88–361 PDF

Calendar No. 216

108TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 108–107

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

JULY 17, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BENNETT, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1427]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1427) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2004

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate ............... $77,403,914,000

Amount of 2003 appropriations acts to date .......... 74,724,290,000

Amount of estimates, 2004 ...................................... 77,561,060,000

The bill as recommended to the Senate:

Over the appropriations provided in 2003 ...... 2,679,624,000

Under the estimates for 2004 ........................... 157,146,000
(2)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of the Bill:

Overview and Summary of the Bill ................................................................. 5

Government Performance and Results Act ............................................................ 5

Title I—Agricultural Programs:

Production, Processing, and Marketing:

Office of the Secretary .............................................................................. 9

Executive operations ................................................................................. 12

Office of the Chief Information Officer .................................................... 13

Common computing environment ............................................................ 14

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ........................................................ 14

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ................................... 16

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ............................. 17

Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments ..................... 17

Hazardous waste management ................................................................ 18

Departmental administration ................................................................... 19

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations .............. 20

Office of Communications ......................................................................... 20

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 20

Office of the General Counsel ................................................................... 21

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ............................................................................................................ 21

Economic Research Service ...................................................................... 22

National Agricultural Statistics Service .................................................. 23

Agricultural Research Service .................................................................. 23

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ........... 52

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ...................................................................................................... 64

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .......................................... 65

Agricultural Marketing Service ................................................................ 75

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ................... 79

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........................................ 80

Food Safety and Inspection Service ......................................................... 81

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural

Services ................................................................................................... 82

Farm Service Agency ................................................................................ 83

Risk Management Agency ........................................................................ 87

Corporations:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund .............................................. 89

Commodity Credit Corporation fund ....................................................... 90

Title II—Conservation Programs:

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ..... 93

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........................................................ 94

Title III—Rural Economic and Community Development Programs:

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development ........................................................................................................... 106

Rural Community Advancement Program ..................................................... 107

Rural Housing Service ..................................................................................... 114

Rural Business—Cooperative Service ............................................................. 119

Rural Utilities Service ...................................................................................... 122

Title IV—Domestic Food Programs:

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services .................................................................................................................. 127

Food and Nutrition Service .............................................................................. 128

Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural

Service ................................................................................................................... 141
Page

3

Title VI—Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration:

Food and Drug Administration ....................................................................... 149

Independent Agencies

Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................. 159

Farm Credit Administration .................................................................... 159

Title VII—General Provisions:

General Provisions ........................................................................................... 161

Program, Project, and Activity ........................................................................ 161

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 162

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 162

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 163

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 164
(4)

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the six titles

are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, showing

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations

for individual appropriation items, projects and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate item headings.

2003 1 2004 Committee

recommendation

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... $25,458,395,000 $26,776,681,000

Title II: Conservation programs .................................................................................. 1,021,263,000 973,201,000

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 2,777,020,000 2,587,826,000

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 41,890,607,000 44,088,309,000

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,836,791,000 1,486,821,000

Title VI: Related agencies ........................................................................................... 1,466,505,000 1,482,596,000

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ 273,709,000 8,480,000

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 74,724,290,000 77,403,914,000

1 Includes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations.
(5)

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for

a wide array of Federal programs, mostly in the U.S. Department

of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs include agricultural research, education, and extension activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm income and support programs; marketing

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural

economic and community development activities, and telecommunications and electrification assistance; and various export and international activities of the USDA.

The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

[CFTC], and allows the use of collected fees for administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA].

Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, the

bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural and rural development programs and on other programs and

activities funded by the bill. It is within the subcommittee’s allocation for fiscal year 2004.

All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure

that an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the

programs of USDA, FDA, CFTC, and FCA. Details on each of the

accounts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications behind the funding levels are included in the report.

The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and

loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects the

Department only to approve those applications judged meritorious

when subjected to the established review process.

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

Public Law 103–62, the Government Performance and Results

Act [GPRA] of 1993, requires Federal agencies to develop succinct

and precise strategic plans and annual performance plans that

focus on results of funding decisions made by the Congress. Rather

than simply providing details of activity levels, agencies will set

outcome goals based on program activities and establish performance measures for use in management and budgeting. In an era of

restricted and declining resources, it is paramount that agencies

focus on the difference they make in citizens’ lives.

