highly pathogenic avian
influenza into the United States, the location and
concentration of this industry, and its proximity to high human
population centers and the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds,
require serious response capabilities. Accordingly, the
Committee encourages the Secretary to work with appropriate
Delaware State officials and with the University of Delaware,
to develop proper surveillance, diagnostic, and response
systems.
Emergency Management Systems
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $15,619,000 for emergency management systems.
National Veterinary Stockpile
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,739,000 for the National Veterinary Stockpile.
Pest Detection
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $27,776,000 for pest detection.
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $619,000 to continue the
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program, which is
a statewide network of insect traps and other detection tools
to serve as an early warning system against serious
agricultural pests in the State of California.
Import Inspection.--California's agricultural industry is
highly susceptible to exotic pests due to its international
border and as home to some of the Nation's busiest seaports.
The California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program is
operated at points of entry in California to prevent the
establishment of serious agricultural and environmental
invasive pests and diseases. This funding will address the
growing of interstate shipments from international ports of
entry in other States, where inspectors are not monitoring for
the pests that could devastate California agriculture. The
Committee recommendation includes $738,000 for this program.
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT
Aquaculture
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,920,000 for the aquaculture program.
Cormorant and Pelican Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $569,000 to continue telemetry and
population dynamics studies and operations to develop
environmentally and economically sustainable methods to help
catfish farmers manage cormorant and pelican populations.
Lamprey Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$100,000 for the State of Vermont's Lake Champlain's Fish and
Wildlife Management Cooperative for the control of sea
lampreys, which cause invasive species damage and threaten
State listed endangered species, and are one of the biggest
threats to the fishing industry in Lake Champlain.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,561,000 for the control of VHS in
the Great Lakes States, which is $3,033,000 above the budget
request. The Committee encourages APHIS to continue its work in
the areas of monitoring, diagnosis, epidemiology and prevention
of VHS, especially in farmed-raised fish (including those for
enhancement purposes). The Committee also encourages APHIS to
begin implementation of the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan
in approaching aquatic animal health issues holistically.
Brucellosis Eradication
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,584,000 for brucellosis eradication.
Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee.--The
Committee recommendation includes $692,000 for the Greater
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to continue
brucellosis prevention, surveillance, control, and eradication.
The Committee encourages the coordination of Federal, State,
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD]
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $17,808,000 for the chronic wasting disease
certification and control program to include additional
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely
identification of the presence of this disease. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,350,000 for the State of Wisconsin,
$182,000 for the State of Utah, and $38,000 for the State of
Colorado.
Contingency Funds
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,025,000 for APHIS contingency funds, allowing APHIS
to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal
diseases, and pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to
meet emergency conditions. The contingency fund allows APHIS to
act rapidly to control emergencies before they can spread and
cause significant economic damage.
Cotton Pests
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $29,590,000 for the cotton pests program, of which
$19,780,000 is for boll weevil and $9,810,000 is for pink
bollworm.
Emerging Plant Pests
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $127,549,000 for the emerging plant pests program. The
Committee expects the Secretary to make funds available from
the CCC for activities related to plant pests in fiscal year
2009, as necessary.
Asian Long Horned Beetle.--The Committee recommendation
includes $19,969,000 for Asian long horned beetle.
Citrus Health Response Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $35,496,000 for the citrus health
response program.
Emerald Ash Borer.--The Committee recommendation includes
$32,493,000 for emerald ash borer. This invasive species has
been found in Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The Committee recognizes that the
emerald ash borer, which poses a significant threat to the
Nation's population of ash trees, has the potential to cause
significant economic and ecological damage, and that further
efforts are required to manage the spread of emerald ash borer
and develop techniques and technologies to eradicate this
species.
The Committee further recognizes that the recent discovery
of the Emerald Ash Borer in the City of Chicago poses a
significant threat to the City's tree population and directs
APHIS to work collaboratively with the City to manage the
infestation and to provide appropriate resources.
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,136,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter.
Karnal Bunt.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,503,000 for karnal bunt.
Light Brown Apple Moth.--The Committee recommendation
includes $993,000 for Light Brown Apple Moth. The Committee
notes that in fiscal year 2007 and 2008, approximately
$90,000,000 in CCC funding has been made available for Light
Brown Apple Moth. As of June 2008, however, only $27,000,000
has been obligated, leaving $63,000,000 in CCC funds available
to continue APHIS' efforts.
Potato Cyst Nematode.--The Committee recommendation
includes $7,715,000 for potato cyst nematode.
Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramora).--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,306,000 for sudden oak death. The
Committee encourages APHIS to use the funding provided to
promote the research, development, and testing of new systems
of nursery pest and disease management and for programs of
inspection and regulation.
Varroa Mite Suppression.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 to suppress and limit the varroa mite
population on the Island of Oahu, and to prevent spread of the
mite to the neighboring islands. Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD]
has devastated bee keepers on mainland USA, and is severely
limiting the supply of bees to those commercial crops requiring
bee pollination. The Island of Hawaii (Big Island) is free of
varroa mite and is a major supplier of queen bees to mainland
bee keepers with the largest supplier of queen bees in the
United States located in Kona on Big Island.
Grasshopper
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,456,000 for the grasshopper program.
Mormon Crickets.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,117,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the
State of Utah to continue control measures. APHIS may use funds
provided for Mormon cricket activities in Utah for eradication
and control of the Black Grass Bug in Utah.
Johne's Disease
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,821,000 for Johne's disease. The Committee expects
APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research Service to
coordinate activities to research and develop an effective
diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate field
validation and methods development. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for Johne's activities in
the State of Wisconsin.
Noxious Weeds
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,773,000 for the noxious weeds program.
Cogongrass Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$221,000 for an invasive species program to prevent the spread
of cogongrass in Mississippi, and requests that the agency take
necessary steps to address this invasive weed as a regional
infestation problem.
Nevada Weed Management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 for a weed management program with the State
of Nevada to control invasive weeds on rangelands that threaten
the viability of Nevada's agricultural economy.
Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.--The Committee recommendation
includes $187,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to
increase the availability and distribution of biological
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system.
Tuberculosis
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $15,393,000 for the tuberculosis program.
Bovine Tuberculosis in New Mexico.--The Committee is aware
of a new occurrence of bovine tuberculosis in New Mexico. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to use authorities and
resources of the Department to provide testing, monitoring,
surveillance, and other services as needed toward the control
and eradication of this disease, and for the prompt restoration
of split-state status for New Mexico.
Tuberculosis Transmission.--The Committee is concerned
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the
agency to continue technical and operational assistance to
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and
livestock.
Wildlife Services Operations
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $74,163,000 for wildlife services operations. The
Committee does not concur with the budget request to reduce
funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow
cooperators to assume a larger share of the costs associated
with preventing and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee
provides funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct
wildlife management programs such as livestock protection,
migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species damage,
property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and
endangered species protection.
Beaver Management and Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $472,000 for beaver management and
control in the State of Mississippi. The Committee expects the
agency to make the fiscal year 2009 level of funding available
to all counties in the State. The Committee commends the
agency's assistance in cooperative relationships with local and
Federal partners to reduce beaver damage to cropland and
forests. The Committee recommendation also includes $221,000
for beaver management and control in the State of North
Carolina.
Blackbird Management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $282,000 to conduct methods development and continue
control measures for minimizing blackbird damage in North and
South Dakota. The Committee recommendation also includes
$100,000 for blackbird management activities in Louisiana and
$127,000 for Kansas.
Cooperative Livestock Protection Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $223,000 for the Cooperative Livestock
Protection Program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
provide technical and operational assistance in identifying,
controlling, and abating damage, animal health problems, and
economic losses caused by black vultures, Canadian geese,
European starlings, coyotes, and other wildlife.
Cormorant Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$495,000 for cormorant management and control, which includes
$148,000 for the State of Michigan, $110,000 for the Lake
Champlain basin, and $237,000 for Delta States' operations.
Integrated Predation Management Activities.--The Committee
recommendation includes $298,000 for integrated predation
management activities in the State of West Virginia.
Oral Rabies Vaccination.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,650,000 for rabies control activities. The
Committee expects a portion of the program increase to be
available for rabies activities in the Appalachian region and
to further progress already made along the Appalachian Ridge to
control this disease.
Tri-State Predator Control.--Due to the increase in
federally listed endangered species and the reintroduction of
wolf populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, State operation
accounts for wildlife services have suffered financially,
therefore the Committee recommendation includes $986,000 for
the tri-State predator control program in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming to respond to wolf depredation and monitor wolf
populations.
Western States.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,700,000 to continue wildlife control activities in Western
States.
Wildlife Services, Hawaii.--The Committee recommendation
includes $400,000 for the operation of the State Wildlife
Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site coordination of
prevention and control activities in Hawaii and the American
Pacific. The Committee also recommends $700,000 for activities
in Hawaii and Guam to prevent movement of brown tree snakes
from Guam to Hawaii, which would be a major ecological disaster
for Hawaii, and for expanding efforts to control coqui frog
infestations.
Wildlife Services South Dakota.--The Committee
recommendation includes $553,000 for wildlife service
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory,
nuisance, and diseased animals.
ANIMAL CARE
Animal Welfare
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $20,894,000 for the animal care unit for enforcement
of the Animal Welfare Act.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
Biotechnology Regulatory Services
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $11,877,000 for biotechnology regulatory services.
Genetically Modified Products.--The Committee
recommendation includes $276,000 for a national institute at
Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation,
and communication for genetically modified agricultural
products.
Plant Methods Development Laboratories
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $9,712,000 for the Plant Methods Development
Laboratories Program.
Sericea Lespedeza.--The Committee recognizes both the
importance of sericea lespedeza as a field crop in the
Southeastern United States and the environmental challenges
sericea lespedeza poses to ecosystems in tallgrass prairielands
in the Great Plains region. The Committee recommends that APHIS
provide Federal field crop designations for sericea lespedeza
on a regional basis so that conservation programs in tallgrass
prairie regions where sericea lespedeza is an invasive species
can partner with USDA to find economically and ecologically
appropriate controls.
Veterinary Diagnostics
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,511,000 for veterinary diagnostics.
Disease Prevention.--The Committee recommendation includes
$74,000 to develop diagnostics, treatment and prevention for
diseases, including West Nile Virus, infecting farm-raised
reptiles. Research has confirmed that reptiles are a major
vector for West Nile Virus, and the spread of this disease
appears to be escalating, posing a significant human health
risk and a great economic cost to the farming industry.
National Agriculture Biosecurity Center.--The Committee
recommendation includes $276,000 for the National Agriculture
Biosecurity Center in the State of Kansas to help protect
agricultural infrastructure and economy from endemic and
emerging biological threats.
Wildlife Services Methods Development
Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $17,986,000 for wildlife services methods development.
Berryman Institute.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,117,000 to continue the existing program at the Jack
Berryman Institute for addressing wildlife damage management
issues, including wildlife disease threats and wildlife
economics.
National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi.--The
Committee recommendation includes $255,000 to continue existing
research efforts in aquaculture at the National Wildlife
Research Center field station in the State of Mississippi.
National Wildlife Research Station, Texas.--The Committee
recommendation includes $309,000 for the National Wildlife
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with
wildlife populations and human health.
Predator Control.--The Committee understands that APHIS is
currently evaluating a theobromine and caffeine mixture as a
possible tool for predation management. The Committee also
understands that this mixture induces mortality with minimal
pre-mortality symptoms, and because theobromine and caffeine
are readily available, antidotes exist should it be
accidentally ingested by livestock or a pet. The Committee
encourages APHIS to continue evaluating this method, conduct
field studies, and take the appropriate steps to register these
compounds with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Predator Research Station, Utah.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,033,000 for ongoing activities at
the Utah Predator Research Station, including research on the
ecology of wildlife depredation, reproductive intervention
strategies for managing wildlife depredation, and sensory and
behavioral methods for managing wildlife depredation on
livestock.
Rodent Control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$172,000 to continue the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control in active
agricultural areas to contain and prevent the damage caused to
Hawaii's agriculture.
COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES
In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and
activities without prior notification to and approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects,
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees.
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the
definitions contained in the program, project, and activity
section of this report.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009................................... $7,431,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities''
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of
specific program activities and recurring construction,
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing
APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$2,000,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow
APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically
needed repairs to and replacements of building components, such
as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized
basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the
environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities,
closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to
complete the required repairs.
Agricultural Marketing Service
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $76,324,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 76,015,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,655,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act
(7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7
U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-
511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C.
499a-499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-
1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
Programs administered by this agency include the market
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders,
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market
protection and promotion activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,655,000
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Horticulture Marketing.--The Committee is aware of an
innovative urban horticulture planning, development, and
marketing project in the State of Illinois. The Committee
encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and
financial assistance to the Windy City Harvest initiative.
Local Purchase.--The Committee is aware that the Iowa Buy
Fresh/Buy Local works with communities to implement plans to
create more local commerce around locally grown foods,
including working with institutional food buyers to develop
strong linkages to local farmers and processors. The Committee
encourages AMS to provide technical and financial assistance,
as appropriate, to this program.
Organics.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,177,000
for the National Organic Program [NOP]. The Committee is aware
that USDA is implementing draft revisions to the National
Organic Program resulting from the American National Standards
Institute [ANSI] 2004 and USDA Office of the Inspector General
[OIG] 2005 audits. The Committee directs the agency to report
on the status of these revisions by December 2008. Further, the
Committee believes the agency should work to publish
regulations for new, updated pasture standards for organic
ruminants, and if necessary, resolve conflicting standards
governing the origin of livestock used in organic dairy, and
hopes to see action on these items in 2009. Finally, the
Committee expects the NOP to work closely with the National
Organic Standards Board with respect to Peer Review Panel
requirements of the Organic Food Production Act and USDA's
organic regulations.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2008........................................ $61,233,000
Budget limitation, 2009................................. 62,888,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,888,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to
protect participants in the industry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $62,888,000 on
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $16,798,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 17,270,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,270,000
Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C.
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for
fiscal years 2007-2009:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2007-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009
actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............ $7,029,269,059 $7,563,683,777 $7,979,334,788
Rescission............................................ -37,601,000 -684,000,000 ................
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service........................... -5,731,073,000 -6,253,548,000 -6,721,834,000
Commerce Department................................... -82,817,059 -84,594,777 -84,500,788
GSA Board of Contract Appeals......................... -47,345 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Transfers.................................... -5,813,937,404 -6,338,142,777 -6,806,334,788
=====================================================
Budget Authority.......................................... 1,177,730,655 541,541,000 1,173,000,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year.............. 146,760,123 500,000,000 ................
Offsetting Collections.................................... 139,276,862 ................ ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations...................... 119,915 ................ ................
Available for Obligation.................................. 1,463,887,555 1,041,541,000 1,173,000,000
Less Obligations:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities).... 465,000,000 465,000,000 465,000,000
12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement................ 199,860,396 150,000,000 150,000,000
State Option Contract................................. ................ 5,000,000 5,000,000
Removal of Defective Commodities...................... 1,871,239 52,500,000 2,500,000
Emergency Surplus Removal............................. 56,891,473 89,460,000 ................
Direct Payments....................................... 101,650,000 ................ ................
Disaster Relief....................................... 11,316,600 5,000,000 5,000,000
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program..................... ................ ................ 108,000,000
Whole Grain Products Study (FSA)...................... ................ ................ 4,000,000
Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases..... ................ 190,000,000 193,000,000
Estimated Future Needs................................ ................ 45,997,000 191,149,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity Procurement........................ 836,589,708 1,002,957,000 1,123,649,000
=====================================================
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support............................ 31,146,383 21,786,000 32,081,000
Marketing Agreements and Orders....................... 15,492,951 16,798,000 17,270,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative Funds......................... 46,639,334 38,584,000 49,351,000
=====================================================
Total Obligations................................... 883,229,042 1,041,541,000 1,173,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Returned To Treasury...................................... -80,658,513 ................ ................
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................ 500,000,000 ................ ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds
of $17,270,000 for the formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders.
Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing
power of producers. This practice has been used on various
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this
authority, but believes that communication between the
Department and the Congress should be improved when this
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $11,627,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 1,334,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,685,000
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product
diversification. Current projects are focused on the
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least
one-half of the cost of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,685,000 for
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities. The Committee directs that $360,000 be
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection to provide food safety training; technical
assistance for market and business planning; and assistance for
producers with packaging, label development, and market
distribution for specialty meat products.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $38,514,000
Budget estimate, 2009.......................... 44,005,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,182,000
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and
poultry prices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,182,000
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2008........................................ $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2009................................. 42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,463,000
The Agency provides an official grain inspection and
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $42,463,000 on
inspection and weighing services expenses.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $596,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 659,000
Committee recommendation................................ 613,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $613,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $929,742,000
Budget estimate, 2009.......................... 951,946,000
Committee recommendation................................ 973,566,000
The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export
to the United States; and provides technical and financial
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $973,566,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This amount is
$21,620,000 above the President's request and is necessary for
FSIS to carry out new responsibilities mandated by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$3,827,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex
office including international outreach and education.
Humane Slaughter.--The Committee is pleased that the budget
request included $3,000,000 for maintenance of the Humane
Animal Tracking System [HATS]. The Committee recommendation
includes full funding, and notes that maintenance of this
system will include costs such as monthly access fees, hardware
servicing, remote maintenance charges, and any additional
personnel costs. The additional personnel costs could include
staff support required to configure and service equipment, as
well as personnel to provide technical support via the help
desk.
The Committee recommends the amount requested in the
budget, which will maintain no less than 120 full-time
equivalent positions which have been provided solely for humane
slaughter enforcement. The Committee continues to believe that
a portion of this funding should be used to allow additional
FSIS personnel to continue to work cooperatively with the
existing District Veterinary Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose
duties are specifically tied to HMSA enforcement, and to allow
each DVMS opportunities to visit facilities in other FSIS
districts to enhance communication and problem solving among
all districts.
State Meat Inspection.--The Committee is pleased that
Public Law 110-246 included language requiring that FSIS fund
State meat inspection costs at no less than 60 percent of
eligible State costs, as well as provisions allowing for the
shipments of meat and poultry from eligible State inspected
plants in interstate commerce. The Committee notes that the
Secretary is directed to promulgate regulations regarding this
provision within 18 months of enactment of Public Law 110-246,
but encourages the Secretary to begin work to implement these
provisions immediately.
The following table represents the Committee's specific
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as
compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2009 budget Committee
2008 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety Inspection:
Federal..................................................... 831,152 850,530 872,150
State....................................................... 63,421 65,703 65,703
International............................................... 18,464 18,916 18,916
PHDCIS...................................................... 12,970 12,970 12,970
Codex Alimentarius.......................................... 3,735 3,827 3,827
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 929,742 951,946 973,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $628,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 695,000
Committee recommendation................................ 646,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service
Agency (including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $646,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
Farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3,
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such
as the commodity price support and production adjustment
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating,
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides
certain administrative support services to the Foreign
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency
[RMA].