The Committee supports the concepts of this law and intends to

use the agencies’ plans for funding purposes. The Committee considers GPRA to be a viable way to reduce Federal spending while

achieving a more efficient and effective Government and will closely monitor compliance with this law. The Committee is fully committed to the success and outcome of GPRA requirements as envisioned by the Congress, the administration, and this Committee.
6

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT [FECA]

The President’s budget includes a legislative proposal to allow

the Department of Labor [DOL] to charge agencies for administrative costs related to FECA benefits paid to employees. Currently,

although DOL bills agencies for FECA benefits, it does not bill

agencies for the costs of administering these benefits.

The President’s budget includes the administrative costs in each

agency’s budget, as opposed to the DOL budget, where the funds

have previously been appropriated. The Committee’s recommendation, however, assumes that this proposal will not be enacted into

law, and excludes these administrative costs.

DISPLAY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 SPENDING LEVELS

Section 601 of Division O of Public Law 108–7, the Consolidated

Appropriations Resolution, 2003, imposed, with few exceptions, a

rescission of 0.65 percent of the budget authority provided (or obligation limitation imposed) for all discretionary accounts in Divisions A through K of that joint resolution. Division A of Public Law

108–7 provided appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.

The 0.65 percent rescission applied to all discretionary accounts

of Division A with the exception of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], and for levels of budget authority provided through the collection of user fees.

Accordingly, all fiscal year 2003 spending levels displayed in this

report for which the 0.65 percent rescission did apply reflect the

0.65 percent rescission. Further adjustments to fiscal year 2003

levels are detailed by footnotes where applicable.

In addition, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002

(Public Law 107–296), the President’s budget proposes the transfer

of certain USDA and FDA resources to the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2003. These proposed transfers are listed in the table below:

USDA:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Salaries and Expenses:

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection—Appropriated .............................................................. $31,472,000

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection—User Fees ................................................................... 178,647,000

Plum Island—Operations Support ........................................................................................ 4,305,000

Plum Island—Diagnostics performed by USDA ................................................................... 2,252,000

Total, APHIS ...................................................................................................................... 216,676,000

Agricultural Research Service:

Salaries and Expenses:

Plum Island—Operations Support ........................................................................................ 5,363,000

Plum Island—Research performed by USDA ....................................................................... 3,785,000

Total, ARS ......................................................................................................................... 9,148,000

Staff Offices:

Office of the Secretary/Executive Operations ................................................................................ 70,000

Departmental Administration ......................................................................................................... 219,000

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities .............................................................................................. 8,624,000

Office of Communications ............................................................................................................. 50,000

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ............................................................................................. 40,000
7

Office of the Chief Information Officer ......................................................................................... 159,000

Office of General Counsel .............................................................................................................. 89,000

Office of the Inspector General ..................................................................................................... 199,000

Office of Budget and Program Analysis ........................................................................................ 40,000

Total, Staff Offices .................................................................................................................... 9,490,000

Total, USDA Transfers to DHS ................................................................................................... 235,314,000

FDA:

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................................................ 583,000

Total Transfers to DHS ....................................................................................................................... 235,897,000

Displays in this report of the fiscal year 2003 funding levels for

these activities have been reduced to provide an accurate presentation of USDA and FDA activities during fiscal year 2003 in comparison to those proposed by the President for fiscal year 2004.

Further adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 levels are detailed by

footnotes where applicable.

USER FEE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes legislative proposals

to authorize the collection and expenditure of user fees for a number of agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. These

agencies include: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;

the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the

Food Safety and Inspection Service; and the Food and Drug Administration. Assumed fiscal year 2004 revenues from these fees total

$164,000,000, of which only $5,000,000 would have no effect on current services. The fiscal year 2004 budget assumes the collection

and expenditure of these fees, and therefore reduces the fiscal year

2004 spending for this subcommittee by an additional $159,000,000

from current levels.

Jurisdiction for the authorization of these fees in the Senate lies

with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, not the

Committee on Appropriations. Further, the U.S. Constitution requires that all revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives and to the extent that these proposals are held to be

revenue measures (for which similar proposals in the past have),

unilateral action by the Senate in this matter risks violation of

Constitutional principles.

This Committee again admonishes the administration for including in an annual budget request to the Appropriations Committee

legislative proposals for which this Committee has no jurisdiction,

proposals which have budgetary implications, and which raise possible Constitutional points of order. The Committee notes that

similar proposals by this and past administrations have not met

approval by the authorizing committees and there is no evidence to

indicate that these proposals will meet with any greater success.

The Committee included a General Provision (Section 723) in the

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (Division A of Public Law 108–7) which requires the President to identify reductions

from his fiscal year 2004 budget submission in the event the authorization of the proposed fees has not been enacted prior to the
8

convening of a committee on conference for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations act. Notwithstanding the delayed enactment of Public

Law 108–7, the Committee expects compliance with Section 723,

and urges the administration identify these reductions as soon as

possible.
(9)

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,368,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 10,068,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,046,000

The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary,

Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of their immediate

staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the Executive Office of the

President and Members of Congress on all matters pertaining to

agricultural policy.

The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control

the work of the Department is contained in the Organic Act (7

U.S.C. 2201–2202). The delegation of regulatory functions to Department employees and authorization of appropriations to carry

out these functions is contained in 7 U.S.C. 450c–450g.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee recommends an

appropriation of $10,046,000. The Committee includes $6,604,000

for cross-cutting trade negotiations and biotechnology resources.

This amount is $6,678,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

Drought Mitigation.—The Committee is concerned by the lack of

a coherent national policy to combat drought. When drought

strikes, it is a very serious disaster bringing economic and personal

hardships to large sections of the nation. Long term drought conditions in the Intermountain West, as one example, have resulted in

water supplies for agriculture falling below 50 percent of normal

supply. The report of the National Drought Commission, ‘‘Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century’’, recommends that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness Act. Such an act

would establish a Federal/non-Federal partnership through a National Drought Council responsible for implementing a national

drought policy. The Committee expects the Secretary to carry out

the recommendations of the National Drought Commission and coordinate USDA mission areas to provide a response to droughtstricken areas in as prompt and meaningful a way as possible.

Administrative Convergence.—The Secretary is expected to seek

the Committee’s approval before implementing a merger or reduction of any administrative or information technology functions re-
10

lating to the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, USDA Rural Development, or any other agency of the Department.

Federal Procurement of Biobased Products.—The Secretary, after

consultation with the Administrator of Environmental Protection,

the Administrator of General Services, and Secretary of Commerce

(acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology) shall prepare and from time to time revise guidelines for the use of procuring agencies in complying with the requirements of Public Law 107–171, section 9002. The Secretary

shall also work to carry out all other requirements of section 9002.

Helena, Arkansas Training Center.—In the fiscal year 2003 Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 Congressional Record,

pages S356–S410, the Secretary was requested to investigate and

report to this Committee on an opportunity to utilize property in

Helena, Arkansas, for USDA training activities and other Department-wide functions. The Committee has not received such a report, but expects full compliance with congressional directives. The

Secretary is requested to proceed with an investigation into use of

this property for USDA functions and to prepare a feasibility report

which will include costs and savings to the Department for utilization of this facility. The Committee expects a preliminary report by

December 1, 2003 and a full report on this subject no later than

March 1, 2004.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed.—Section 2003 of the Farm Security

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides the Secretary direction

in the allocation of certain conservation resources in the area of

partnerships and cooperation with non-Federal entities to help

meet environmental objectives. Legislative history clearly shows a

need for attention in connection with the Chesapeake Bay. In the

context of this authority, the Committee is aware of interests by

governors, mayors, and other non-Federal officials in seeking

USDA assistance through Section 2003 in support of the Chesapeake Bay Working Lands Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program, for

which an application has been submitted to the Department. The

Committee urges the Secretary to take action on this application

and report to the Committee on the means by which USDA will

utilize the authorities of section 2003 toward improved conservation of the Chesapeake Bay.

Homeland Security.—The President’s budget includes a number

of requests for increases related to homeland security. The Committee notes that as of the preparation of this report $54,000,000

remains available from previous appropriations specifically for

homeland security needs, of which $19,000,000 is available to the

Secretary. The Committee believes these resources, in addition to

funds provided in this Act, will be sufficient for these needs.

Animal Health and Food Safety.—The Committee supports the

development of the Collaboration in Animal Health, Food Safety

and Epidemiology [CAHFSE]. This collaboration represents a high

level of coordination among the Agricultural Research Service,

Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service to develop a comprehensive effort to address animal health and food safety issues, including those attributable to antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens. It is expected
11

that this collaboration will yield information regarding the use of

antibiotics in animal agriculture, the development of resistance

patterns, and interventions to reduce the development and potential transfer of resistance. The effort also will further enable USDA

to identify and track emerging diseases, whether natural or intentionally introduced, and implement mitigation strategies. The Committee encourages the Department to propose adequate funding

levels for the future growth and success of this program.