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from Total, FSA,
Appropriations program salaries, and
accounts expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008......................................... $1,125,705,000 304,188,000 1,429,893,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................ 1,188,580,000 332,946,000 1,521,526,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 1,164,123,000 331,547,000 1,495,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency,
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides
clarity and better management and control of funds, and
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
The Committee, again, fully funds the information
technology [IT] needs requested in the President's budget
proposal. The Committee remains aware of the unstable status of
the Farm Service Agency computer system which is responsible
for the calculation and tracking of the agency's payments to
agricultural producers, and which has resulted in disruption of
services to U.S. farmers and ranchers. The Department continues
to submit inadequate and inconsistent budget requests for this
deteriorating system and has shown an extreme lack of
cooperation with this Committee in an effort to resolve this
devolving situation. The Committee continues to stand willing
to work with the Department to stabilize and modernize the
system whenever this growing problem reaches a level of
importance within the Department that matches the one it has
long since reached in this Committee.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,164,123,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency.
Conservation Reserve Program.--As the value of land has
risen over several consecutive years, some Conservation Reserve
Program [CRP] participants have recognized the financial
advantage of breaking their contract and returning
environmentally sensitive land to production. As this trend
shows no sign of reversing in the near future, it is
appropriate to determine the effects of recalculating CRP
payment rates for existing contracts where the surveyed value
of land is above the established payment rate for 3 consecutive
years. The Committee directs the Farm Service Agency to issue a
report within 90 days of enactment of this Act to assess the
effects such a policy change would have on program costs, early
withdrawal rates, and future participation.
National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee
recommends that funds be allocated to purchase high resolution
satellite imagery data or products to meet programmatic
requirements. The acquisition of high resolution satellite
imagery will also encourage the development of second
generation imagery satellites, which is key to preparing our
Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace with 21st century
technological innovation.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $4,369,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,369,000
This program is authorized under title V of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.).
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes,
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and
pesticides. The authorization for this program was extended
through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109-17. Grants are made
to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the
FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of
the State's agricultural mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,369,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $3,687,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 3,687,000
This program is intended to assist in the protection of
groundwater through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,687,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $100,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 400,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides.
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $400,000 for
the Dairy Indemnity Program.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is
used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm
operating, and emergency loans to individuals, as well as the
following types of loans to associations: irrigation and
drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll
weevil eradication.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication
programs provided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by
providing FSA loans.
Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to:
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming
operation; and refinance certain debts.
Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations,
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms.
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of
$3,427,584,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund Program Account.
The following table reflects the program levels for farm
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2008 and the budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2008 enacted 2009 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
Direct................................................... 222,298 252,902 222,298
Guaranteed............................................... 1,238,768 1,223,636 1,238,768
Farm Operating:
Direct................................................... 575,095 628,372 575,095
Guaranteed unsubsidized.................................. 1,017,497 1,012,369 1,017,497
Guaranteed subsidized.................................... 269,986 260,943 269,986
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition................................ 3,940 3,975 3,940
Boll Weevil Eradication...................................... 100,000 59,400 100,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Loans...................................... 3,427,584 3,441,597 3,427,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Administrative expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed Transfer to Total ACIF
Direct loan loan Total Appropriations FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008........... 82,996 65,594 148,590 309,051 301,186 457,641
Budget estimate, 2009.......... 88,801 65,230 154,031 333,013 325,093 487,044
Committee recommendation....... 80,767 66,655 147,422 331,559 323,694 478,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for
administrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of loan programs
under credit reform:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2008 enacted 2009 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership:
Direct............................................... 9,982 14,466 12,715
Guaranteed........................................... 4,955 4,038 4,088
Farm operating:
Direct............................................... 72,980 74,085 67,804
Guaranteed unsubsidized.............................. 24,623 25,208 25,336
Guaranteed subsidized................................ 36,016 35,984 37,231
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition............................ 124 250 248
Boll Weevil Eradication.................................. ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies................................ 148,590 154,031 147,422
ACIF expenses................................................ 309,051 333,013 331,559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Agency
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $76,048,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 77,177,000
Committee recommendation................................ 77,177,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance
program. This act provides higher government subsidies for
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are:
research and development; insurance services; and compliance,
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and
regulations development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,177,000
for the Risk Management Agency.
Data Mining.--The Committee includes bill language to allow
up to $11,166,000 of the unobligated funds of the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation Fund to be used for program compliance
and integrity purposes, including the data mining projects, and
for the Common Information Management System.
Pest Information Platform for Education and Extension
[PIPE].--The Pest Information Platform for Education and
Extension [PIPE] is a monitoring and early-warning system
developed to alert farmers to the presence and spread of
soybean rust and other pests. The Committee encourages RMA to
continue the PIPE program in fiscal year 2009.
CORPORATIONS
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
Appropriations, 2008\1\................................. $4,818,099,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................ 6,582,945,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 6,582,945,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available
until expended, are provided.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,
delivery expenses, program-related research and development,
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $6,582,945,000 for the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support,
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act,
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying,
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required
in connection with the storage and distribution of such
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of
the Corporation's activities.
Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12),
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year,
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
Appropriations, 2008\1\................................. $12,983,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................ 11,106,324,000
Committee recommendation\1\............................. 11,106,324,000
\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2009 to be
$11,106,324,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Limitation, 2008........................................ $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for
Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste management.
FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009................................... $4,724,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,724,000
The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program [FSFL], originally
established in 1949, was discontinued in the early 1980's
pending adequate capacity, and re-established in fiscal year
2000 to address current storage space shortages. Federal
Government subsidy costs supporting this program are estimated
pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA] of 1990
(Public Law 101-508, sec. 13201, et seq.) (2 U.S.C. 661, et
seq.). The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
directed the CCC to establish a Sugar Storage Facility Loan
Program to provide financing for domestic processors to
construct and improve sugar storage and handling facilities.
Administrative expenses for this program have been included in
the Salaries and Expenses account of the Farm Service Agency
[FSA], which administers the program. Following OMB guidance
(Circular A-11), FSA recently moved these expenses to the FSFL
account to comply with FCRA section 504(g) direction that all
funding for an agency's administration of a direct loan or loan
guarantee program shall be displayed as distinct and separately
identified subaccounts within the same budget account as the
program's cost (2 U.S.C. 661c).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,724,000 for
administration of the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $737,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 822,000
Committee recommendation................................ 758,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $758,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment.
Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of
Maine. This project will restore nearly 1,000 miles of habitat
in the Penobscot watershed for endangered Atlantic salmon and
six other species of sea-run fish and 100 percent of the
historic habitat in Maine's largest river system for four
additional species. The Committee encourages NRCS to improve
migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including the
purchase of dams and the removal of impediments to passage, by
utilizing all appropriate funding sources.
Houlka Master Watershed Project.--The Committee directs the
Department to provide monthly updates on its execution of
section 731 of this act.
Wetlands Reserve Program.--The Committee strongly
encourages the NRCS to establish a demonstration pilot program
utilizing rapid growth reforestation technology.
Wetlands Reserve Program Assessments.--In February 2006,
the Secretary announced a change in the Wetlands Reserve
Program that would take into account the value of recreational
and similar uses in determining the appraised value of
easements offered under this program. The Committee directs the
Secretary to minimize the effect this change will have in
regard to geographical participation in the Wetlands Reserve
Program and report to the Committee within 120 days of
enactment of this act on the impact this policy change may have
on utilization of this program in all regions of the country
and the steps taken to minimize such change.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and
Federal and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments
in land use that will conserve soil and water resources,
provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and
reduce flood damage and sedimentation.
conservation operations
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $834,013,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 794,773,000
Committee recommendation................................ 866,899,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the
natural resource base.
Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related
resource data for land conservation, use, and development;
guidance of community development; identification of prime
agricultural producing areas that should be protected;
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and
relates to summer stream flow in the western States and Alaska.
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in
estimating future water supplies.
Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies,
State, and local organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $866,899,000
for Conservation Operations.
For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends funding, as
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities.
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made
available to States.
Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to continue a
community-based agricultural development and resource
conservation program with the four RC&D Councils in Hawaii.
Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center [AWCC].--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the AWCC. The
AWCC is part of NRCS and supports the development of wildlife
habitat technology through a competitive grants program
available to many cooperative conservation partners, including
fish and wildlife conservation groups, universities, and State
agencies. The AWCC will ensure new technology is available to
farmers and ranchers nationwide through NRCS field offices.
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.--The
Committee recommendation includes $920,000 for conservation
efforts in the State of Alaska. This project assists
conservation district cooperators and other land users in the
planning and application of conservation treatments.
Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed Inventory and Analysis.--The
Committee recommendation includes $115,000 for the Big Sandy
Tri-State Watershed. This project will initiate watershed
inventory and analysis activities, which include identifying
abandoned mine lands, assessing associated water quality
impacts, and coordinating with partners to complete the master
plan
Carson City Waterfall Fire Restoration.--The Committee
recommendation includes $287,000 for the Carson City erosion
control project in the State of Nevada. The purpose of this
project is to develop a plan for preventing wildfires, manage
erosion control, and reforestation.
Certified Environmental Management Systems for
Agriculture.--The Committee recommendation includes $300,000
for Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture.
This project guides the producer through planning,
implementing, evaluating and reviewing business decisions that
affect the environment.
Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $250,000 for the Chenier Plain
Sustainability Initiative in the State of Louisiana. This
project will restore wetlands and marshes in the Chenier Plain
as well as the replanting of native grasses.
Conservation Internships.--The Committee recommendation
includes $120,000 for conservation internships. Together with
State and local resources, these funds provide internships for
college students preparing for careers in natural resource
management. This real world training helps these emerging
natural resource professionals navigate the day-to-day
challenges faced by farmers and Federal, State, and local
natural resource planners.
Conservation Outreach and Education.--The Committee
recommendation includes $215,000 for a conservation outreach
and education program in the City of Foley, Alabama. The goal
of this project is to increase awareness of the importance of
conservation practices through the development of an
educational conservation program and teaching facilities.
Conservation Planning.--The Committee recommendation
includes $450,000 for cranberry conservation work in the States
of Wisconsin and Massachusetts. The purpose of this project is
to help farmers increase cranberry production while reducing
the effects on the environment. Cranberry growers can develop
conservation plans to ensure that cranberry cultivation is done
in a manner that protects water quality, prevents soil erosion
and manages nutrient and pesticide use.
Conservation Technical Assistance.--The Committee
recommendation includes $251,000 for conservation technical
assistance in the State of New Jersey. These funds will address
water quality issues and small farm operations. In addition,
funding will provide technical assistance towards agricultural
operations in the New Jersey Highlands.
Conservation Technology Transfer.--The Committee
recommendation includes $550,000 for conservation technology
transfer in the State of Wisconsin. This program brings
together NRCS, the University of Wisconsin Extension, and the
University of Wisconsin Platteville in a collaborative effort
to demonstrate effective conservation practices. Working on
real farms under a variety of cropping and land use systems,
they help farmers adopt effective conservation practices that
have been tested under their local conditions.
Delta Conservation Demonstration.--The Committee
recommendation includes $400,000 for a demonstration project in
Washington County, Mississippi. This project will develop an
education and training program for the short and long term
natural resources conservation training needs of the NRCS, the
Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the
Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
Delta Water Study.--The Committee recommendation includes
$250,000 for the Delta Water Study. The purpose of this study
is to support and expedite the survey, design, and installation
of weirs in Williams Bayou in Washington County, Bee Lake in
Holmes County, both in the State of Mississippi, and other
activities as part of the Delta Study objectives.
Driftless Area Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $310,000 for conservation in the Driftless area in the
States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. This project will help to
reduce the significant soil erosion, sedimentation, and run-off
affecting water quality in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Excess sediment and nutrients severely damage local rivers and
wetlands, and are being washed down the Mississippi River to
the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental Compliance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $220,000 for environmental compliance in the State of
Wisconsin. This project helps agriculture producers comply with
Federal, State and local land use and environmental protection
initiatives. Together they will develop a model ``one stop''
program which will help producers efficiently navigate these
changing and multi-faceted requirements.
Farm Viability Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $251,000 for a farm viability program in the State of
Vermont. This program helps producers assess the long-term
viability of their farming operation by implementing plans to
improve their long-term business prospects.
Georgia Soil and Water Commission.--The Committee
recommendation includes $800,000 for a cooperative agreement in
the State of Georgia. This project provides agricultural water
storage facilities for irrigation of cropland and improves the
efficiencies of existing irrigation systems.
Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education
Watershed Project.--The Committee recommendation includes
$300,000 for watershed projects in the State of Texas. This
project will address pressing issues related to the nearly 300
watershed in Texas that have been identified as impaired,
threatened or at-risk. The impact includes unsafe water
supplies, degraded fisheries, river and reservoir siltation,
and impaired habitat.
Grazing Land Conservation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $780,000 for grazing land conservation activities in
the State of Wisconsin. This project supports applied research,
on-farm demonstrations, education activities, and technical
services through the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection to support producers wishing to switch
to a grazing system or wanting to enhance their existing
systems.
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $9,930,000 for the grazing lands
conservation initiative.
Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $430,000 for Great Lakes Basin soil and
erosion control. Sediment from agriculture is a major
contaminant in drinking water. The goal of this program is to
prevent soil, nitrogen, and phosphorus from entering the Great
Lakes and regional waters by reducing soil erosion and
controlling sedimentation. The Committee expects that funding
for this project include appropriate accountability provisions,
including a full reporting of conservation measures implemented
and demonstrable accomplishments.
Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity
Project.--The Committee recommendation includes $89,000 for a
cooperative agreement in the State of Kentucky. The goal of
this project is to monitor the water quality and biological
diversity of the Green River and surrounding watershed to
evaluate the effectiveness of State conservation efforts to
limit erosion in the watershed and mitigate pesticide and
nutrient loading from nearby agricultural operations.
Hungry Canyons Alliance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 to address soil erosion in the Loess Hills
area in the State of Iowa. Streambed degradation in the loess
soils of western Iowa has caused damage to infrastructure and
loss of land. The goal of this project is to provide financial
and technical assistance for streambed stabilization projects;
to conduct research in effective methods of streambed
stabilization; and to provide demonstration of streambed
stabilization projects.
Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation.--The
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for the Illinois
River Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of
Illinois. The goal of this project is to conduct wetland
demonstration projects to protect against flood damage, reduce
soil erosion and improve water quality associated with the
Illinois and Mississippi Rivers; and to facilitate landowner
adoption of multi-purpose soil, water and wetland conservation
practices in cooperation with local soil and water conservation
districts.
Kentucky Soil Erosion Control.--The Committee
recommendation includes $771,000 for soil erosion control in
the State of Kentucky. The goal of this project is to plan,
design, construct, and implement best management practices to
protect the resource base and provide environmental benefits.
Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure
Delivery System.--The Committee recommendation includes
$143,000 for a gravity delivery system in the State of Idaho.
This project will convert an open canal gravity delivery system
to a closed gravity pressurized system which will result in
energy and water savings.
Mississippi Conservation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,218,000 for the Mississippi
Conservation Initiative. This project assists several cities
and towns in Mississippi with drainage improvements. The
improvements consist of water retention ponds, de-snagging,
repair and technical assistance of existing dams, and
assistance with project development on several sites.
Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource
Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes $71,000
for agriculture development and resource conservation on the
Island of Molokai, Hawaii.
Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient
Irrigation.--The Committee recommendation includes $143,000 for
a water conservation and efficient irrigation project in the
State of California. The goal of this project is to conserve
30,000 acre-feet of water in Orange County, California.
National Geospatial Development Center.--The Committee
encourages NRCS to continue activities at the National
Geospatial Development Center in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Nitrate Pollution Reduction.--The Committee recommendation
includes $165,000 for nitrate pollution reduction in the State
of Rhode Island. This project would permit NRCS to work with
the University of Rhode Island, agricultural producers, and
rural residents to develop nitrate control strategies that
reduce nitrate contamination in aquifers and watersheds.
On-farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.--The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for an On-Farm
Management Systems Evaluation Network. The purpose of this
project is to coordinate a network of growers using GPS, yield
monitors, and remote sensing technologies to improve nitrogen
management in corn.
Operation Oak Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 for the Operation Oak Program. This program
supplies oak and other mast producing hardwood species
seedlings to landowners to meet the needs of timber production
and wildlife management and to reverse the decline of hardwood
regeneration in the South.
Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain.--The Committee
recommendation includes $179,000 to reduce phosphorous loadings
to Lake Champlain in the State of Vermont. The phosphorous
levels in parts of Lake Champlain are so high that they cause
excessive algal growth causing accelerated aging of the lake.
The goal of this project is to find new agricultural and
wastewater management technologies to reduce phosphorous in the
lake.
Plant Material Centers.--The Committee recommendation
includes $10,928,000 for NRCS plant material centers. In
addition, $113,000 is included for the Hawaii Plant Material
Center.
Potomac River Tributary Strategy.--The Committee
recommendation includes $179,000 for Potomac River tributary
strategy in the State of West Virginia. This project will
assist agriculture producers in the Potomac Highlands to
develop Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans to address
water quality issues in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed.
Riparian Restoration.--The Committee recommendation
includes $179,000 for riparian restoration along the Rio
Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers in the State of New Mexico.
This project emphasizes restoration of areas affected by
invasive species.
Risk Management Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $717,000 for a risk management initiative in the State
of West Virginia. This project provides on-farm technical
assistance to educate producers about planning better pasture
and livestock management to enhance economic development and
protect the environment.
Sand County Foundation.--The Committee recommendation
includes $950,000 for the Sand County Foundation. This project
is operating a multi-year, multi-State experiment to
demonstrate, test, and evaluate the cost effectiveness of
techniques to reduce runoff of nitrogen from agricultural
practices.
Soil Phosphorus Studies.--The Committee recommendation
includes $215,000 for soil phosphorus studies in the State of
West Virginia. This project supports farm operators,
particularly poultry and beef, to meet environmental
regulations regarding the management of phosphorus on their
lands by conducting soil analysis and building technical
information specific to the State.
Snow Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,806,000 for snow surveys.
Soil Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes
$92,229,000 for nationwide soil surveys. In addition, $143,000
is included for soil surveys in the State of Rhode Island and
$200,000 for soil surveys in the State of Wyoming.
Technical Assistance Grants.--The Committee recommendation
includes $580,000 for technical assistance grants to Kentucky
Soil Conservation Districts. These funds will assist landowners
with the planning, design, and implementation of best
management practices to protect natural resources and ensure
that producers participating in farm bill conservation programs
receive adequate technical assistance.
Utah Conservation Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,617,000 for the Utah Conservation Initiative. This
project funds conservation projects throughout Utah, including
work focusing on water quality and quantity; invasive species;
and range, riparian, and wildlife habitat restoration.