Plum Island Research and Diagnostic Activities.—The President’s

fiscal year 2004 budget includes continuing transfers for certain

USDA activities to the Department of Homeland Security [DHS],

including $2,135,000 from APHIS for diagnostic activities and

$5,668,000 from ARS for research. The Committee is concerned

that this transfer of funding may result in a shift in focus away

from agriculture, and fully expects the Secretary of Agriculture to

seek assurances from the Secretary of Homeland Security that

these diagnostic and research activities will firmly remain tied to

agricultural interests.

Alternative Fuels.—The continuing development of bio-based energy products, such as E–85 capable vehicle technologies, provides

economic and environmental opportunities for producers of agricultural products and consumers. The Secretary should use resources

of the Department toward educational and infrastructure promotion to expand the availability of these products in Minnesota

and other States.

Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.—The

Committee notes that the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act

of 2002 (Public Law 107–171) included a provision mandating that

the Department of Agriculture submit a report on geographically

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The Committee is aware that

the Department has failed to submit the report within 1 year of the

date of enactment. Given the significant transportation barriers

which currently exist and the necessity for ensuring that geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers can fully participate in agricultural programs, the Department shall submit their

report no later than January 15, 2004.

Renewable Energy.—The Committee commends the Secretary for

the Department’s efforts in support of biofuels and renewable energy programs. However, the Committee is concerned that while

the Department is involved with research and development, marketing activities, and financial assistance for the production of

these energy sources, the efforts appear to lack effective coordination across individual agency lines. The Committee urges the Secretary to establish an integrated program from farm gate to fuel

pump to maximize producers’ ability to take advantage of this renewable and sustainable energy industry, and to identify an individual responsible for the coordination and evaluation of these activities.

Economic Losses.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to

utilize the authorities and resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance to compensate United States entities

that export United States beef to be processed in Canada for re-importation to the United States that suffered economic losses as a

direct result of the BSE-related border closing between the United
12

States and Canada. The Committee is aware of the need to compensate an entity for such losses in Minnesota.

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

Executive operations were established as a result of the reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for USDA

policy officials and selected Departmentwide services. Activities

under the executive operations include the Office of the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Homeland Security Staff.

CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $8,510,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 12,264,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,707,000

The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies and

programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for the Nation’s economic intelligence and analysis, risk assessment, energy

and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and

international food and agriculture issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all commodity and aggregate agricultural

and food-related data used to develop outlook and situation material within the Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee recommends $8,707,000. This amount is $197,000 more than the fiscal

year 2003 appropriation.

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $13,670,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 14,242,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,997,000

The National Appeals Division conducts administrative hearings

and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee recommends $13,997,000. This amount is $327,000 more than the fiscal year

2003 appropriation.

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $7,270,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,980,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,544,000

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction

and administration of the Department’s budgetary functions including development, presentation, and execution of the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for program, budget, and

related implications; analyzes program and resource issues and al-
13

ternatives, and prepares summaries of pertinent data to aid the

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program

managers in the decisionmaking process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to the committees of the Congress, the media,

and interested public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative programs and reports.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee

recommends $7,544,000. This amount is $274,000 more than the

fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... ...........................

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... $1,479,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 910,000

1 $2,643,000 was provided by the homeland security supplemental, Public Law 107–117, under

the Office of the Secretary for this activity.

The Homeland Security Staff formulates emergency preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of Agriculture

[USDA]. The Staff directs and coordinates all of the Department’s

program activities that support USDA emergency programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the Department of Homeland

Security, and other Federal departments and agencies involving

homeland security, natural disasters, other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil emergency planning and related

activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee recommends

$910,000. This activity was funded in fiscal year 2003 under the

Office of the Secretary. This appropriation will provide adequate

funding to maintain these activities in fiscal year 2004.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $14,993,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 31,334,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,710,000

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in

August 1996, pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major

Federal agencies. This office provides policy guidance, leadership,

coordination, and direction to the Department’s information management and information technology investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA egov 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
14

certain activities financed under the Department’s working capital

fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides telecommunication

and automated data processing [ADP] services to USDA agencies

through the National Information Technology Center with locations

in Fort Collins, CO, and Kansas City, MO. Direct ADP operational

services are also provided to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,

and Executive Operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $15,710,000 for the Office of the

Chief Information Officer. This amount is $717,000 more than the

fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include an increase of $2,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in

the budget. The Committee has included $500,000 for the Chief Information

Officer to study the feasibility of utilizing a non-Federal entity to

provide electronic storage of data related to USDA food safety programs and using the facility for food safety information management.

COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $132,289,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 177,714,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 119,289,000

The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use computer

systems in a manner that enhances efficiency, productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer information sharing

among agencies of the Department. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

requires USDA to maximize the value of information technology acquisitions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization initiative has been working to restructure county field

offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and replace

the current, aging information systems with a modern Common

Computing Environment that optimizes information sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $119,289,000 for the Common Computing Environment. This amount is $13,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $5,496,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,902,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,496,000

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the

dual roles of chief financial management policy officer and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and mission area

heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management,

accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and performance measure-
15

ment activities within the Department. The Office is also responsible for the management and operation of the National Finance

Center and the Departmental Working Capital Fund. In addition,

the Office provides budget, accounting, and fiscal services to the

Office of the Secretary, Departmental staff offices, Office of the

Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, and executive

operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee recommends $5,496,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year

2003 appropriation. This amount does not include an increase of

$41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget.

Financial Management.—The Committee was pleased to learn

that for the first time the Department of Agriculture received a

clean audit in fiscal year 2002. This is a major accomplishment.

The Committee wishes to express support for the effort necessary

to reach this milestone, and encourages the Department to continue to make financial management a priority.

National Finance Center.—The Committee supports the President’s e-government initiative goals to improve the performance

and reduce the cost of Federal Government administration by using

commercially available e-business best practices for functions that

are not inherently governmental. The ongoing e-payroll/Human Resources [HR] consolidation and integration of HR and payroll systems across the government provides a prime example of how egovernment can improve service and efficiency that will create several hundred million dollars of savings to Federal organizations.

The Committee has been informed that the Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center [NFC] proposal for e-payroll consolidation was rated the highest in the internal competition held by

the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] and the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. The Committee recognizes that the

payroll consolidation will require significant capital investment for

information technology and infrastructure required to provide the

new consolidated e-payroll function. The Committee believes that

the NFC’s demonstrated ability to provide a high level of service

while operating on a fee-for-service basis similar to commercial industry provides a significant opportunity to utilize a public/private

partnership to provide private sector investment and shared risk in

the modernization of systems and infrastructure creation for e-payroll at the NFC. The Committee encourages the Department of Agriculture to work with OMB and OPM to investigate the feasibility

of creating a public/private partnership to help leverage scarce Federal resources to continue the modernization and development of

Federal Government-wide e-payroll functions.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $11,922,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ......................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ......................
16

The Working Capital Fund was established in the 1944 Appropriations Act. It was created for certain central services in the Department of Agriculture, including duplicating and other visual information services, art and graphics, video services, supply, centralized accounting system, centralized automated data processing system for payroll, personnel, and related services, voucher payments

services, and ADP systems. The National Finance Center’s expenses are also funded through this fund.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The President’s budget does not request and the Committee does

not provide an appropriation to the Working Capital Fund.

The Committee again includes a General Provision (Section 704)

which provides authority for the Secretary to transfer unobligated

balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital

Fund. This authority should be sufficient to meet fiscal year 2004

needs.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $397,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 .......................................................................... 808,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 794,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, established

by Section 10704 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act

of 2002, provides oversight of civil rights and related functions.

This includes coordination of the administration of civil rights laws

and regulations for employees of the Department of Agriculture

and participants in programs of the Department, and ensuring

compliance with civil rights laws.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $794,000. This amount

is $397,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... $15,090,000

Budget estimate, 2004 1 ......................................................................... 17,550,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,445,000

1 Included in the Departmental Administration account.

The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership responsibility for all Department-wide civil rights activities. These activities include employment opportunity as well as program non-discrimination policy development, analysis, coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and for monitoring program activities to

ensure that all USDA programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The Office’s outreach functions provide leadership, coordination, facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all

constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through information sharing, technical assistance, and training.
17

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,445,000. This amount is $355,000 more than fiscal year 2003, which was included within the Departmental Administration account. This amount includes $405,000 for pay costs.