Water Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$400,000 for a water conservation project in the State of
Colorado. Because of declining water availability in the South
Platte River Basin, combined with increasing demand for water
by competing interests, the implementation of new conservation
technologies is necessary. The goal of this project is to allow
the resumption of use of irrigation wells for agriculture and
continued water management for competing users.
Watershed Demonstration Project.--The Committee
recommendation includes $143,000 for a watershed demonstration
project in the State of Iowa. The goal of this project is to
document and demonstrate progress in meeting national water
quality objectives for agriculture at a watershed level. The
means to accomplish this involves a partnership effort with
local producers, industry, researchers, and government
agencies.
Water Quality.--The Committee recommendation includes
$251,000 to improve water quality through the Utah confined
animal feed operation/animal feeding operation pilot project.
Wildlife Habitat Improvement.--The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for wildlife habitat improvement in the State
of Illinois. Wildlife professionals are concerned about the
rapid decline of prairie-dependent wildlife and plants. This
project would allow for hundreds of thousands of additional
acres of wildlife habitat to be improved creating miles of
corridors of natural prairie.
watershed and flood prevention operations
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $29,790,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 29,790,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or
rivers and streams and to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility for administration of activities, which include
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve,
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,790,000
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
Of this amount the following are provided: $1,000,000 for
Churchill Woods Dam Removal, Illinois; $1,500,000 for Dunlop
Creek Watershed Project, West Virginia; $1,650,000 for East
Locust Creek, Missouri; $350,000 for Little Otter Creek,
Missouri; $8,500,000 for Lost River, West Virginia; $206,000
for Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Hawaii; $350,000 for
Pocasset River Watershed, Rhode Island; $206,000 for Upcountry
Maui Watershed, Hawaii; and $500,000 for Upper Locust Creek,
Missouri.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $19,860,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 5,920,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation
of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by
section 2803 of Public Law 110-246.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. In addition to this
appropriation $30,000,000 of mandatory funding is provided
under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The Committee directs that funding under this program be
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure
public safety.
resource conservation and development
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $50,730,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 50,730,000
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to
help develop local programs of land conservation and
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to
individual operators for establishing soil and water
conservation practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,730,000
for Resource Conservation and Development.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $1,986,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 1,986,000
The Healthy Forests Reserve Program [HFRP] was authorized
by title V of Public Law 108-148 (16 U.S.C. 6571-6578). The
purpose of the HFRP is to restore and enhance forest ecosystems
to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species;
to improve biodiversity; and to enhance carbon sequestration.
The program operates on a voluntary basis with private
landowners utilizing cost-share agreements or easements of
varying duration. The Federal Government assists participating
landowners with the cost of the approved conservation
practices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,986,000 for
the Healthy Forests Reserve Program.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354)
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service),
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently,
the Rural Business--Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development,
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and
county offices.
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $628,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 695,000
Committee recommendation................................ 646,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural
economic and community development activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $646,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
Renewable Energy.--The Committee is concerned about the
effects high corn prices, due in large part to the use of corn
in ethanol production, are having on other areas of
agriculture, namely increased livestock feed prices, reductions
in the effectiveness of food aid resources, and increased costs
associated with domestic nutrition programs such as the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
[WIC]. The Committee encourages the Department to focus on a
broad range of renewable fuel feedstocks as part of their
various renewable fuel programs to the extent practicable.
Rural Housing.--The Committee is aware of the severe
flooding that took place in the town of Fort Kent, Maine, which
resulted in major evacuations, displacement, and damaged
housing for many residents. The Committee urges the department
to assist with community efforts to rebuild multi-family and
single-family housing.
Technical Assistance.--The Committee recognizes that the
community of Tchula, Mississippi, has requested technical and
programmatic assistance for housing, business,
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve
funds.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 2009 budget recommendation
appropriation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................ 168,722 258,185 210,748
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........ 449,609 399,422 449,757
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program 38,339 37,819 38,353
Account.................................................
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.............. 4,739 4,574 4,741
--------------------------------------------------
Total RD salaries and expenses......................... 661,409 700,000 703,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing
Service, and the Rural Business--Cooperative Service, including
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in
rural areas.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $703,599,000 for salaries and
expenses of Rural Development, including a direct appropriation
of $210,748,000.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs
that work in partnership with State and local governments and
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially
guaranteed loans.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a loan and grant level of
$6,705,503,000 for the Rural Housing Service housing programs.
Section 502 Single Family Housing Programs.--The Committee
recommends $1,121,488,000 for Direct Single Family Housing
loans and $4,190,521,000 for Unsubsidized Guaranteed Single
Family Housing loans.
Section 515/Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.--
The Committee recommends $27,714,000 to continue the
Department's efforts to address the preservation of the section
515 portfolio through financial options to project owners,
including vouchers. The Committee recommends $4,965,000 for
rural housing vouchers, $2,889,000 for the multi-family
revolving loan program, and $19,860,000 to restructure existing
section 515 loans.
The Committee recommends $69,510,000 for the section 515
program. In recent years a substantial amount of the section
515 appropriation has been used for needed repairs and
rehabilitation in the portfolio. The Committee believes project
rehabilitation can be more effectively performed through the
revitalization initiative. To that end, funding that would have
been used for section 515 repair and rehabilitation is provided
directly to the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program
Account.
The following table presents loan and grant program levels
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year
2008 levels and the 2009 budget request:
LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2008 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
Single family housing (sec. 502):
Direct.................................................. 1,121,486 .............. 1,121,488
Guaranteed.............................................. 4,190,521 4,848,899 4,190,521
Housing Repair (Sec. 504)....................................... 34,409 17,678 34,409
Multi-family Housing guarantees (Sec. 538)...................... 129,090 300,000 129,090
Rental housing (Sec. 515)....................................... 69,510 .............. 69,510
Site loans (Sec. 524)........................................... 5,045 5,045 5,045
Credit Sales of acquired property............................... 11,476 11,476 11,476
Self-help land development fund................................. 4,965 4,303 4,965
Farm labor housing:
Loans....................................................... 27,545 .............. 17,798
Grants...................................................... 9,930 .............. 7,500
Multi-family housing revitalization:
Rural housing vouchers...................................... 4,965 .............. 4,965
Multi-family housing preservation........................... 19,860 .............. 19,860
Revolving loans............................................. 6,422 .............. 6,422
Mutual and Self Help Housing.................................... 38,727 .............. 38,727
Rental assistance............................................... 478,715 997,000 1,005,000
Rural housing assistance grants............................. 38,727 43,500 38,727
-----------------------------------------------
Total, rural housing loans and grants..................... 6,737,270 6,720,301 6,705,503
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117)
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure
or guarantee rural housing loans for single-family homes,
rental and cooperative housing, and rural housing sites. Rural
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These
loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years. Loan programs are
limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and
moderate-income borrowers.
LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in 2009, as well as for administrative expenses. The
following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to
the 2008 levels and the 2009 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
Single family (sec. 502):
Direct............................................... 105,083 ............... 75,364
Guaranteed........................................... 50,047 13,526 53,042
Housing Repair (Sec. 504).................................... 9,727 4,750 9,246
Multi-family Housing guarantees (Sec. 538)................... 12,134 1,710 20,241
Rental housing (Sec. 515).................................... 29,618 ............... 28,610
Site loans (Sec. 524)........................................ ............... ............... ...............
Credit Sales of acquired property............................ 548 523 533
Multi-family housing revitalization.......................... 27,804 ............... 27,714
Self-help land development fund.............................. 141 71 82
--------------------------------------------------
Total, loan subsidies.................................. 235,102 20,580 214,832
--------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses...................................... 449,609 399,422 449,757
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan level Subsidy level Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008........................................ $27,545,000 $11,916,000 $9,930,000
Budget estimate, 2009....................................... ................ ............... ...............
Committee recommendation.................................... 17,798,000 7,500,000 7,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for
construction of new structures, site acquisition and
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts.
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for
costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $27,804,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 27,714,000
\1\The President's budget proposes to rescind $20,000,000 from prior
year appropriations.
The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been
prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the
difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent
prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in
existing projects or move to other rental housing.
The Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program includes
funding for housing vouchers, a multifamily revolving loan
program, and a program for the preservation and revitalization
of affordable multifamily housing projects. Rural Development's
multifamily housing portfolio faces dual pressures for loan
prepayments and repair/rehabilitation stemming from inadequate
reserves resulting in deferred property maintenance.
Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished
more economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather
than funding new construction. The Multifamily Housing
Revitalization Program includes revitalization tools for
maintenance of existing units and vouchers to protect tenants
in those projects that prepay. Flexibility is provided to allow
Rural Development to utilize funding among vouchers and the two
programs to meet the most urgent local needs for tenant
protection and project revitalization.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,714,000
for the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.
By making adjustments to the Multi-Family Housing
Revitalization Program, it is the intent of the Committee to
recognize the success of the preservation and revitalization
program, to encourage its continuation, and remains committed
to providing the Secretary the resources and options necessary
to further the program's success.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $478,715,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 997,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,005,000,000
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program,
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare
agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved
rental rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over-
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for
very low-income families with certain limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,005,000,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The
Committee includes statutory language requiring rental
assistance to be held in 514/516 projects for a minimum period
of time.
Rental assistance contracts are, again, funded for 1 year
durations. One year contract durations will enable the
Department to provide more accurate estimates of contract cost
increases and the number of contracts expiring and requiring
renewal. The large funding increase recommended over fiscal
year 2008 is due to the considerable increase in contracts
requiring renewal.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $38,727,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 38,727,000
The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is
authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are
made to local organizations to promote the development of
mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually 6 to
10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor.
Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors
who will work with families in the construction of their homes
and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing
the self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,727,000
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.
rural housing assistance grants
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $38,727,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 43,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,727,000
The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates
funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of
housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor
financial assistance to applicant needs.
Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the
community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply,
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements,
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair
loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education
Program was implemented under this authority. This program
provides low-income individuals and families education and
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become
successful homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance.
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was
granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing
preservation grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair
directed at low- and very low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,727,000
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
The following table compares the grant program levels
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2008 levels and
the budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................ 29,790 30,000 29,790
Supervisory and technical assistance grants.................. ............... 1,000 ...............
Compensation for construction defects........................ ............... 500 ...............
Housing preservation grants.................................. 8,937 12,000 8,937
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 38,727 43,500 38,727
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration to Applications.--Rural housing loans, grants
and technical assistance support site development,
construction, purchase, repair and rehabilitation of single
family owner-occupied, multi-family, farm labor, and congregate
housing. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to give consideration to applications relating
to the provision of safe and sanitary housing for the
following: Century Community Development Partnership Affordable
Housing Project (Florida), and County of Riverside, Thermal
Affordable Housing (California).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
In determining income eligibility requirements for the
program established in Sec. 791 of Public Law 109-97, the Rural
Housing Service shall give consideration for participation in
the program to applicants whose household income is at or below
the area's adjusted median household income level.
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2008..................................... $68,469,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 23,767,000
Committee recommendation................................ 67,732,000
Community facility loans were created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations
not operated for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community
facilities providing essential services to rural residents.
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall
community development, such as fire and rescue services,
healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community,
social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000
people. Healthcare and fire and rescue facilities are the
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities.
Communities that have lower population and income levels
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants,
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of
developing the facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,732,000
for the Rural Community Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget
request levels:
RURAL COMMUNITY PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2008 2009 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community facility direct loans................................ 16,370 17,299 16,871
Community facility guaranteed loans............................ 7,596 6,468 6,358
Community facility grants...................................... 20,373 .............. 20,373
Economic impact initiative grants.............................. 13,902 .............. 13,902
Rural community development initiative......................... 6,256 .............. 6,256
Tribal college grants.......................................... 3,972 .............. 3,972
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 68,469 23,767 67,732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration to Applications.--Community Facilities loans
and grants provide financial assistance to construct, enlarge,
or otherwise improve essential community facilities for health
care, public safety and other essential public services. The
Committee has been made aware of and encourages the Department
to give consideration to applications relating to essential
community facilities for the following: Alpena Wildlife
Sanctuary Interpretive Center (Michigan), Cassia County
Historical Society Museum (Idaho), City of Munising Fire/Police
Building (Michigan), Deer Creek Center for Field Research and
Education (Oregon), Environmental Education Center Capital
Improvement Project (Michigan), Garfield County/GSENM/Park
Service/Forest Service All American Bikeway (Utah), Garfield
County/GSENM/Park Service Archeological & Paleontological
Research Center & Educational Facility (Utah), Germfask
Township Community/Senior Center Renovation (Michigan), Howells
Opera House Restoration (Idaho), Kansas Hometown Prosperity
Alliance (Kansas), Lamar-Dixon Expo Center (Louisiana),
Santaquin Agricultural and Equestrian Heritage Center (Utah),
Senior Connection Expansion and Remodel Project (Idaho),
Slidell Memorial Hospital Flood Mitigation (Louisiana),
Vernonia School Reconstruction (Oregon), and Village of Calumet
Heritage Site Renovation (Michigan).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural
Cooperative Service.
The mission of the Rural Business--Cooperative Service is
to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in
rural America through financial assistance, sound business
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research,
education, and information; (2) support environmentally
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis
on those most in need.
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2008..................................... $87,087,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 30,450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 87,385,000
The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by
the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving,
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land,
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs,
and supplying working capital.
Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the
acquisition and development of land; the construction of
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made to public
bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations
or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze business
opportunities that will use local rural economic and human
resources: to identify, train, and provide technical assistance
to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business
support centers; to conduct economic development planning and
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive
communications technologies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $87,385,000
for the Rural Business Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget
request levels:
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2008 2009 budget Committee
appropriation request recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and industry guaranteed loans......................... 42,898 30,450 43,196
Business enterprise grants..................................... 38,727 .............. 38,727
Business opportunity grants.................................... 2,483 .............. 2,483
Delta Regional Authority grants................................ 2,979 .............. 2,979
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 87,087 30,450 87,385
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business Program Account.--The Committee recommends
$495,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs that of the $3,996,000 recommended
for grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, $248,000 be used to implement an American Indian and
Alaska Native passenger transportation development and
assistance initiative.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... $33,536,000 $33,772,000 $33,536,000
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... 14,384,000 14,134,000 14,035,000
Administrative expenses...................................... 4,739,000 4,574,000 4,741,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (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 2009, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,035,000
for Rural Development (intermediary relending) loans.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level......................................... $33,077,000 $33,077,000 $33,077,000
Direct loan subsidy.......................................... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Economic Development Loans program was
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313.
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901)
established a cushion of credits payment program and created
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural
economic development and job creation projects, including
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee accepts the administration's proposal to fund
rural economic development loans from interest earnings on
cushion of credit payments.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $27,828,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 4,455,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,114,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and
operation of centers for rural cooperative development with
their primary purpose being the improvement of economic
conditions in rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit
institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be
used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of the project and
associated administrative costs. The applicant must contribute
at least 25 percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994
institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are
competitive and are awarded based on specific selection
criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing
cooperatives.
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university,
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing
cooperatives in rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985.
The program provides information and technical assistance to
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower
production costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,114,000
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $2,774,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate
Technology.
The Committee has included language in the bill that not
more than $1,463,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide
assistance to small, minority producers.
Value Added.--The Committee recommends $16,153,000 for
value-added agricultural product market development grants.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $8,130,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 8,130,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,130,000 for
Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants, with
the funds to be made available in the same manner and with the
same priorities as in fiscal year 2007.
Outmigration.--The Committee is concerned that rural
empowerment zones, particularly zones selected because of
outmigration, are having a difficult time successfully
competing for USDA Rural Development programs due primarily to
the fact that many programs are tied to household income
levels. Often, household income levels have very little to do
with the reasons for outmigration. Economic development efforts
in these zones cannot advance without additional funding from
competitive grant programs to supplement the funding that the
Committee has earmarked for the zones for the last several
years. USDA is directed to provide a report to the Committee
with suggestions on how to revise competitive grant-making
criteria to take into consideration outmigration when making
awards to rural empowerment zones.
Renewable Energy Program
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $35,748,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under
section 9007 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-246). This program may fund energy audits,
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers,
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,000,000
for the Renewable Energy Program.
Untimely Application Processing.--The Committee is aware of
eligible poultry producers who were disadvantaged in
competition for renewable energy grant funding (and ultimately
denied) due to laggard processing of valid and eligible
applications. Processing times can vary substantially from
State office to State office, unfairly penalizing applicants in
slow States. Such arbitrary variations in customer service
should not be tolerated. The Secretary is directed to work with
these unsuccessful grant applicants to pursue any available
administrative remedy. The Secretary is also directed to
provide, by December 1, 2008, a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations detailing plans to equalize
application processing times and eliminate interstate
disparities that unfairly and capriciously harm applicants. The
Department should also properly inform applicants of the
inability to reapply for grant assistance after energy
efficiency retrofitting has occurred.
Consideration to Applications: Rural Business and Renewable
Energy Programs.--The Committee has been made aware of and
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications
for rural business and renewable energy programs for the
following: Advanced Algea Conversion System (Louisiana),
Biomass to Liquid Fuel Commercialization Project (Louisiana),
Bioproducts and Renewable Industry Development (Minnesota),
Cellulosic Biofuel Supply Chain Development (Wisconsin), Center
for Biobased Economy (Vermont), Huron County Anaerobic Digester
Pilot Plant (Michigan), Montana Food Innovation Center Network
(Montana), Wild Rice Wood Processing and Storage (Minnesota),
and Women in Technology (Hawaii). In addition, the Committee
encourages the Department to consider applications for grants
to rural public television broadcasting systems.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13,
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water
and waste programs of the former Rural Development
Administration.
The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas.
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology,
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT\1\
Appropriation, 2008..................................... $558,628,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 269,007,000
Committee recommendation................................ 558,628,000
\1\Includes High Energy Cost grants.
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste
development costs. Development loans are made to associations,
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis,
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75
percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to
pay development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and
management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $558,628,000
for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-246) mandates the procedure the Department will use to
establish poverty and intermediate borrower interest rates for
direct Water and Waste Disposal Facility loans. This procedure
mimics earlier administration proposals requiring communities
to rely more heavily on debt and less on grants. The
administration asserted the program level could be maintained,
budget resources would be more efficiently used, and
communities would face lower debt burdens coupled with
acceptable user utility rates.
The Committee remains concerned that under these provisions
needed program resources will not be delivered to the poorest,
most remote communities currently served. The Committee
recommendation provides the same level of budget authority as
in 2008, and directs the Secretary to deliver at least the same
total program level to communities with similar socio-economic
and geographic characteristics as would have been served in
2008 absent this procedural change. By November 15, 2008, the
Secretary shall provide a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations detailing how the Secretary plans
to implement these directives. This report shall include
quantitative measures proposed to determine the socio-economic
and geographic characteristics of communities served. The
report shall also identify benchmarks to evaluate if in fact
communities of similar characteristics are being served. By
November 1, 2009, the Secretary shall provide a comprehensive
analysis and report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, utilizing these measures and benchmarks, to
determine the results of this experiment. If the distribution
of budget authority between grants and direct loans needs to be
adjusted from the Committee Report display table, the Secretary
shall make those adjustments as necessary.