This appropriation is provided separately from that of Departmental Administration to reflect the reorganization of the civil

rights functions in the Department of Agriculture. Pursuant to the

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, USDA has established the position of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and

has realigned the Office of Civil Rights from Departmental Administration.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $656,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 793,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 673,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration directs

and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real and personal

property management, personnel management, equal opportunity

and civil rights programs, ethics, and other general administrative

functions. In addition, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for certain activities financed under the

Department’s working capital fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the

Committee recommends $673,000. This amount is $17,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $186,878,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 199,332,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 188,022,000

Rental Payments.—Annual appropriations are made to finance

the appropriated portion of the payments to the General Services

Administration [GSA] for rental of space and for related services to

all USDA agencies, except the Forest Service, which is funded by

another appropriations bill.

The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to agencies occupying GSA-controlled space was established by the Public

Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to establish

commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial real estate

appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review procedures are in place

to assure that agencies have an opportunity to contest rates they

feel are incorrect.

Building Operations and Maintenance.—On October 1, 1984, the

General Services Administration [GSA] delegated the operations

and maintenance function for the buildings in the D.C. complex to

the Department. This activity provides departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain, and repair the buildings in the
18

D.C. complex. GSA expanded the delegation to include two additional buildings on October 1, 1986. One building is the Government-owned warehouse for forms in Lanham, MD, and the other is

a leased warehouse for the excess property operation located at 49

L Street SW, Washington, DC. GSA retains responsibility for major

nonrecurring repairs. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began operations

and maintenance of the Beltsville office facility.

Strategic Space Plan.—The Department’s headquarters staff is

presently housed in a four-building Government-owned complex in

downtown Washington, DC, and in leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to

improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people,

including streamlining the USDA organization. A high-priority goal

in the Secretary’s plan is to improve the operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington, DC. To implement

this goal, a strategy for efficient reallocation of space to house the

restructured headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities

has been proposed. This USDA strategic space plan will correct serious problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including

the inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities and

serious safety hazards which exist in the Agriculture South Building.

During fiscal year 1998, the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This facility was constructed with funds appropriated to the

Department and is located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. In fiscal year 1999, USDA began operations at the

Beltsville Office Facility.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings and facilities and

payments for the rental of space and related services, the Committee recommends $188,022,000. This amount is $1,144,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 2003

and budget request levels:

[In thousands of dollars]

2003 enacted 2004 budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Rental Payments ........................................................................................ 120,795 123,910 123,910

Building Operations ................................................................................... 32,327 41,445 32,559

Strategic Space Plan ................................................................................. 33,756 33,977 31,553

Total ....................................................................................................... 186,878 199,332 188,022

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $15,583,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 15,713,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,611,000

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet the same

standards regarding the storage and disposition of hazardous mate-
19

rials as private businesses. The Department is required to contain,

clean up, monitor, and inspect for hazardous materials in areas

under the Department’s jurisdiction.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $15,611,000 for hazardous materials

management. This amount is $28,000 more than the fiscal year

2003 appropriation.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $37,628,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 45,128,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,031,000

Departmental administration is comprised of activities that provide staff support to top policy officials and overall direction and

coordination of administrative functions of the Department. These

activities include departmentwide programs for human resource

management, ethics, occupational safety and health management,

real and personal property management, procurement, contracting,

motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply management, civil

rights and equal opportunity, participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers

in the Department’s program activities, emergency preparedness,

small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory

hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. Departmental administration also provides administrative support to the Board of Contract

Appeals. Established as an independent entity within the Department, the Board adjudicates contract claims by and against the Department, and is funded as a reimbursable activity.

Departmental administration is also responsible for representing

USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies, and standards. In

addition, departmental administration engages in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-wide compliance

with applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and general officers of the Department.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $23,031,000. This amount is $14,597,000 less

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $21,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget.

Pursuant to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

2002, USDA has established the position of the Assistant Secretary

for Civil Rights, and has realigned the Office of Civil Rights from

Departmental Administration. At the request of USDA, the Committee has created a new account, the Office of Civil Rights, to reflect this realignment which has resulted in a reduction in the Departmental Administration account.
20

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,781,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,186,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,825,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction and coordination

in the development and implementation of policies and procedures

applicable to the Department’s intra- and inter-governmental relations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,825,000.