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for water and waste
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native
Alaskans and the Colonias, allocated in a manner consistent
with the fiscal year 2007 allocations. The Committee recognizes
the special needs and problems for delivery of basic services
to these populations. The Secretary is directed to provide a
report to the Committee that identifies the specific areas in
which water and waste disposal program resources have been
provided, where additional resources are most needed, and the
relative costs of program delivery to the various areas and
regions covered by the authorities identified for use of these
specific funds. The Committee expects from the Secretary a
spending plan of how the funds will be used, quarterly
notification on grant obligations, and a year end summary
report. In addition, the Committee makes up to $13,750,000
available for the circuit rider program.
The following table provides the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget
request levels:
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 2009 budget Committee
appropriation\1\ request recommendation\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and waste disposal direct loans.................. 69,609 49,169 ..................
Water and waste disposal grants........................ 464,228 216,373 ..................
Solid waste management grants.......................... 3,441 3,465 ..................
Water well system grants............................... 993 ................ ..................
Water and waste water revolving funds.................. 497 ................ ..................
High energy cost grants................................ 19,860 ................ 19,860
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 558,628 269,007 558,628
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $538,768,000 is provided for Water and Waste Disposal programs, excluding High Energy Cost grants, which is
the same level provided in fiscal year 2008. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
246) mandated a change in the procedure for establishing borrower interest rates for the direct loan program.
OMB has not provided a loan subsidy rate under this new procedure. This program change was instituted to allow
a more effective use of budget authority, by requiring communities to take on more debt at lower interest
rates, coupled with smaller grant levels. The Secretary is directed to distribute this budget authority as
needed to ensure at least the same aggregate program level will be attained in fiscal year 2009 as in fiscal
year 2008, serving communities with similar socio-economic and geographic characteristics as would be served
in fiscal year 2008 absent this procedural change.
Consideration to Applications.--Water and Waste Disposal
loans and grants provide financial support and technical
assistance for development and operation of safe and affordable
water supply systems and waste disposal facilities. Funds may
be used to construct, repair, expand or otherwise improve water
supply and distribution, and waste collection and treatment
systems. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages
the Department to consider applications for water and waste
disposal loans and grants for the following projects: City of
Coburg Wastewater System (Oregon), City of Fanning Springs
Wastewater Project (Florida), City of Healdsburg Wastewater
Treatment Project (California), City of Imperial Water and
Wastewater Treatment Plants (California), City of Ville Platte-
Water Distribution System (Louisiana), Cumberland Waterline
Extension Project (Ohio), City of Ney Wastewater System (Ohio),
Gooseberry Lake Water Supply Project (Iowa), Perry Township
Waterline Extension Project (Ohio), Regional Utility Service
Systems (Iowa), Rural Fire Protection Task Force Dry Hydrant
Program (Vermont), Shasta County Elk Trail Water System
Improvements (California), Tanglewild-Thompson Place Water
System (Washington), Tulare County Rural Community Water
Systems (California), and Zions View/Strawberry Point/Johnson
Canyon Phase VII Project (Utah).
Water and Waste Technical Assistance and Training Grants.--
The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to provide
support for the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse through
the water and waste technical assistance and training grant
program.
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and
telecommunications programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
established the program account. An appropriation to this
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees
committed in fiscal year 2009, as well as for administrative
expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses,
as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget request levels:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 99,300 100,000 99,300
Direct, muni......................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct FFB........................................... 6,500,000 4,000,000 6,500,000
Direct, Treasury rate................................ ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed underwriting.............................. 500,000 ............... 500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 7,099,300 4,100,000 7,099,300
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent........................................ 143,985 145,000 143,985
Direct, Treasury rate.................................... 248,250 250,000 248,250
Direct, FFB.............................................. 292,935 295,000 292,935
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 685,170 690,000 685,170
==================================================
Total, loan authorizations............................. 7,784,470 4,790,000 7,784,470
==================================================
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct 5 percent..................................... 119 ............... ...............
Direct, muni......................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct FFB........................................... ............... ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed........................................... ............... ............... ...............
Guaranteed underwriting.............................. ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 119 ............... ...............
==================================================
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent.................................... 115 ............... ...............
Direct, Treasury rate................................ 1,663 525 521
Direct, FFB.......................................... 1,816 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 3,594 525 521
==================================================
Total, loan subsidies.............................. 3,713 525 521
Administrative expenses...................................... 38,339 37,819 38,353
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 42,052 38,344 38,874
Loans Programs Account................................
(Loan authorization)............................... 7,784,470 4,790,000 7,784,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Loans.--The Committee limits the fiscal year 2009
electric program appropriation to FFB direct loans as opposed
to reflecting the new authorization in the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 [FCEA] for RUS direct electric loans.
However, the Committee encourages the Secretary, through the
RUS, to develop the documentation and regulatory adjustments
necessary to offer RUS direct electric loans, consistent with
the FCEA, so that consideration may be given in future years to
fund such loans.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loans......................................... ............... ............... ...............
Grants............................................... 34,755 20,000 34,755
Broadband program:
Treasury rate loans...................................... 297,900 297,923 297,900
Grants................................................... 13,406 ............... 13,406
--------------------------------------------------
Total DLT grants and loan authorization................ 346,061 317,923 346,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
LOANS AND GRANTS
[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 level 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Direct loan subsidies.................................... ............... ............... ...............
Grants................................................... 34,755 20,000 34,755
Broadband program:
Treasury rate loan subsidies............................. 6,405 11,619 11,618
Grants................................................... 13,406 ............... 13,406
--------------------------------------------------
Total grants and loan subsidies........................ 54,566 31,619 59,779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to
improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better
health care through technology and increasing educational
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for
loans and grants.
The Committee is concerned with the longstanding, unmet
health care needs in the Mississippi Delta and encourages the
Department to use these funds to promote increased health
access and education to address critical health care needs in
the region.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,779,000
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
The Committee recommendation includes $4,965,000 for public
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert
from analog to digital operations.
Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended,
$13,406,000 in grants shall be made available to support
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for
rural areas.
Consideration to Applications--Broadband and Distance
Learning, Telemedicine Loans, and Grants.--The Committee has
been made aware of and encourages the Department to give
consideration to applications for broadband and distance
learning, telemedicine loans and grants for the following:
Broadband Deployment on the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula
(Virginia), Delta Health Alliance (Mississippi), Eastern Shore
Broadband Buildout (Virginia), Electronic Medical Records
System, Glens Falls Hospital (New York), Gilmer/Braxton
Research Technology Institute Broadband Internet Project (West
Virginia), Municipal Cable Project, Town of Massena (New York),
and Otsego County Telecommunications Plan (New York).
The Committee expects the Department to consider only those
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the
established review process.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $593,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 655,000
Committee recommendation................................ 610,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and
Nutrition Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $610,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
Food and Nutrition Service
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children.
These programs include:
Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct
appropriation.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--This program
seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and
families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to
enable them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food
purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the
form of electronic access to funds. The program also includes
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.
The 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 Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law
110-246, provides that $250,000,000 from funds appropriated in
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program account be used
to purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance
Program [TEFAP].
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of
donated commodities.
Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health
of all Americans.
child nutrition programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32
Appropriation transfers Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008................................... $7,647,965,000 $6,253,548,000 $13,901,513,000
Budget estimate, 2009.................................. 7,925,700,000 6,529,983,000 14,455,683,000
Committee recommendation............................... 7,733,849,000 6,721,834,000 14,455,683,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals
to children while they are attending school, residing in
service institutions, or participating in other organized
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to
help maintain the health and proper physical development of
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the
programs and directly administers the program in the States
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses.
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$7,733,849,000, plus transfers from section 32 of
$6,721,834,000, for a total of $14,455,683,000 for the Child
Nutrition Programs.
The Committee's recommendation provides for the following
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Child nutrition programs 2008 estimate 2009 budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program......................................... 8,180,933 8,346,166 8,346,166
School Breakfast Program..................................... 2,389,988 2,522,286 2,522,286
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................ 2,288,838 2,386,780 2,386,780
Summer Food Service Program.................................. 310,634 328,934 328,934
Special Milk Program......................................... 14,618 13,867 13,867
State administrative expenses................................ 175,636 184,057 184,057
Commodity procurement and computer support................... 518,061 647,627 647,627
Team Nutrition............................................... 13,300 13,300 13,300
Food safety education........................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000
Coordinated review........................................... 5,505 5,636 5,636
CACFP training and technical assistance...................... 2,000 2,030 2,030
SNDA data collection and analysis............................ ............... 2,000 2,000
CACFP error estimates........................................ ............... 1,000 1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $13,300,000 for TEAM nutrition.
Included in this amount is $5,000,000 for food service training
grants to States; $2,500,000 for technical assistance
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management
Institute cooperative agreements; $800,000 for print and
electronic food service resource systems; $1,000,000 to assist
USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in development
and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials
in support of nutrition education for program participants and
their families; and $3,200,000 for other activities.
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety
education program.
Farm to Cafeteria.--The Committee is aware of interest in
the Farm to Cafeteria program, which links farms and schools to
bring locally-grown food into the school lunch program. This
program was authorized in the Child Nutrition Reauthorization
Act of 2004. However, no funding was provided then, and funding
has not yet been requested in the administration's budget. The
Committee supports the intent of this program, and strongly
encourages USDA to work to identify funding sources through
which Farm to Cafeteria grants can begin to be made.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.--Section 4304 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act provided $65,000,000 for a
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to be made available on July
1, 2009. Of this amount, the Committee has included a general
provision to delay availability of $49,000,000 of these funds
until October 1, 2009. The Committee notes that this general
provision does not lower the funding amount provided in the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act for the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program, but simply delays a portion of the funding
until the beginning of fiscal year 2009. The full funding
amount of $65,000,000 will be available for the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program for the school year beginning July 1, 2009,
as specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
[WIC]
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $6,020,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 6,100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,750,000,000
The special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 8.6
million participants at an average food cost of $43.55 per
person per month in fiscal year 2009.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut
butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home;
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge
to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,750,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].
The Committee recommends no less than $14,850,000 for
breastfeeding support initiatives.
Estimates.--The Committee recommendation of $6,750,000,000
takes into account several changes from the budget request.
First, both food cost and participation estimates have
increased significantly since the budget request was submitted
in February. USDA's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children July 2008 Report to Congress
assumes WIC participation will be nearly 9 million per month,
as opposed to 8.6 million assumed in the President's budget
request. It further assumes that monthly food costs will be
$45.37, as opposed to $43.55 included in the President's budget
request. These new assumptions result in a budget shortfall of
$450,000,000, according to the July report.
Second, the Committee recommendation again does not include
a limitation on State nutrition services and administration
[NSA] grants as proposed in the budget and assumed in the July
report. The budget request included a reduction of $150,000,000
associated with this limitation. The Committee still does not
agree that reducing support for critical WIC services including
nutrition education, obesity prevention, breastfeeding
promotion and support, healthcare referrals, and immunization
screening is a wise or acceptable method of achieving budget
savings.
Third, although the budget request states that the funding
request for WIC will include $150,000,000 to restore the
contingency fund, this is a disingenuous statement. The budget
request assumes the use of the entire contingency fund to
maintain WIC participation. No funding is requested in the
President's budget that would be available for unforeseen
events, which is the purpose of a contingency fund. Therefore,
the Committee recommendation is currently estimated to be
sufficient to meet program needs, and includes an additional
$50,000,000 to restore the contingency fund.
The Committee is aware that food cost and participation
estimates continue to change, and is pleased that USDA is also
continuing to monitor estimates and plans to reassess the
fiscal year 2009 budget request in September, according to the
July report. We will continue to monitor this situation and
take additional action as necessary to ensure that funding
provided in fiscal year 2009 is sufficient to serve all
eligible applicants.
Health Care Services Referral.--While the Committee
continues to support and encourage State and local agency
efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participation
referral to other health care services, it also continues to
recognize the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as
a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing
demand for core WIC program activities. The Committee wishes to
clarify that while WIC plays an important role in screening and
referral to other health care services, it was never the
Committee's intention that WIC should perform aggressive
screening, referral and assessment functions in such a manner
that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor was
it the Committee's intention that WIC State and local agencies
should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating
appropriate cost sharing agreements. The Committee again
includes language in the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC
services authorized by law to ensure that WIC funds are not
used to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations or
activities other than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the
appropriate Federal agency.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico TEFAP
Expenses Amount in and American commodity CSFP Total
reserve Samoa purchases expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008........ 35,021,473 3,000,000 1,621,250 140,000 ............ 39,782,723
Budget estimate, 2009....... 38,502,380 3,000,000 1,684,424 140,000 22,000 43,348,804
Committee recommendation.... 38,502,880 3,000,000 1,684,424 250,000 ............ 43,437,304
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year
2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP] in the The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to
alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by
increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible households
receive SNAP benefits with which they can purchase food through
regular retail stores.
Other programs funded through the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program include Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico
and American Samoa, the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the
Community Food Projects program.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently
in operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food
benefits, the value of which is determined by household size
and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal
Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service
annually revises household stamp allotments to reflect changes
in the cost of the thrifty food plan.
Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect
administrative costs incurred for certification of households,
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the
States on a 50-50 basis.
State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be
reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their food stamp
fraud investigations and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households
participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
in gaining skills, training, or experience that will increase
their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of
Agriculture has implemented a grant program to States to assist
them in providing employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$43,437,304,000 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Of the amount recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made
available as a contingency reserve. The Committee
recommendation includes language that permits the Food and
Nutrition Service to conduct studies and evaluations consistent
with the budget request.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommendation does not include a provision, requested in the
budget, that would provide transitional benefits to Commodity
Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] participants. The Committee
recommends an appropriation for CSFP in the Commodity
Assistance Program which makes the provision in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program unnecessary.
Food Access.--The Committee is aware that there are areas
of low-income, rural, and tribal communities in the United
States with limited access to affordable, healthy, and fresh
foods, also known as ``food deserts.'' Although initial data
indicates that these communities are spread throughout the
Nation, no comprehensive study has been conducted to provide a
benchmark analysis of their incidence and their characteristics
nationally. The Committee directs the Department to lead an
inter-agency review on food deserts, as authorized in section
7527 of Public Law 110-246, and to provide a report to the
Committee on this review within 1 year of enactment of this
act.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of
bison from producer-owned and Native American owned
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been
important for the Native American population both economically
and nutritionally.
commodity assistance program
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $210,288,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 70,370,000
Committee recommendation................................ 225,370,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60
years of age or older.
The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula,
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice
cereal.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and
through the distribution of commodities to low-income
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs.
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of
persons with income below the poverty level.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 increases
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from
$140,000,000 to $250,000,000. In addition to the commodities
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under
agriculture support and surplus removal programs are donated to
States for distribution through TEFAP.
Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS'
administrative costs in connection with relief for all
disasters.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers'
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,370,000
for the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues
to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance
Program funds equitably among the States, based on an
assessment of the needs and priorities of each State and the
State's preference to receive commodity allocations through
each of the programs funded under this account.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee
recommends $155,000,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh
fruits and vegetables to low-income mothers and children,
benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as
well. Therefore, the Committee recommends $19,800,000 for the
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to
obligate these funds within 45 days.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides $250,000,000 for
TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program funds. The Committee recommendation includes
$49,500,000 for TEFAP administrative funding. In addition, the
Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to
transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities
for this purpose.
nutrition programs administration
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $141,581,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 150,251,000
Committee recommendation................................ 142,595,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto
Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance
Program; and Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and Pacific
Island Assistance.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2)
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise;
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out
regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,595,000
for Nutrition Programs Administration.
Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--The Committee
is concerned that the Food and Nutrition Service has not yet
determined the CACFP reimbursement needed to serve meals and
snacks consistent with the dietary guidelines, although they
were directed by this Committee to do so. CACFP provides a
significant benefit to low-income children and their families.
Meals provided through CACFP ensure that developing children
receive key nutrients in adequate amounts each day they are in
child care, as well assist families in stretching limited food
resources. Therefore, the Committee again directs FNS to
determine the reimbursement needed to serve meals and snacks
consistent with dietary guidelines, including contracting with
an outside source such as the Institute of Medicine if
necessary, and to report its findings back to this Committee.
Nutrition Initiatives.--The Committee is aware of the
important work being undertaken by numerous State, local, and
private organizations in order to reduce hunger and increase
nutrition education throughout the United States. The Committee
applauds these efforts, and encourages USDA to work with
interested organizations throughout the country, including the
Mid-Ohio FoodBank in Columbus, Ohio; Ozarks Food Harvest in
Springfield, Missouri; Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency
in Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan; the St. John's
Bread & Life Program in Brooklyn, New York; and the Vermont
Community School Gardens Program in Burlington, Vermont to
provide technical and financial assistance where appropriate,
to help these organizations further their goals.
Policy Documents.--The Committee directs the Food and
Nutrition Service to make all policy documents related to the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children [WIC] (including, but not limited to, instructions,
memoranda, guidance, and questions and answers) available to
the public on the internet within 1 week of their release to
state WIC administrators.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers from
Appropriations loan accounts Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008......................................... $158,280,000 $4,950,000 $163,304,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................ 168,042,000 4,985,000 173,027,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 169,042,000 4,985,000 174,027,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the
Foreign Agricultural Service.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S.
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS
staff are stationed at 77 offices around the world where they
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as
well as provide attache services.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable
CCC payments.
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs:
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees,
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7)
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $174,027,000 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of
$169,042,000.
Biotechnology.--To promote the export of domestic farm
products and improve world agriculture trade conditions, the
Foreign Agricultural Service must increase its efforts to
improve the understanding among trading partners of the safety
of biotechnology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory
oversight of biotechnology. As trading partners construct
regulatory systems for biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS
is frequently requested to provide experts for the purpose of
educating foreign government officials on the U.S. regulatory
system. If the United States fails to participate in such
discussions, those attempting to limit the access to foreign
markets by U.S. producers will be presented an opportunity to
undermine confidence in the benefits and safety of the
technology while reducing trade opportunities for American
producers. The Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate
funding to meet the needs of our trading partners so that
officials from the Department of Agriculture may, when
requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety of the
technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory process.
Borlaug Fellows Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural
Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides
training for international scientists and policymakers from
selected developing countries. The fellows work closely with
U.S. specialists in their fields of expertise and apply that
knowledge in their home countries. The Committee recognizes the
importance of this program in helping developing countries
strengthen their agricultural practices and food security.
Capital Security Cost Sharing.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,500,000 for Capital Security Cost
Sharing [CSCS], as proposed in the budget. The Committee funds
the fiscal year 2009 CSCS assessment at the level requested by
FAS with the understanding that space assignments made by the
Department of State in newly constructed embassies will meet
current and projected FAS space requirements.
Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
Currency Exchange Rates.--The Committee continues to
include language in a general provision in the bill, as
requested in the budget, to allow up to $2,000,000 of the
amount appropriated to the FAS to remain available until
expended solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in
international currency exchange rates, subject to
documentation.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year
2008 level.
Specialty Crops.--The Committee is aware of FAS activities
to provide technical assistance for the promotion of specialty
crop exports and includes $200,000 to support these activities.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Credit level Loan subsidy expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008......................................... ............... ............... $2,661,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................ ............... ............... 2,761,000
Committee recommendation..................................... ............... ............... 2,761,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,761,000 for
administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Public
Law 480 title I agreements.
The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for any
new Public Law 480 title I agreements, consistent with the
Administration's request, and believes that food aid resources
can be used more effectively in the title II grant program. The
Committee has continued to focus food aid resources on title II
grants, but does provide funding to support previously entered
into title I agreements.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $1,210,864,000
Supplemental appropriation, 2008\1\..................... 1,245,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 1,225,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,225,900,000
\1\Of this amount, $395,000,000 is available on October 1, 2008.
The Committee recognizes the important mission of the
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition;
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development;
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage
the development of private enterprise and democratic
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly
supports the continued efficient operation of this important
program.
Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements.
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public
and private agencies, including intergovernmental
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,225,900,000
for Public Law 480 title II grants. The Committee does not
support the President's proposal to reduce the amount available
for direct food assistance to cover administrative costs
instead of providing for those costs through the Commodity
Credit Corporation as is the current practice. Instead, the
Committee believes it is more important to provide a higher
level of direct humanitarian assistance to help meet the
world's growing hunger crisis.
Monetization.--The Committee directs the administration not
to place arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law
480 title II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant
countries, monetization stimulates the economy and allows
needed commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not
on the level of monetization.
Safe Box.--The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
contained a provision mandating a minimum level of Public Law
480 title II resources be used for non-emergency assistance
($375,000,000 in fiscal year 2009), thereby creating a ``safe
box'' for non-emergency funds. While the Committee fully agrees
with the importance of non-emergency food aid, this language
has the potential to complicate the delivery of food assistance
in an emergency situation. The Committee should be notified
immediately once a determination is made that the need for
emergency assistance will exceed the amount available and the
non-emergency ``safe box'' will be breached. In addition, the
Secretary, in consultation of the Administrator of USAID,
should submit quarterly reports to the Committee on the status
of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, as well as notify the
Committee when any draw down of the Trust occurs.
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION
PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $99,300,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program helps support education, child
development, and food security for some of the world's poorest
children. The program provides for donations of U.S.
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. Commodities made available
for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations,
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding
and nutrition projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program.
The Committee strongly supports the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education Program as an important tool in improving food
security for school-age children in developing countries and
provides a modest increase over the fiscal year 2008 level.
This program often provides children the only nourishing meal
they may receive in any given day and has been successful in
promoting educational programs that are a vital link to
improving life and living conditions throughout the world.
These funds are in addition to $84,000,000 that is included
in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, but the
Committee notes that those resources were provided as a one-
time infusion of funds which could be depleted in a single
year. Unlike other mandatory funding in that statute, no
allowance was made to ensure a funding stream through the term
of the legislation. While the Committee hopes to be able to
include increases above the established discretionary baseline
for this program beyond fiscal year 2009, no such commitment
can be made since, unlike the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008, discretionary allocations are provided on an
annual basis and it is impossible to predict what resources may
be available for future year appropriations. Therefore, the
Committee directs that in obligating funds available in fiscal
year 2009, no commitments for out-year requirements should be
made in excess of levels equal to the current year
discretionary baseline plus funds made available through the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed loan Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels\1\ subsidy\1\ expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008......................................... $2,274,000,000 $52,914,000 $5,328,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................ 2,675,000,000 25,715,000 5,353,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 2,675,000,000 25,715,000 5,353,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.
In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee,
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement.
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide
financing to those areas where the institutions would be
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S.
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing
guarantees.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for
administrative expenses.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110-85) reaffirmed the
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor
products for continued safety after they are in use. In
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of
all regulated products, including food, and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary,
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the
safest in the world.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy.
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure,
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events
associated with vaccine immunization.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart
pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and video
display terminals.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource,
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The
research is designed to define and understand the biological
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure,
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.
salaries and expenses
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammography
Prescription Medical Animal clinics Export and
Appropriation drug user device drug user inspection certification Total
fees user fees fees fees fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008......................................... 1,714,337 459,412 48,431 13,696 18,398 9,500 2,263,774
Supplemental appropriation, 2008\1\.......................... 150,000 ............ ......... ......... ........... ............. 150,000
Budget estimate, 2009\2\..................................... 2,033,770 497,108 52,547 13,698 19,318 10,300 2,626,741
Committee recommendation..................................... 2,038,964 497,108 52,547 15,260 19,318 10,300 2,633,497
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Supplemental funding is available until September 30, 2009.
\2\Includes a budget amendment of $265,000,000.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,038,964,000
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends
$497,108,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee
collections; $52,547,000 in Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act user fee collections; $15,260,000 in Animal
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $19,318,000 in
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections; and
$10,300,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the
President's budget. The Committee recommendation includes bill
language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or
operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C.
9701.
The Committee notes that ADUFA user fees need to be
reauthorized for fiscal year 2009. ADUFA legislation is
currently being negotiated by the appropriate authorizing
committees. The Committee has included amounts that represent
the current administration proposal for ADUFA user fees. The
Committee will follow the reauthorization of this fee and
adjust the fee collection amount if necessary.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget
request levels:
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2008 enacted 2009 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
Foods.................................................... 509,867 660,534 660,534
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN]. 172,035 210,587 210,587
Field Activities..................................... 337,832 449,947 449,947
==================================================
Human Drugs.............................................. 353,269 407,491 409,781
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]....... 266,131 293,234 294,999
Field Activities..................................... 87,138 114,257 114,782
==================================================
Biologics................................................ 155,229 180,675 181,795
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER].. 125,834 145,344 146,292
Field Activities..................................... 29,395 35,331 35,503
==================================================
Animal Drugs............................................. 97,037 114,234 114,355
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM]................. 59,738 71,714 71,824
Field Activities..................................... 37,299 42,520 42,531
==================================================
Medical and radiological devices......................... 237,992 277,381 278,421
--------------------------------------------------
Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH].... 177,839 206,675 207,356
Field Activities..................................... 60,153 70,706 71,065
==================================================
National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........ 44,006 51,816 52,127
==================================================
Other Activities............................................. 97,496 122,198 122,510
==================================================
Rent and related activities.................................. 88,829 88,829 88,829
==================================================
Rental payments to GSA....................................... 130,612 130,612 130,612
==================================================
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority. 1,714,337 2,033,770 2,038,964
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation includes the following
increases in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses
activities: $25,000,000 for cost-of-living adjustments;
$155,194,000 for food safety activities; $104,433,000 for drug,
biologics and device safety, including the Critical Path
Initiative; and $40,000,000 for activities to modernize FDA's
science and workforce. This Committee recommendation fully
funds the President's budget request for the FDA, including
additional funding requested in the budget amendment submitted
on June 9, 2008. The Committee recommendation does not include
base program reductions assumed in the budget request.
Of the amount recommended, $155,194,000 shall be used for
activities related to food protection. The funding shall be
used to open additional FDA offices overseas and improve FDA's
capacity to identify risk factors and more rapidly mitigate any
food safety problems. This includes more rapid detection of
contamination and more rapid trace back abilities to determine
the source of any outbreak of food borne illness. Further, this
funding will be used to hire additional foreign and domestic
inspectors to increase the number of import food exams, the
number of foreign food facility inspections and the number of
domestic food safety inspections; and to create a new
communication system to more rapidly inform the public of any
outbreak of food borne illness.
Of the amount recommended, $104,433,000 shall be used for
activities related to drug, device, and biologics safety. The
funding shall be used to increase foreign and domestic facility
inspections, improve laboratory infrastructure and rapid
analysis tools, implement the safety requirements outlined in
the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, and upgrade
the agency's information technology to enable data sharing and
enhanced analysis of adverse events.
Of the amount recommended, $40,000,000 will be used to
enhance science programs across the agency, with specific focus
on areas of emerging science where the FDA currently lacks the
expertise necessary to regulate complex products under
development. This will include funding for research, science
training and professional development for current FDA staff,
and efforts to recruit additional scientific staff to the
agency.
Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,757,000 for the FDA's
contract with New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences
Laboratory to operate the Food Technology Evaluation
Laboratory, which conducts evaluation and development of rapid
screening methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and
provides technology deployment, modeling, and data analysis for
food safety and product safety, including advanced risk-based
systems for screening and inspection, to facilitate FDA's
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
Antibiotics in Shrimp.--The Committee is concerned about
the contamination of farm-raised shrimp imports with banned
antibiotics. The Food and Drug Administration currently
inspects less than 2 percent of imported shrimp. The Committee
strongly encourages FDA to develop, in cooperation with State
testing programs, a program for increasing the inspection of
imported shrimp for banned antibiotics.
Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the agency to
submit the fiscal year 2010 budget request in a format that
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2009
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
Codex Alimentarius.--Within the total funding available, at
least $2,495,000 is for FDA activities in support of Codex
Alimentarius.
Collaborative Drug Safety Research.--The Committee
recommendation includes $559,000 to continue the collaborative
research agreement on cardiac biomarkers between FDA, the
Critical Path Institute, and the University of Utah. The
Committee notes that this research project has been extremely
successful and has developed a genetic test that will help
guide warfarin, a commonly prescribed blood thinner, dosing. It
is estimated that integrating genetic testing into warfarin
therapy could allow Americans to avoid 85,000 serious bleeding
events and 17,000 strokes annually, reducing health care
spending by approximately $1,000,000,000 annually.
Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.--The Committee
recommendation includes $16,000,000 for critical path
initiatives, including not less than $4,000,000 for competitive
contracts or grants to universities and non-profit
organizations to support critical path projects. The Committee
expects that this funding will be used to further FDA's work on
critical path opportunities, including the 76 opportunities
published in 2006 and other opportunities identified since
2006, and to promote collaborations with other Government
agencies, academia, patient groups, and other interested
parties including, but not limited to, the Predictive Safety
Testing Consortium, which is currently reviewing the validity
of new tests to detect drug induced kidney damage; the National
Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education, a multi-
university consortium working to further research and education
programs in the science and engineering of product development
and manufacturing; the Coalition Against Major Diseases, which
is working to generate quantitative disease progression models
that can be made available for all to use in designing clinical
trials; and the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative,
which aims to improve the efficiency and safety of clinical
trials.
Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device
Availability.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000
for Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device
Availability, as authorized by the Food and Drug Amendments Act
of 2007. The Committee is aware that medical device products
are developed for adults, limiting children's access to safe
and effective medical devices. This program will provide grants
to nonprofit pediatric medical device consortia, which will
assist scientists and innovators with technical and financial
resources to improve the number of medical devices available to
children.
Dietary Supplements.--FDA has indicated that the ability to
identify and analyze specific components in ingredients,
including botanical ingredients, is an essential component of
research and regulatory programs directed at ensuring the
safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,713,000 for review of botanicals in
dietary supplements. This work is being carried out by FDA in
collaboration with the National Center for Natural Products
Research, Oxford, Mississippi.
Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommendation includes no
less than $81,526,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of
which $41,358,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs.
In Vitro High Throughput Immune Response Assessment
Technologies.--The Committee is aware of rapid in vitro high
throughput immune response assessment technologies for
evaluating the human immune response to vaccines. These
technologies may facilitate the rapid screening of novel
vaccine candidates, thus reducing the time and cost associated
with development. Specifically, these approaches may be highly
useful for conducting potency testing and predicting the
performance of new vaccines. The Committee directs FDA to
continue to evaluate these technologies to determine how they
might be used to rapidly facilitate vaccine development and FDA
review.
Mammography.--The Committee recommends no less than the
fiscal year 2008 level in appropriated funds for activities
related to the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA].
Appropriations for this program fund research grants and
various activities to develop and enforce quality standards for
mammography services, including a Federal advisory committee,
accreditation bodies, inspections of government entities and
facilities that provided 50 percent or more mammography
screenings with grants provided through the Center for Disease
Control's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Program, issuance and renewal of certificates, appeal
procedures, certification of personnel, and imposing sanctions
for noncompliance.
On June 26, 2008, the Committee received a report, as
requested by Senate Report 110-134, on actions being taken to
implement recommendations made in the Institute of Medicine
report entitled ``Breast Imaging Quality Standards''. The
report stated that FDA held an open public meeting on September
28 and 29, 2006, and has been considering potential amendments
to MQSA, which would address the IOM report, since this
meeting. To date, FDA has not acted on any of these
recommendations. The Committee believes this is an unacceptable
delay, and directs the FDA to report back within 120 days of
enactment of this Act on which amendments that FDA will propose
to MQSA, if any, in response to the IOM report recommendations
and provide a timeline for these amendments.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--With the
growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health, the
Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety
should continue among Government, academia, and private
industry. The national model for that collaboration has been
the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] in
Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,212,000 for NCFST to continue the important work done there.
This funding should be exclusive of any initiative funds which
the FDA may provide in addition to NCFST.
Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the Office of Women's
Health. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure that the Office
of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to carry out its
activities, and to enhance its funding if necessary.
Orphan Products Grants.--The Committee recommendation
includes $14,035,000 for the Orphan Products Grants Program
within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Pediatric Cancer.--The Committee notes the poor survival
rates and lack of new therapies associated with many pediatric
cancers, including high-risk neuroblastoma. The Committee
encourages the FDA to prioritize review of new treatments and
clinical trials for pediatric oncology patients and requests a
report on these activities within 120 days of the enactment of
this act.
Seafood Economic Integrity.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that
FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity
issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species,
weights, country of origin, and treatment. The Committee
encourages FDA to work with States to more aggressively combat
fraud in parts of the seafood industry.
Seafood Safety.--The Committee supports the ongoing work of
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference [ISSC] and its
joint efforts with the FDA and the shellfish industry to
formulate shellfish safety regulations through the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee recommendation
includes $148,000 for the Office of Seafood Inspection to
continue these activities and $185,000 be directed to the ISSC
for the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
Standardized Food Safety Certification.--The Committee is
aware that the Hawaii Department of Agriculture has proposed a
State-wide standardized food safety certification system. The
Committee encourages the FDA to work with the State of Hawaii
on this system and to provide funding if appropriate.
Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of
milk protein concentrate. The Committee remains concerned with
FDA's current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as
it relates to the potential use of milk protein concentrate in
standardized cheese and the labeling thereof.
Waste Management Education and Research Consortium.--The
Committee recommendation includes $73,000 for the FDA to
continue its support for the Waste Management Education and
Research Consortium and its work in food safety technology
verification and education.
Western Region FDA Center of Excellence.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,490,000 for the Western Region FDA
Center of Excellence at the University of California at Davis
[UCD]. California and the western States provide the majority
of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops, and
lead the Nation in import and export of food products. This
Center is a cooperative research center with FDA and UCD and
addresses food safety and security areas of focus identified by
FDA to be of greatest need in the Western United States.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2008.................................... $2,433,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................ 12,433,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,433,000
\1\Includes a budget amendment of $10,000,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs,
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory
methods up to date.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,433,000
for FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to
upgrade FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently
below public safety standards and incapable of performing
agency requirements.
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Limitation, 2008........................................ $46,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations,
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and
approves certain actions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985,
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and
enforcement powers.
The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences,
and associations and other entities upon which farming
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and
assuring its safe and sound operation.
Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
Corporation.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a limitation of $50,000,000 on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration
[FCA]. The Committee recommendation that the limitation does
not apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section makes funds available for the
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section makes funds for certain accounts
within the Department of Agriculture available until expended.
Section 703. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the
Working Capital Fund.
Section 704. This section limits the funding provided in
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 705. This section limits negotiated indirect costs
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
Section 706. This section makes appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for
certain Rural Development programs.
Section 707. This section makes funds available for the
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 708. This section prohibits the use of funds to
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
Section 709. This section requires Department of
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for
longer than 30 days.
Section 710. This section prohibits the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
Section 711. This section prohibits the purchase of new
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information
Officer.
Section 712. This section prohibits the reprogramming of
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
Section 713. This section prohibits the use of funds for
user fee proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget
impact information.
Section 714. This section prohibits the closing of the Food
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
Section 715. This section limits the amount of funding
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust.
Section 716. This section prohibits the promulgation of a
final rule related to animal and plant health programs.
Section 717 This section provides $434,000 for the Denali
Commission to address deficiencies in solid waste management in
the State of Alaska. The Committee directs the Commission to
work with the State of Alaska to develop a legal framework for
a solid waste management authority that can become self-
sustaining and is authorized to establish a revolving loan fund
to support solid waste projects.
Section 718. This section makes funds for certain
conservation programs available until expended to disburse
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year.
Section 719. This section makes certain former Rural
Utilities Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic
Development loan and grant program.
Section 720. This section gives the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority to make funding and other assistance
available for damage to non-Federal lands damaged by fires
initiated by the Federal Government, and waives cost-sharing
requirements.
Section 721. This section prohibits funds to carry out
certain sections of Public Law 110-246.
Section 722. This section provides funding for the National
Center for Natural Products Research to construct and/or
renovate facilities to enhance the research conducted on
botanicals and dietary supplements at the National Center in
conjunction with FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. This research aids FDA's regulatory mission in
ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements by
identifying, isolating, and analyzing specific components of
botanicals and dietary supplements.
Section 723. This section provides funding to complete the
environmental assessment for and continue the design of a
facility that will allow the creation of sterile fruit flies of
all varieties of established fruit fly pests.
Section 724. This section establishes a forestry pilot
program for lands affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Section 725. This section makes certain locations eligible
for certain Rural Development programs.
Section 726. This section provides funding for the Bill
Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
Section 727. This section provides funding for section 6402
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, to
support development and expansion of the specialty cheese
industry.
Section 728. This section authorizes certain watershed
projects.
Section 729. This section includes language amending the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
Section 730. This section prohibits funding certain
activities.
Section 731. This section directs the NRCS to settle claims
associated with the Houlka Master Watershed Project.
Section 732. This section modifies matching requirements
for certain research grants.
Section. 733. This section refers to congressional
spending.
Section 734. This section makes commercial fishermen
eligible for certain operating loans.
Section 735. This section exempts from agricultural
quarantine and inspection user fees certain commercial trucks
originating in the United States and transiting through Canada.
Section 736. This section prohibits certain products from
Argentina.
Section 737. This section relates to sales of agricultural
and medical goods to Cuba.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2009, for purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following
information provides the definition of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2008, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement
of the managers of the committee of conference.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2009 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support
of the fiscal year 2009 budget estimates, as amended, for such
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action,
and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall
include specific research locations as identified in the
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2009:
--The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides
authorizations for a number of programs funded under
this act. This act is currently under consideration for
reauthorization;
--Healthy Forests Reserve Program
--Animal Drug User Fee Act
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2008,
the Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 3289)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes,
and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of
the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill as a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House
companion measure, with the bill subject to amendment and
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 50--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
SUBCHAPTER IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 1991. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter:
(1) The term ``farmer'' includes a person who is
engaged in, or who, with assistance afforded under this
chapter, intends to engage in, fish farming and, in the
case of subtitle B, commercial fishing.
(2) The term ``farming'' shall be deemed to include
fish farming and, in the case of subtitle B, commercial
fishing.
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Preservation loan service program.--The term
``preservation loan service program'' means homestead
retention as authorized under section 2000 of this
title.
(c) Definition of Farm.--In subtitle B, the term ``farm''
includes a commercial fishing enterprise owned or operated by a
geographically disadvantaged farmer or rancher (as defined in
section 10906(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 2204 note; Public Law 107-171), except that
for purposes of this subsection the term ``farmer or rancher''
as used in that section shall include a commercial fisherman).
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VI--DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY
[Sec. 2009aa-10. Records
[(a) Records of the Authority
[(1) In general
[The Authority shall maintain accurate and complete
records of all transactions and activities of the
Authority.
[(2) Availability
[All records of the Authority shall be available
for audit and examination by the Comptroller General of
the United States and the Inspector General of the
Department of Agriculture (including authorized
representatives of the Comptroller General and the
Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture).
[(b) Records of recipients of Federal assistance
[(1) In general
[A recipient of Federal funds under this subchapter
shall, as required by the Authority, maintain accurate
and complete records of transactions and activities
financed with Federal funds and report on the
transactions and activities to the Authority.
[(2) Availability
[All records required under paragraph (1) shall be
available for audit by the Comptroller General of the
United States, the Inspector General of the Department
of Agriculture, and the Authority (including authorized
representatives of the Comptroller General, the
Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture, and
the Authority).
[(c) Annual audit
[The Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture
shall audit the activities, transactions, and records of the
Authority on an annual basis.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
CHAPTER 79--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 7209. Requirements relating to certain travel-related transactions
with Cuba
[(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of
agricultural commodities
[The Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations
under which the travel-related transactions listed in
subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations, may be authorized on a case-by-case basis by a
specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the
commercial export sale of agricultural commodities pursuant to
the provisions of this chapter.]
(a) Authorization of Travel Relating to Commercial Sales of
Agricultural and Medical Goods.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-related
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are authorized by
general license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods pursuant
to the provisions of this title.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 13--SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS
Sec. 1766. Child and adult care food program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(r) Program for at-risk school children
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Limitation
The Secretary shall limit reimbursement under this
subsection for meals served under a program to
institutions located in [eight] nine States, of which
[six] seven States shall be Vermont, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Missouri, Delaware, and Michigan and two
States shall be approved by the Secretary through a
competitive application process.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2008: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:
Mandatory............................................... 76,307 76,307 63,526 \1\63,526
Discretionary........................................... 20,435 20,435 21,395 \1\21,344
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2009.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\71,646
2010.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,613
2011.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,036
2012.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 244
2013 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 186
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 28,283 NA 24,633
2008.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money.
As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the term ``congressional directed spending item'' means
a provision or report language included primarily at the
request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan,
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality
or congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process.
For each item, a Member is required to provide a
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm).
Following is a list of congressionally directed spending
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Project Funding Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS.............................. Specialty Markets, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection........... $360,000 Senator Kohl
APHIS............................ Beaver management and control, APHIS Mississippi................................................. 472,000 Senator Cochran
APHIS............................ Beaver management and control, APHIS North Carolina.............................................. 221,000 Senator Dole
APHIS............................ Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry 1,117,000 Senators Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker
Experiment Sta- tion.
APHIS............................ Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont...................................... 240,000 Senator Leahy
APHIS............................ Blackbird management, APHIS Kansas............................................................... 127,000 Senator Roberts
APHIS............................ Blackbird management, APHIS Louisiana............................................................ 100,000 Senator Landrieu
APHIS............................ Blackbird management, APHIS North and South Dakota............................................... 282,000 Senators Conrad, Dorgan, and Johnson
APHIS............................ Brown tree snake, APHIS Hawaii................................................................... 700,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and 619,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein
Agriculture.
APHIS............................ California county pest detection import inspection program, California Department of Food and 738,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein
Agriculture.
APHIS............................ Chronic Wasting Disease, Colorado Department of Agriculture...................................... 38,000 Senators Allard and Salazar
APHIS............................ Chronic Wasting Disease, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food................................. 182,000 Senator Bennett
APHIS............................ Chronic Wasting Disease, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection...... 1,350,000 Senator Kohl
APHIS............................ Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture........................................ 221,000 Senator Cochran
APHIS............................ Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of 223,000 Senators Casey and Specter
Agriculture.
APHIS............................ Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan................................................................ 148,000 Senators Levin and Stabenow
APHIS............................ Cormorant control, APHIS Mississippi............................................................. 237,000 Senator Cochran
APHIS............................ Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department........................ 110,000 Senator Leahy
APHIS............................ Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries............................... 74,000 Senators Landrieu and Vitter
APHIS............................ Disease surveillance in North Dakota, North Dakota State University and Dickinson State 1,400,000 Senators Conrad and Dorgan
University.
APHIS............................ Genetically modified products, Iowa State University............................................. 276,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
APHIS............................ Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana 692,000 Senators Barrasso, Baucus, Craig, and
Department of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board. Crapo
APHIS............................ Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii................................................................... 1,750,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ Integrated predation management activities, APHIS West Virginia.................................. 298,000 Senator Byrd
APHIS............................ Johne's disease, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Services................ 1,000,000 Senator Kohl
APHIS............................ Lamprey control, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, Vermont................ 100,000 Senator Leahy
APHIS............................ Mormon crickets, APHIS Utah...................................................................... 1,117,000 Senator Bennett
APHIS............................ National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University................................. 276,000 Senators Brownback and Roberts
APHIS............................ National farm animal identification and records, Holstein Association............................ 343,000 Senator Leahy
APHIS............................ National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station and 255,000 Senator Cochran
Mississippi State University.
APHIS............................ National Wildlife Research Station, Texas A&M.................................................... 309,000 Senator Hutchison
APHIS............................ Nevada weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture......................................... 250,000 Senator Reid
APHIS............................ New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico State University........................ 404,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
APHIS............................ Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe.................................................... 187,000 Senators Craig and Crapo
APHIS............................ Predator Research Station, APHIS Utah, Utah State University, Colorado State University.......... 1,033,000 Senator Bennett
APHIS............................ Rodent control, APHIS Hawaii..................................................................... 172,000 Senator Inouye
APHIS............................ Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.................................... 986,000 Senators Barrasso, Baucus, Craig, Crapo,
Enzi, and Tester
APHIS............................ Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Hawaii............................................................ 500,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ Wildlife Services Hawaii, APHIS Hawaii........................................................... 400,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................ Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks................. 553,000 Senators Johnson and Thune
APHIS............................ Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and 1,550,000 Senator Kohl
Consumer Protection.
ARS/BF........................... Agriculture Research Center, Pullman, WA......................................................... 1,870,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
ARS/BF........................... Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, Alcorn State, MS............................... 1,780,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
ARS/BF........................... Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT.......................................................... 1,600,000 Senators Baucus and Tester
ARS/BF........................... Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green, KY................................... 1,390,000 Senator McConnell
ARS/BF........................... Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV.................................................. 1,000,000 Senator Byrd
ARS/BF........................... ARS Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT...................................................... 5,561,000 Senator Bennett
ARS/BF........................... Dairy Forage Agricultural Center, Prairie du Sac, WI............................................. 2,558,000 Senator Kohl
ARS/BF........................... Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington, KY........................................ 2,085,000 Senator McConnell
ARS/BF........................... Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, Hagerman, ID........................................... 695,000 Senators Craig and Crapo
ARS/BF........................... Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville, MS....................................... 2,000,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
ARS/BF........................... National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, MO........................................ 2,086,000 Senator Bond
ARS/BF........................... Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI............................................. 2,000,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
ARS/BF........................... Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville, MS................................................ 1,780,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
ARS/BF........................... Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, LA......................................................... 3,200,000 Senators Landrieu and Vitter
ARS/BF........................... Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE................................................... 1,390,000 Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/Extension..................... Childhood Farm Safety, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, Urbandale, IA.................................... 74,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/Extension..................... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin Extension.............................. 400,000 Senator Kohl
CS/Extension..................... Dairy education, Iowa State University........................................................... 169,000 Senators Harkin and Grassley
CS/Extension..................... E-commerce, Mississippi State University......................................................... 246,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/Extension..................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.. 475,000 Senators Bingaman, Cornyn, Domenici,
Hutchison
CS/Extension..................... Extension specialist, Mississippi State University............................................... 98,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/Extension..................... Health education leadership, University of Kentucky Research Foundation.......................... 628,000 Senator McConnell
CS/Extension..................... Iowa vitality center, Iowa State University...................................................... 223,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/Extension..................... National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College................................ 168,000 Senator Harkin
CS/Extension..................... Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public 800,000 Senator Kohl
Institutions.
CS/Extension..................... Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH..................................... 496,000 Senators Brown and Voinovich
CS/Extension..................... Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables, University of Wisconsin Extension............................. 350,000 Senator Kohl
CS/Extension..................... Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State University............... 223,000 Senators Cochran, Inhofe and Wicker
CS/Extension..................... Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight, University of Maine.............................. 298,000 Senators Collins and Snowe
CS/Extension..................... Range improvement, New Mexico State University................................................... 223,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/Extension..................... Rural technologies, Maui Economic Development Board, HI.......................................... 150,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
CS/Extension..................... Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL............................ 111,000 Senator Durbin
CS/Extension..................... Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing Power.......................... 400,000 Senator Kohl
CS/RE/FA......................... Agriculture development in the American Pacific, University of Hawaii............................ 372,000 Senator Inouye
CS/RE/FA......................... Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State University.................................... 485,000 Senator Byrd
CS/RE/FA......................... Agriculture-based industrial lubricants, University of Northern Iowa............................. 405,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/RE/FA......................... Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State University........................ 250,000 Senator Feinstein
CS/RE/FA......................... Aquaculture, Cheyney University, PA.............................................................. 164,000 Senator Specter
CS/RE/FA......................... Aquaculture Research, Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council........................... 298,000 Senator Reed
CS/RE/FA......................... Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS.............................................. 511,000 Senator Cochran
CS/RE/FA......................... Botanical research, Utah State University........................................................ 670,000 Senator Bennett
CS/RE/FA......................... Center for North American studies, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College 200,000 Senators Domenici and Hutchison
Station, TX.
CS/RE/FA......................... Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.................... 340,000 Senator Specter
CS/RE/FA......................... Cotton research, Texas Tech University........................................................... 300,000 Senators Cornyn and Hutchison
CS/RE/FA......................... Council for Agriculture and Technology, Ames, IA................................................. 112,000 Senator Harkin
CS/RE/FA......................... Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD.................................................. 500,000 Senators Cardin and Mikulski
CS/RE/FA......................... Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University................................................. 112,000 Senators Brown and Voinovich
CS/RE/FA......................... Feed efficiency, West Virginia University........................................................ 112,000 Senator Byrd
CS/RE/FA......................... Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of Central Florida.................... 250,000 Senators Martinez and Bill Nelson
CS/RE/FA......................... Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen F. Austin State University, TX............................ 298,000 Senator Hutchison
CS/RE/FA......................... Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa State University.................. 187,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/RE/FA......................... Mississippi Valley State University.............................................................. 1,067,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/RE/FA......................... NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the 150,000 Senators Collins, Dodd, Lieberman, Snowe
University of Maine.
CS/RE/FA......................... PM-10 air quality study, Washington State University............................................. 150,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/RE/FA......................... Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS................................................. 1,367,000 Senator Brownback
CS/RE/FA......................... Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS...................................................... 229,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/RE/FA......................... Shellfish, University of Rhode Island............................................................ 261,000 Senators Reed and Whitehouse
CS/RE/FA......................... Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi........................................... 300,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/RE/FA......................... Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH........................................... 223,000 Senators Brown and Voinovich
CS/RE/FA......................... Water pollutants, Marshall University, WV........................................................ 410,000 Senator Byrd
CS/SRG........................... Advanced genetic technologies, University of Kentucky Research Foundation........................ 481,000 Senator McConnell
CS/SRG........................... Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX.............................................. 149,000 Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG........................... Aegilops cylindrica / Biomass (jointed goatgrass), Washington State University................... 200,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG........................... Agricultural diversity, University of Minnesota, Crookston....................................... 200,000 Senators Conrad and Dorgan
CS/SRG........................... Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives, Pennsylvania State University......................... 248,000 Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG........................... Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............... 300,000 Senators Cornyn, Hutchison, Roberts
CS/SRG........................... Alliance for food protection, University of Nebraska............................................. 130,000 Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/SRG........................... Animal disease research, University of Wyoming................................................... 258,000 Senators Barrasso and Enzi
CS/SRG........................... Animal Health, Forages for Advancing Livestock Production Project, KY............................ 291,000 Senator McConnell
CS/SRG........................... Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State 1,000,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln,
University, Kansas State University. Pryor, Roberts,
CS/SRG........................... Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, University 200,000 Senators Levin, Schumer, Stabenow
of Michigan.
CS/SRG........................... Aquaculture product & marketing development, West Virginia University............................ 521,000 Senator Byrd
CS/SRG........................... Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center...................................... 200,000 Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG........................... Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station............................ 385,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG........................... Aquaculture, North Carolina State University..................................................... 242,000 Senators Burr and Dole
CS/SRG........................... Armillaria root rot, Michigan State University................................................... 111,000 Senators Levin and Stabenow
CS/SRG........................... Asparagus technology and production, Washington State University................................. 184,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG........................... Avian bioscience, University of Delaware......................................................... 100,000 Senator Biden and Carper
CS/SRG........................... Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University of Idaho...................... 547,000 Senators Baucus, Craig, Crapo, Tester
CS/SRG........................... Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University............................................... 223,000 Senators Warner and Webb
CS/SRG........................... Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State University, Mississippi State University........... 894,000 Senators Cochran, Inhofe, Wicker
CS/SRG........................... Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University..... 187,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG........................... Center for One Medicine.......................................................................... 250,000 Senator Durbin
CS/SRG........................... Center for Public Land and Rural Economies, Utah State University................................ 223,000 Senator Bennett
CS/SRG........................... Center for rural studies, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences......... 261,000 Senator Leahy
CS/SRG........................... Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.. 180,000 Senator Leahy
CS/SRG........................... Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida.................................................... 200,000 Senators Martinez and Bill Nelson
CS/SRG........................... Competitiveness of agricultural products, Washington State University and the University of 350,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
Washington.
CS/SRG........................... Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State 250,000 Senators Cantwell, Conrad, Craig, Crapo,
Univer- sity. Dorgan, Murray
CS/SRG........................... Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia................................ 368,000 Senators Chambliss and Isakson
CS/SRG........................... Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.............. 480,000 Senators Lautenberg and Menendez
CS/SRG........................... Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts................................................. 118,000 Senators Kennedy and Kerry
CS/SRG........................... Crop integration and production, South Dakota State University................................... 275,000 Senators Johnson and Thune
CS/SRG........................... Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M University........................................ 100,000 Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG........................... Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State University.......................................... 372,000 Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG........................... Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State University....................................... 187,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG........................... Designing foods for health, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX......................... 500,000 Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG........................... Detection and Food Safety, Auburn University, AL................................................. 1,862,000 Senators Shelby and Sessions
CS/SRG........................... Drought management, Utah State University........................................................ 670,000 Senator Bennett
CS/SRG........................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas 575,000 Senators Bingaman, Cornyn, Domenici,
AgriLife Research, College Station, TX. Hutchison
CS/SRG........................... Environmentally safe products, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.... 200,000 Senator Leahy
CS/SRG........................... Floriculture, University of Hawaii............................................................... 259,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
CS/SRG........................... Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University.................................................... 298,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/SRG........................... Food safety, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX........................................ 74,000 Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG........................... Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California.............................................. 750,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein
CS/SRG........................... Functional Genomics, Utah State University....................................................... 1,192,000 Senator Bennett
CS/SRG........................... Future foods, University of Illinois............................................................. 450,000 Senator Durbin
CS/SRG........................... Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease, Mississippi State University...................... 849,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG........................... Global change UV/B radiation, Colorado State University.......................................... 1,500,000 The President, Senators Allard and
Salazar
CS/SRG........................... Grain sorghum, Kansas State University, Texas Tech University.................................... 548,000 Senators Brownback, Hutchison, Roberts
CS/SRG........................... Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, Oregon State University, University of 150,000 Senators Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Murray,
Idaho, Washington State University. Smith, Wyden
CS/SRG........................... Great Basin Environmental Program, University of Nevada--Reno.................................... 225,000 Senator Reid
CS/SRG........................... High Performance Computing, Utah State University................................................ 559,000 Senator Bennett
CS/SRG........................... Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA.......................... 526,000 Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG........................... Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural commodities, University of Idaho........................... 642,000 Senators Craig and Crapo
CS/SRG........................... Infectious disease research, Colorado State University........................................... 609,000 Senators Allard and Salazar
CS/SRG........................... Institute of Agriculture-Phytosensors for Crop Security, University of Tennessee................. 745,000 Senator Alexander
CS/SRG........................... Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems, 200,000 Senator Lugar
Purdue University.
CS/SRG........................... Joint US China Biotechnology Research and Extension, Utah State University....................... 447,000 Senator Bennett
CS/SRG........................... Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State University............................................ 112,000 Senator Harkin
CS/SRG........................... Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX... 200,000 Senators Hutchison and Schumer
CS/SRG........................... Livestock waste, Iowa State University........................................................... 196,000 Senator Harkin
CS/SRG........................... Lowbush Wild Blueberry research, University of Maine............................................. 184,000 Senators Collins and Snowe
CS/SRG........................... Managed Drainage System for Crop Production, University of Missouri-Columbia..................... 250,000 Senator Bond
CS/SRG........................... Maple research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences................... 165,000 Senator Leahy
CS/SRG........................... Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance , University of Nebraska............................ 365,000 Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/SRG........................... Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University.......................................... 200,000 Senator Lugar
CS/SRG........................... Midwest poultry consortium, Iowa State University................................................ 250,000 Senators Coleman, Grassley and Harkin
CS/SRG........................... Milk safety, Pennsylvania State University....................................................... 821,000 Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG........................... Montana Sheep Institute, Montana State University................................................ 270,000 Senators Baucus and Tester
CS/SRG........................... National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, Colorado State University, Cornell 655,000 Senators Allard, Chambliss, Salazar,
University, University of Georgia. Schumer
CS/SRG........................... National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri-Columbia.......................... 735,000 Senator Bond
CS/SRG........................... Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico State University............................. 223,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG........................... Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of Nevada--Reno.................................... 400,000 Senators Ensign and Reid
CS/SRG........................... New Century Farm, Iowa State University.......................................................... 300,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/SRG........................... New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY............................................................ 559,000 Senator McConnell
CS/SRG........................... New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, Mississippi State University........ 697,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG........................... Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State University.................................... 187,000 Senator Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG........................... Organic cropping, Oregon State University........................................................ 149,000 Senators Smith and Wyden
CS/SRG........................... Organic cropping, Washington State University.................................................... 264,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG........................... Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State University........................................... 74,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG........................... Peach tree short life research, Clemson University, SC........................................... 208,000 Senator Graham
CS/SRG........................... Pierce's disease, University of California....................................................... 1,500,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein
CS/SRG........................... Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, 149,000 Senator Hutchison
Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
CS/SRG........................... Potato Cyst Nematode, University of Idaho........................................................ 372,000 Senators Craig and Crapo
CS/SRG........................... Potato research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University, 750,000 Senators Cantwell, Collins, Craig,
University of Maine. Crapo, Murray, Smith, Snowe, Wyden
CS/SRG........................... Precision agriculture, Auburn University, AL..................................................... 446,000 Senator Shelby
CS/SRG........................... Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky Research Foundation................................ 502,000 Senator McConnell
CS/SRG........................... Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University.................................................. 151,000 Senators Brownback and Roberts
CS/SRG........................... Protein utilization, Iowa State University....................................................... 600,000 Senator Harkin
CS/SRG........................... Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University..................................... 1,000,000 Senators Conrad and Dorgan
CS/SRG........................... Ruminant nutrition consortium, University of Nebraska--Lincoln, South Dakota State University.... 600,000 Senators Hagel, Johnson, and Ben Nelson,
Thune
CS/SRG........................... Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University................................................... 228,000 Senators Allard and Salazar
CS/SRG........................... Seed technology, South Dakota State University................................................... 300,000 Senators Johnson and Thune
CS/SRG........................... Small fruit research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University.. 300,000 Senators Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Murray,
Smith, Wyden
CS/SRG........................... Soil and Environmental Quality, University of Delaware........................................... 75,000 Senators Biden and Carper
CS/SRG........................... Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico State University.............. 187,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG........................... Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State University.............................. 250,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG........................... Soybean research, National Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois............. 500,000 Senator Durbin
CS/SRG........................... Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture.................................. 175,000 Senators Lincoln and Pryor
CS/SRG........................... Sustainable agriculture & natural resources, Pennsylvania State University....................... 142,000 Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG........................... Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University................................................ 200,000 Senator Tester
CS/SRG........................... Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, Virginia Tech......................... 250,000 Senators Warner and Webb
CS/SRG........................... Sweet Sorghum for Energy Production, University of Nebraska--Lincoln............................. 149,000 Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/SRG........................... Swine and other animal waste management, North Carolina State University......................... 372,000 Senators Burr and Dole
CS/SRG........................... Tillage, silviculture, waste management, Louisiana State University.............................. 200,000 Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG........................... Tri-state joint peanut research, Auburn University, AL........................................... 440,000 Senators Sessions and Shelby
CS/SRG........................... Tropical and subtropical research/T-STAR, University of Hawaii................................... 800,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
CS/SRG........................... Uniform farm management program, University of Minnesota......................................... 250,000 Senators Klobuchar and Coleman
CS/SRG........................... Virtual plant database enhancement project, Missouri Botanical Garden............................ 626,000 Senator Bond
CS/SRG........................... Viticulture consortium, Cornell University, University of California............................. 1,200,000 Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer
CS/SRG........................... Water conservation, Kansas State University...................................................... 74,000 Senators Brownback and Roberts
CS/SRG........................... Water use efficiency and water quality enhancements, University of Georgia....................... 368,000 Senators Chambliss and Isakson
CS/SRG........................... Wetland plants, Louisiana State University....................................................... 200,000 Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG........................... Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University.................................................. 256,000 Senators Brownback and Roberts
CS/SRG........................... Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State University......................................... 237,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG........................... Wood utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, TN, WV).................................... 4,841,000 Senators Alexander, Burr, Byrd, Cochran,
Coleman, Collins, Craig, Crapo, Dole,
Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Smith,
Snowe, Stabenow, Stevens, Vitter,
Wicker, Wyden
FDA.............................. Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory, New Mexico State University........................ 1,757,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
FDA.............................. Collaborative drug safety research, Critical Path Institute and University of Utah............... 559,000 Senator Bennett
FDA.............................. Dietary supplements research, National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi. 1,713,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
FDA.............................. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference Vibrio Vulnificus Education, Nationwide............... 185,000 Senators Cochran and Shelby
FDA.............................. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, Nationwide........................................... 148,000 Senators Cochran and Shelby
FDA.............................. National Center for Food Safety and Technology, Summit-Argo, Illinois............................ 2,212,000 Senator Durbin
FDA.............................. Waste Management Education and Research Consortium, New Mexico State University.................. 73,000 Senators Bingaman and Domenici
FDA.............................. Western Region FDA Center of Excellence, University of California Davis.......................... 1,490,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein
GP............................... Fruit fly facility, APHIS Hawaii................................................................. 500,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
GP............................... Market Development, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and Markets............................ 500,000 Senator Leahy
GP............................... Market Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.......... 1,500,000 Senator Kohl
GP............................... Phase II construction, National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi........ 3,724,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
NRCS/CO.......................... Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, Hawaii RC&D Councils......................... 400,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO.......................... Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, MS.................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Alaska Association of Conservation Districts..................................................... 920,000 Senator Stevens
NRCS/CO.......................... Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed Inventory and Analysis, West Virginia Conservation Agency.......... 115,000 Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Carson City Waterfall Fire Restoration, Carson City, NV.......................................... 287,000 Senator Reid
NRCS/CO.......................... Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture, Iowa Soybean Association............. 300,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative, McNeese State University................................ 250,000 Senator Landrieu
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Internships, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association...................... 120,000 Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Outreach and Education, City of Foley, AL........................................... 215,000 Senator Shelby
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Planning, NRCS Wisconsin and Massachusetts.......................................... 450,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS New Jersey............................................... 251,000 Senators Lautenberg and Menendez
NRCS/CO.......................... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin........................................ 550,000 Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Delta Conservation Demonstration, Washington County, MS.......................................... 400,000 Senator Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Delta Water Study, NRCS Mississippi.............................................................. 250,000 Senator Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Driftless Area Initiative, NRCS Wisconsin........................................................ 310,000 Senators Klobuchar and Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Environmental Compliance, Wisconsin Dairy Business Association................................... 220,000 Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Farm Viability Program, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board................................... 251,000 Senator Leahy
NRCS/CO.......................... Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission................................................... 800,000 Senators Chambliss
NRCS/CO.......................... Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education Watershed Project, Texas State University... 300,000 Senator Hutchison
NRCS/CO.......................... Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, NRCS Wisconsin............................................. 780,000 Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control, Great Lakes Commission............................... 430,000 Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Levin, and
Stabenow
NRCS/CO.......................... Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity Project, Western Kentucky Research Foundation. 89,000 Senator McConnell
NRCS/CO.......................... Hawaii Plant Materials Center, NRCS Hawaii....................................................... 113,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO.......................... Hungry Canyons Alliance, IA...................................................................... 300,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation, Illinois Department of Natural Resources......... 200,000 Senator Durbin
NRCS/CO.......................... Kentucky Soil Erosion Control, NRCS Kentucky..................................................... 771,000 Senator McConnell
NRCS/CO.......................... Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure System, ID................................ 143,000 Senators Craig and Crapo
NRCS/CO.......................... Mississippi Conservation Initiative, NRCS Mississippi............................................ 1,218,000 Senators Cochran and Wicker
NRCS/CO.......................... Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource Conservation, Molokai RC&D.......................... 71,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO.......................... Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient Irrigation, CA........................... 143,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein
NRCS/CO.......................... Nitrate Pollution Reduction, NRCS Rhode Island................................................... 165,000 Senator Reed
NRCS/CO.......................... On-Farm Management System Evaluation Network, Iowa Soybean Association........................... 150,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Operation Oak Program, National Wild Turkey Federation........................................... 100,000 Senators Chambliss and Cochran
NRCS/CO.......................... Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain, Poultney Conservation District............................ 179,000 Senator Leahy
NRCS/CO.......................... Potomac River Tributary Strategy, NRCS West Virginia............................................. 179,000 Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Riparian Restoration along the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers, New Mexico Association of 179,000 Senator Bingaman
Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
NRCS/CO.......................... Risk Management Initiative, NRCS West Virginia................................................... 717,000 Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Sand County Foundation, WI....................................................................... 950,000 Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO.......................... Soil Phosphorus Studies, NRCS West Virginia...................................................... 215,000 Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO.......................... Soil Surveys, NRCS Rhode Island.................................................................. 143,000 Senator Reed
NRCS/CO.......................... Soil Surveys, NRCS Wyoming....................................................................... 200,000 Senators Barrasso and Enzi
NRCS/CO.......................... Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts, Kentucky Division of 580,000 Senator McConnell
Conservation.
NRCS/CO.......................... Utah Conservation Initiative, NRCS Utah.......................................................... 2,617,000 Senator Bennett
NRCS/CO.......................... Water Conservation, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District.................................. 400,000 Senators Allard and Salazar
NRCS/CO.......................... Water Demonstration Project, NRCS Iowa........................................................... 143,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO.......................... Water Quality, Utah Farm Bureau.................................................................. 251,000 Senator Bennett
NRCS/CO.......................... Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Illinois Department of Natural Resources........................... 200,000 Senator Durbin
NRCS/WFPO........................ Churchill Woods Dam Removal, DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup, IL............................... 1,000,000 Senator Durbin
NRCS/WFPO........................ Dunloup Creek Watershed Project, NRCS West Virginia.............................................. 1,500,000 Senator Byrd
NRCS/WFPO........................ East Locust Creek, NRCS Missouri................................................................. 1,650,000 Senator Bond
NRCS/WFPO........................ Little Otter Creek, NRCS Missouri................................................................ 350,000 Senator Bond
NRCS/WFPO........................ Lost River, NRCS West Virginia................................................................... 8,500,000 Senator Byrd
NRCS/WFPO........................ Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, NRCS Hawaii....................................................... 206,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................ Pocasset River Watershed, NRCS Rhode Island...................................................... 350,000 Senator Reed
NRCS/WFPO........................ Upcountry Maui Watershed, NRCS Hawaii............................................................ 206,000 Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................ Upper Locust Creek, NRCS Missouri................................................................ 500,000 Senator Bond
RCDG............................. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Center for Appropriate Technology, 2,774,000 Senators Baucus, Boxer, Harkin, Johnson,
Butte, MT. Kohl, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Pryor,
Specter, Tester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2009
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2008 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2008
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary....................................... 5,061 19,749 5,174 +113 -14,575
Executive Operations:
Chief Economist........................................... 10,414 12,584 10,651 +237 -1,933
National Appeals Division................................. 14,365 15,402 14,711 +346 -691
Office of Budget and Program Analysis..................... 8,212 9,054 8,449 +237 -605
Homeland Security staff................................... 924 2,617 974 +50 -1,643
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... 16,246 18,305 16,527 +281 -1,778
Common computing environment.............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Provided in other accounts) (NA)..................... (90,875) ................ ................ (-90,875) ................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer..................... 5,809 6,221 5,954 +145 -267
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Executive Operations............................. 55,970 64,183 57,266 +1,296 -6,917
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights............ 848 897 871 +23 -26
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 20,353 21,551 20,798 +445 -753
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.......... 668 739 687 +19 -52
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments...... (194,878) (231,105) (226,432) (+31,554) (-4,673)
Payments to GSA........................................... 156,590 168,901 168,901 +12,311 ................
Department of Homeland Security........................... ................ 13,500 13,500 +13,500 ................
Building operations and maintenance....................... 38,288 48,704 44,031 +5,743 -4,673
Hazardous materials management................................ 4,852 12,281 4,933 +81 -7,348
Departmental administration................................... 22,982 28,637 27,011 +4,029 -1,626
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. 3,768 4,099 3,877 +109 -222
Office of Communications...................................... 9,273 9,961 9,514 +241 -447
Office of the Inspector General............................... 79,492 85,766 81,517 +2,025 -4,249
Office of the General Counsel................................. 38,952 42,852 40,083 +1,131 -2,769
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 592 654 609 +17 -45
Economics....................................................
Economic Research Service..................................... 77,397 82,106 78,209 +812 -3,897
National Agricultural Statistics Service...................... 162,212 153,475 149,115 -13,097 -4,360
Census of Agriculture..................................... (51,985) (39,478) (37,265) (-14,720) (-2,213)
Agricultural Research Service:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 1,121,041 1,037,016 1,134,084 +13,043 +97,068
Buildings and facilities.................................. 46,752 13,220 30,995 -15,757 +17,775
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Research Service.................... 1,167,793 1,050,236 1,165,079 -2,714 +114,843
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Research and education activities......................... 668,286 535,277 629,871 -38,415 +94,594
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund............... (11,880) (11,880) (11,880) ................ ................
Extension activities...................................... 453,265 431,753 464,272 +11,007 +32,519
Integrated activities..................................... 55,850 20,120 55,850 ................ +35,730
Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers............... 6,395 6,930 ................ -6,395 -6,930
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 1,183,796 994,080 1,149,993 -33,803 +155,913
Extension Service......................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 716 792 737 +21 -55
Programs.....................................................
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 867,638 919,137 860,989 -6,649 -58,148
Buildings and facilities.................................. ................ 7,431 2,000 +2,000 -5,431
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....... 867,638 926,568 862,989 -4,649 -63,579
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Marketing Services........................................ 76,324 76,015 71,655 -4,669 -4,360
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees (61,233) (62,888) (62,888) (+1,655) ................
collected)...............................................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply 16,798 17,270 17,270 +472 ................
(transfer from section 32)...............................
Discretionary appropriations.......................... 9,930 32,081 ................ -9,930 -32,081
Payments to States and possessions........................ 11,627 1,334 1,685 -9,942 +351
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service................... 114,679 126,700 90,610 -24,069 -36,090
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 38,514 44,005 39,182 +668 -4,823
Limitation on inspection and weighing services............ (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ................ ................
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety................. 596 659 613 +17 -46
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................ 930,120 951,946 973,566 +43,446 +21,620
Lab accreditation fees.................................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing............ 4,981,150 4,853,041 4,988,865 +7,715 +135,824
=========================================================================================
Farm Assistance Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 628 695 646 +18 -49
Agricultural Services........................................
Farm Service Agency:
Salaries and expenses..................................... 1,126,107 1,188,580 1,164,123 +38,016 -24,457
(Common computing environment) (NA)................... (64,175) ................ ................ (-64,175) ................
(Transfer from export loans).............................. (341) (368) (368) (+27) ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)............................ (2,661) (2,761) (2,761) (+100) ................
(Transfer from ACIF)...................................... (301,186) (325,093) (323,694) (+22,508) (-1,399)
(Transfer from farm storage loan program account)......... ................ (4,724) (4,724) (+4,724) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts............. (304,188) (332,946) (331,547) (+27,359) (-1,399)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses.......................... (1,430,295) (1,521,526) (1,495,670) (+65,375) (-25,856)
State mediation grants.................................... 4,369 4,000 4,369 ................ +369
Grassroot source water protection program................. 3,687 ................ 3,687 ................ +3,687
Dairy indemnity program................................... 100 100 400 +300 +300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency........................... 1,134,263 1,192,680 1,172,579 +38,316 -20,101
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct........................................ (222,298) (252,902) (222,298) ................ (-30,604)
Guaranteed.................................... (1,238,768) (1,223,636) (1,238,768) ................ (+15,132)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (1,461,066) (1,476,538) (1,461,066) ................ (-15,472)
Farm operating loans:
Direct........................................ (575,095) (628,372) (575,095) ................ (-53,277)
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... (1,017,497) (1,012,369) (1,017,497) ................ (+5,128)
Subsidized guaranteed......................... (269,986) (260,943) (269,986) ................ (+9,043)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... (1,862,578) (1,901,684) (1,862,578) ................ (-39,106)
Indian tribe land acquisition loans............... (3,940) (3,975) (3,940) ................ (-35)
Boll weevil eradication loans..................... (100,000) (59,400) (100,000) ................ (+40,600)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (3,427,584) (3,441,597) (3,427,584) ................ (-14,013)
Loan subsidies:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct........................................ 9,892 14,466 12,715 +2,823 -1,751
Guaranteed.................................... 4,955 4,038 4,088 -867 +50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 14,847 18,504 16,803 +1,956 -1,701
Farm operating loans:
Direct........................................ 72,980 74,085 67,804 -5,176 -6,281
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... 24,623 25,208 25,336 +713 +128
Subsidized guaranteed......................... 36,016 35,984 37,231 +1,215 +1,247
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... 133,619 135,277 130,371 -3,248 -4,906
Indian tribe land acquisition..................... 124 250 248 +124 -2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 148,590 154,031 147,422 -1,168 -6,609
ACIF expenses:
Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)............ 301,186 325,093 323,694 +22,508 -1,399
Administrative expenses........................... 7,865 7,920 7,865 ................ -55
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ACIF expenses............................ 309,051 333,013 331,559 +22,508 -1,454
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund....... 457,641 487,044 478,981 +21,340 -8,063
(Loan authorization)........................ (3,427,584) (3,441,597) (3,427,584) ................ (-14,013)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Service Agency...................... 1,591,904 1,679,724 1,651,560 +59,656 -28,164
Risk Management Agency, Administrative, and operating expenses 76,121 77,177 77,177 +1,056 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Farm Assistance Programs......................... 1,668,653 1,757,596 1,729,383 +60,730 -28,213
=========================================================================================
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund................... 4,818,099 6,582,945 6,582,945 +1,764,846 ................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses..................... 12,983,000 11,106,324 11,106,324 -1,876,676 ................
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses)....... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ................ ................
Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account:
Salaries and expenses:
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)................. ................ 4,724 4,724 +4,724 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corporations................................. 17,801,099 17,693,993 17,693,993 -107,106 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs............... 24,450,902 24,304,630 24,412,241 -38,661 +107,611
(By transfer)................................... (304,188) (332,946) (331,547) (+27,359) (-1,399)
(Loan authorization)............................ (3,427,584) (3,441,597) (3,427,584) ................ (-14,013)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)......... (108,696) (110,351) (110,351) (+1,655) ................
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 737 822 758 +21 -64
Environment..................................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Conservation operations................................... 834,444 794,773 866,899 +32,455 +72,126
(Common computing environment) (NA)................... (20,000) ................ ................ (-20,000) ................
Watershed and flood prevention operations................. 29,790 ................ 29,790 ................ +29,790
Watershed rehabilitation program.......................... 19,860 5,920 20,000 +140 +14,080
Resource conservation and development..................... 50,730 ................ 50,730 ................ +50,730
Healthy forests reserve program........................... 1,986 ................ 1,986 ................ +1,986
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service........... 936,810 800,693 969,405 +32,595 +168,712
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Conservation Programs.................. 937,547 801,515 970,163 +32,616 +168,648
=========================================================================================
TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development........... 628 695 646 +18 -49
Rural Development:
RD expenses:
Salaries and expenses................................. 168,808 258,185 210,748 +41,940 -47,437
(Common computing environment).................... (6,700) ................ ................ (-6,700) ................
(Transfer from RHIF).................................. (449,757) (399,422) (449,757) ................ (+50,335)
(Transfer from RDLFP)................................. (4,741) (4,574) (4,741) ................ (+167)
(Transfer from RETLP)................................. (38,353) (37,819) (38,353) ................ (+534)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts........... (492,851) (441,815) (492,851) ................ (+51,036)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RD expenses.................................. (661,659) (700,000) (703,599) (+41,940) (+3,599)
Rural Housing Service:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (sec. 502)................... (1,121,486) ................ (1,121,488) (+2) (+1,121,488)
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... (4,190,521) (4,848,899) (4,190,521) ................ (-658,378)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family..................... (5,312,007) (4,848,899) (5,312,009) (+2) (+463,110)
Housing repair (sec. 504)......................... (34,409) (17,678) (34,409) ................ (+16,731)
Rental housing (sec. 515)......................... (69,510) ................ (69,510) ................ (+69,510)
Site loans (sec. 524)............................. (5,045) (5,045) (5,045) ................ ................
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)........ (129,090) (300,000) (129,090) ................ (-170,910)
Multi-family housing credit sales................. (1,476) (1,447) (1,476) ................ (+29)
Single family housing credit sales................ (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
Self-help housing land development (sec. 523)..... (4,965) (4,303) (4,965) ................ (+662)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (5,566,502) (5,187,372) (5,566,504) (+2) (+379,132)
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (sec. 502)................... 105,083 ................ 75,364 -29,719 +75,364
Unsubsidized guaranteed....................... 50,047 13,526 53,042 +2,995 +39,516
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Single family..................... 155,130 13,526 128,406 -26,724 +114,880
Housing repair (sec. 504)......................... 9,727 4,750 9,246 -481 +4,496
Rental housing (sec. 515)......................... 29,618 ................ 28,610 -1,008 +28,610
Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)........ 12,134 1,710 20,241 +8,107 +18,531
Multi-family housing credit sales................. 548 523 533 -15 +10
Single family housing credit sales................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Self-help housing land development (sec. 523)..... 141 71 82 -59 +11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies........................... 207,298 20,580 187,118 -20,180 +166,538
RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD)......... 449,757 399,422 449,757 ................ +50,335
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program......... 657,055 420,002 636,875 -20,180 +216,873
(Loan authorization)............................ (5,566,502) (5,187,372) (5,566,504) (+2) (+379,132)
=========================================================================================
Rental assistance program:
(Sec. 521)............................................ 472,757 897,000 1,005,000 +532,243 +108,000
Rental assistance voucher program..................... ................ 100,000 ................ ................ -100,000
(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))................................... 5,958 ................ ................ -5,958 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rental assistance program.................... 478,715 997,000 1,005,000 +526,285 +8,000
Rural housing voucher program............................. 4,965 ................ 4,965 ................ +4,965
Multifamily housing revitalization program account........ 19,860 ................ 19,860 ................ +19,860
Multifamily housing preservation revolving loans.......... 2,979 ................ 2,889 -90 +2,889
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multifamily housing revitalization............... 27,804 ................ 27,714 -90 +27,714
Mutual and self-help housing grants....................... 38,727 ................ 38,727 ................ +38,727
Rural housing assistance grants........................... 38,727 43,500 38,727 ................ -4,773
Farm labor housing program account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (27,545) ................ (17,798) (-9,747) (+17,798)
Loan subsidy.......................................... 11,916 ................ 7,500 -4,416 +7,500
Grants................................................ 9,930 ................ 7,500 -2,430 +7,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Farm Labor Housing Program Account........... 21,846 ................ 15,000 -6,846 +15,000
Rural community facilities program account:
Loan authorizations:
Community facility:
Direct........................................ (294,948) (302,430) (294,948) ................ (-7,482)
Guaranteed.................................... (206,425) (210,000) (206,425) ................ (-3,575)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.................. (501,373) (512,430) (501,373) ................ (-11,057)
Loan subsidies and grants:
Commmunity facility:
Direct........................................ 16,370 17,299 16,871 +501 -428
Guaranteed.................................... 7,596 6,468 6,358 -1,238 -110
Grants........................................ 20,373 ................ 20,373 ................ +20,373
Rural community development initiative............ 6,256 ................ 6,256 ................ +6,256
Economic impact initiative grants................. 13,902 ................ 13,902 ................ +13,902
Tribal college grants............................. 3,972 ................ 3,972 ................ +3,972
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RCP Loan subsidies and grants............ 68,469 23,767 67,732 -737 +43,965
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, grants, and payments.................. 167,769 67,267 160,186 -7,583 +92,919
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Housing Service.................... 1,331,343 1,484,269 1,829,775 +498,432 +345,506
(Loan authorization)........................ (6,095,420) (5,699,802) (6,085,675) (-9,745) (+385,873)
Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
Rural Business Program Account:
(Guaranteed business and industry loans).............. (993,000) (700,000) (993,000) ................ (+293,000)
Loan subsidies and grants:
Guaranteed business and industry subsidy.......... 42,898 30,450 43,196 +298 +12,746
Grants:
Rural business enterprise..................... 38,727 ................ 38,727 ................ +38,727
Rural business opportunity.................... 2,483 ................ 2,483 ................ +2,483
Delta regional authority...................... 2,979 ................ 2,979 ................ +2,979
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants........ 87,087 30,450 87,385 +298 +56,935
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (33,536) (33,772) (33,536) ................ (-236)
Loan subsidy.......................................... 14,384 14,134 14,035 -349 -99
Administrative expenses (transfer to RD).............. 4,741 4,574 4,741 ................ +167
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Development Loan Fund.................. 19,125 18,708 18,776 -349 +68
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization).................................. (33,077) ................ (33,077) ................ (+33,077)
Rural cooperative development grants:
Cooperative development............................... 4,424 2,955 4,424 ................ +1,469
Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas....... 2,582 ................ 2,774 +192 +2,774
Cooperative research agreement........................ 492 ................ 300 -192 +300
Value-added agricultural product market development... 18,867 ................ 16,153 -2,714 +16,153
Grants to assist minority producers................... 1,463 1,500 1,463 ................ -37
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Cooperative development grants......... 27,828 4,455 25,114 -2,714 +20,659
Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants. 8,130 ................ 8,130 ................ +8,130
Renewable energy program:
(Loan authorization).................................. (205,551) ................ (197,500) (-8,051) (+197,500)
Loan subsidy.......................................... 19,860 ................ 37,000 +17,140 +37,000
Grants................................................ 15,888 ................ 13,000 -2,888 +13,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable energy program..................... 35,748 ................ 50,000 +14,252 +50,000
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service........... 177,918 53,613 189,405 +11,487 +135,792
(Loan authorization)............................ (1,265,164) (733,772) (1,257,113) (-8,051) (+523,341)
=========================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural water and waste disposal program account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct............................................ (1,022,162) (1,304,217) (1,094,500) (+72,338) (-209,717)
Guaranteed........................................ (75,000) (75,000) (75,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorization....................... 1,097,162 1,379,217 1,169,500 +72,338 -209,717
Loan subsidies and grants:
Direct subsidy.................................... 69,609 49,169 142,285 +72,676 +93,116
Water and waste grants............................ 464,228 216,373 391,552 -72,676 +175,179
Solid waste management grants..................... 3,441 3,465 3,441 ................ -24
Water and waste financing revolving fund.......... 497 ................ 497 ................ +497
Water well system grants.......................... 993 ................ 993 ................ +993
High energy cost grants........................... 19,860 ................ 19,860 ................ +19,860
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Water loan subsidies and grants.......... 558,628 269,007 558,628 ................ +289,621
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent............................. (99,300) (100,000) (99,300) ................ (-700)
Direct, FFB................................... (6,500,000) (4,000,000) (6,500,000) ................ (+2,500,000)
Guaranteed underwriting....................... (500,000) ................ (500,000) ................ (+500,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.......................... (7,099,300) (4,100,000) (7,099,300) ................ (+2,999,300)
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent............................. (143,985) (145,000) (143,985) ................ (-1,015)
Direct, Treasury rate......................... (248,250) (250,000) (248,250) ................ (-1,750)
Direct, FFB................................... (292,935) (295,000) (292,935) ................ (-2,065)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications................ (685,170) (690,000) (685,170) ................ (-4,830)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations.................. (7,784,470) (4,790,000) (7,784,470) ................ (+2,994,470)
Loan subsidies:
Electric:
Direct, 5 percent............................. 119 ................ ................ -119 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electric.......................... 119 ................ ................ -119 ................
Telecommunications:
Direct, 5 percent............................. 115 ................ ................ -115 ................
Direct, Treasury rate......................... 1,663 525 521 -1,142 -4
Direct, FFB................................... 1,816 ................ ................ -1,816 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Telecommunications................ 3,594 525 521 -3,073 -4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies....................... 3,713 525 521 -3,192 -4
RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)........ 38,353 37,819 38,353 ................ +534
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications 42,066 38,344 38,874 -3,192 +530
Loans Program Account..............................
(Loan authorization)............................ (7,784,470) (4,790,000) (7,784,470) ................ (+2,994,470)
=========================================================================================
Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
Loan authorizations:
Broadband telecommunications...................... (297,900) (297,923) (297,900) ................ (-23)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan authorizations...................... (297,900) (297,923) (297,900) ................ (-23)
Loan subsidies and grants:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Grants........................................ 34,755 20,000 34,755 ................ +14,755
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct........................................ 6,405 11,619 11,618 +5,213 -1
Grants........................................ 13,406 ................ 13,406 ................ +13,406
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Loan subsidies and grants............ 54,566 31,619 59,779 +5,213 +28,160
=========================================================================================
Total, Rural Utilities Service.............. 655,260 338,970 657,281 +2,021 +318,311
(Loan authorization).................... (9,179,532) (6,467,140) (9,251,870) (+72,338) (+2,784,730)
=========================================================================================
Total, title III, Rural Development Programs 2,333,957 2,135,732 2,887,855 +553,898 +752,123
(By transfer)........................... (492,851) (441,815) (492,851) ................ (+51,036)
(Loan authorization).................... (16,540,116) (12,900,714) (16,594,658) (+54,542) (+3,693,944)
=========================================================================================
TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and 593 655 610 +17 -45
Consumer Services............................................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs.................................. 7,647,965 7,925,700 7,733,849 +85,884 -191,851
Transfer from section 32.............................. 6,253,548 6,529,983 6,721,834 +468,286 +191,851
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Child nutrition programs..................... 13,901,513 14,455,683 14,455,683 +554,170 ................
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 5,620,000 6,100,000 6,750,000 +1,130,000 +650,000
and children (WIC).......................................
(emergency)........................................... 400,000 ................ ................ -400,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, WIC.......................................... 6,020,000 6,100,000 6,750,000 +730,000 +650,000
Food stamp program:
Expenses.............................................. 35,020,473 38,410,263 38,410,763 +3,390,290 +500
Armed forces provision................................ 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Indian Reservations (FDPIR)........................... ................ 92,117 92,117 +92,117 ................
Reserve............................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ................ ................
Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa........ 1,621,250 1,684,424 1,684,424 +63,174 ................
The emergency food assistance program................. 140,000 140,000 250,000 +110,000 +110,000
Food stamp benefits due to CSFP elimination:
CSFP outreach grant............................... ................ 2,000 ................ ................ -2,000
CSFP transitional benefits........................ ................ 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food stamp program....................... 39,782,723 43,348,804 43,437,304 +3,654,581 +88,500
Commodity assistance program:
Commodity supplemental food program................... 139,715 ................ 155,000 +15,285 +155,000
Farmers market nutrition program...................... 19,860 19,800 19,800 -60 ................
Emergency food assistance program..................... 49,650 49,500 49,500 -150 ................
Pacific island and disaster assistance................ 1,063 1,070 1,070 +7 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Commodity assistance program................. 210,288 70,370 225,370 +15,082 +155,000
Nutrition programs administration......................... 141,728 150,251 142,595 +867 -7,656
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Nutrition Service................... 60,056,252 64,125,108 65,010,952 +4,954,700 +885,844
=========================================================================================
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs............. 60,056,845 64,125,763 65,011,562 +4,954,717 +885,799
=========================================================================================
TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 158,354 168,042 169,042 +10,688 +1,000
(Transfer from export loans).............................. (4,950) (4,985) (4,985) (+35) ................
(Transfer from Public Law 480)............................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses program level.............. (163,304) (173,027) (174,027) (+10,723) (+1,000)
Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
Program level......................................... (1,210,864) (1,225,900) (1,225,900) (+15,036) ................
Appropriation......................................... 1,210,864 1,225,900 1,225,900 +15,036 ................
Salaries and expenses:
Foreign Agricultural Service (transfer to FAS)........ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)................. 2,661 2,761 2,761 +100 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 2,661 2,761 2,761 +100 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Law 480:
Program level................................... (1,210,864) (1,225,900) (1,225,900) (+15,036) ................
Appropriation................................... 1,213,525 1,228,661 1,228,661 +15,136 ................
=========================================================================================
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)............... 4,950 4,985 4,985 +35 ................
Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA)................. 341 368 368 +27 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account............. 5,291 5,353 5,353 +62 ................
McGovern-Dole international food for education and child 99,300 100,000 100,000 +700 ................
nutrition program grants.....................................
=========================================================================================
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs. 1,476,470 1,502,056 1,503,056 +26,586 +1,000
(By transfer)....................................... (4,950) (4,985) (4,985) (+35) ................
=========================================================================================
TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation................... 1,714,337 2,033,770 2,038,964 +324,627 +5,194
Prescription Drug User Fee Act............................ (459,412) (511,108) (497,108) (+37,696) (-14,000)
Medical Device User Fee Act............................... (48,431) (52,547) (52,547) (+4,116) ................
Animal Drug User Fee Act.................................. (13,696) (13,698) (15,260) (+1,564) (+1,562)
Generic drug (user fees) (leg. prop) NA................... ................ (16,628) ................ ................ (-16,628)
Reinspection fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA.............. ................ (23,276) ................ ................ (-23,276)
Food export fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA............... ................ (3,741) ................ ................ (-3,741)
Animal Generic Drug (user fees) (leg propr) NA............ ................ (3,741) ................ ................ (-3,741)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (2,235,876) (2,627,751) (2,603,879) (+368,003) (-23,872)
Mammography clinics user fee (outlay savings)............. (18,398) (19,318) (19,318) (+920) ................
Export and color certification............................ (9,500) (10,300) (10,300) (+800) ................
Buildings and facilities...................................... 2,433 12,433 12,433 +10,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Food and Drug Administration..................... 1,716,770 2,046,203 2,051,397 +334,627 +5,194
=========================================================================================
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative (46,000) (49,000) (50,000) (+4,000) (+1,000)
expenses)....................................................
=========================================================================================
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug 1,716,770 2,046,203 2,051,397 +334,627 +5,194
Administration.........................................
=========================================================================================
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Denali Commission............................................. 434 ................ 434 ................ +434
Hunger Fellowships............................................ ................ ................ 2,500 +2,500 +2,500
Section 32 (rescission)....................................... -684,000 -57,000 -110,000 +574,000 -53,000
Specialty crop grants......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Healthy Forest Reserve........................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Simplified Summer Food Program................................ 5,000 ................ ................ -5,000 ................
Food stamp program employment and training (rescission)....... -10,500 ................ ................ +10,500 ................
ARS buildings and facilities (rescission)..................... ................ -67,180 ................ ................ +67,180
Fruit and vegetable program................................... 9,831 ................ ................ -9,831 ................
High energy cost grant (rescission)........................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
CACFP audit (rescission)...................................... -3,500 ................ ................ +3,500 ................
Hawaii APHIS facility......................................... 149 ................ 500 +351 +500
National Center for Natural Products Research................. 3,724 ................ 3,724 ................ +3,724
Emergency Conservation program................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Hardwoods Trees............................................... 794 ................ 794 ................ +794
Market development............................................ ................ ................ 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
Disaster assistance (emergency)............................... 602,000 ................ ................ -602,000 ................
Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses (emergency)........ 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000 ................
Multifamily housing revitalization (rescission)............... ................ -20,000 ................ ................ +20,000
Broadband loans (rescission).................................. ................ -6,450 ................ ................ +6,450
Houlha Watershed project...................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Total, title VII, General provisions.................... -56,068 -150,630 -100,048 -43,980 +50,582
Grand total............................................. 90,916,423 94,765,269 96,736,226 +5,819,803 +1,970,957
Appropriations...................................... (90,592,423) (94,915,899) (96,846,226) (+6,253,803) (+1,930,327)
Emergency Appropriations............................ (1,022,000) ................ ................ (-1,022,000) ................
Rescissions......................................... (-698,000) (-150,630) (-110,000) (+588,000) (+40,630)
(By transfer)........................................... (801,989) (779,746) (829,383) (+27,394) (+49,637)
(Loan authorization).................................... (19,967,700) (16,342,311) (20,022,242) (+54,542) (+3,679,931)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)................. (154,696) (159,351) (160,351) (+5,655) (+1,000)
=========================================================================================
RECAPITULATION
Title I--Agricultural programs................................ 24,450,902 24,304,630 24,412,241 -38,661 +107,611
Mandatory................................................. (17,817,997) (17,706,639) (17,706,939) (-111,058) (+300)
Discretionary............................................. (6,632,905) (6,597,991) (6,705,302) (+72,397) (+107,311)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)............... 937,547 801,515 970,163 +32,616 +168,648
Title III--Rural development programs (discretionary)......... 2,333,957 2,135,732 2,887,855 +553,898 +752,123
Title IV--Domestic food programs.............................. 60,056,845 64,125,763 65,011,562 +4,954,717 +885,799
Mandatory................................................. (53,683,236) (57,782,487) (57,892,987) (+4,209,751) (+110,500)
Discretionary............................................. (6,373,609) (6,343,276) (7,118,575) (+744,966) (+775,299)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs 1,476,470 1,502,056 1,503,056 +26,586 +1,000
(discretionary)..............................................
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration 1,716,770 2,046,203 2,051,397 +334,627 +5,194
(discretionary)..............................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary)................. -56,068 -150,630 -100,048 -43,980 +50,582
Other appropriations (discretionary).......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 90,916,423 94,765,269 96,736,226 +5,819,803 +1,970,957
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------