This amount is $44,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to support

congressional relations’ activities at the agency level. Within 30

days from the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall notify the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the allocation

of these funds by USDA agency, along with an explanation for the

agency-by-agency distribution of the funds as well as the staff

years funded by these transfers.

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $9,031,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 10,084,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,228,000

The Office of Communications provides direction, leadership, and

coordination in the development and delivery of useful information

through all media to the public on USDA programs. The Office

serves as the liaison between the Department and the many associations and organizations representing America’s food, fiber, and

environmental interests.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $9,228,000. This amount is $197,000 more than

the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $73,416,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 81,895,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,781,000

The Office of the Inspector General was established October 12,

1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This Act expanded and

provided specific authorities for the activities of the Office of the

Inspector General which had previously been carried out under the

general authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports

directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and responsibil-
21

ities 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 programrelated audit and investigation activities performed by other Department agencies.

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance

with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the Department’s agencies, and to provide appropriate officials with the

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred.

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are

coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and investigative agencies of the executive and legislative branches of the Government.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,781,000. This amount is $2,365,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $70,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget. The Committee provides an increase of $800,000 for OIG

to address violations of the Animal Welfare Act and to coordinate

with State and local law enforcement personnel in this effort.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $34,700,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 37,328,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,343,000

The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all agencies, offices, and

corporations of the Department. The Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings; non-litigation debt collection

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before

the Environmental Protection Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime Administration, and International Trade

Commission; and, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, in

judicial proceedings and litigation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,343,000. This amount is

$643,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This

amount does not include $6,000 for FECA administrative charges,

as requested in the budget.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $580,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 792,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 596,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and

Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying out the
22

laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural research,

education, extension, and economic and statistical information. The

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service; Economic Research Service; and National

Agricultural Statistics Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education,

and Economics, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$596,000. This amount is $16,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation.

The Committee is aware of a new crop fiber, Arundo donax, that

has the potential to replace hardwood fibers in many paper grades.

The Committee has been apprised of a collaborative effort between

Auburn University, Washington State University, the University of

Washington and the pulp and paper industry in Washington and

Alabama, to test the planting, producing, and harvesting of Arundo

and to conduct tests to further improve the use of the fiber as a

raw material for paper pulp. The Committee encourages the Department to support researching optimal growing techniques for

Arundo in Eastern Washington and expand Auburn University’s

research from the test plot level to commercial sale. The Committee

also encourages further tests to improve the paper manufacturing

process. The Committee recognizes the economic potential of this

crop to rural communities and understands that the research

project will include a strong focus on demonstrating the economic

viability of this new crop.

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $68,674,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 76,657,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 69,902,000

The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and

other social science information and analysis for public and private

decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the general public

and to help the executive and legislative branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and rural policies and programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee recommends

an appropriation of $69,902,000. This amount is $1,228,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $11,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget.

The Committee encourages ERS to conduct a study on valueadded products for the wool and lamb industry to identify potential

products to be marketed by sheep producers.

The Committee is aware of concerns regarding which USDA

agency is best suited to oversee and carry out research related to

food assistance programs within the Department. The Economic

Research Service has particular capacities related to economic
23

analysis and modeling. The Food and Nutrition Service has longstanding expertise in programmatic operations of food assistance

programs. Given their respective capacities and areas of expertise,

research dollars at the Department of Agriculture are provided to

both ERS and FNS. The Committee provides $5,000,000, the same

as the fiscal year 2003 level, for studies and evaluations under this

account.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $138,448,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 136,182,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 128,922,000

The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] administers

the Department’s program of collecting and publishing current national, State, and county agricultural statistics. These statistics

provide accurate and timely projections of current agricultural production and measures of the economic and environmental welfare

of the agricultural sector which are essential for making effective

policy, production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes

statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support

of their missions, and provides consulting, technical assistance, and

training to developing countries.

The Service is also responsible for administration of the Census

of Agriculture, which was transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 1997 to consolidate agricultural statistics programs. The Census of Agriculture

is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number of farms, land

use, production expenses, farm product values, value of land and

buildings, farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market

value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation practices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of $128,922,000. This amount is

$9,526,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This

amount does not include $4,000 for FECA administrative charges,

as requested in the budget. The Committee provides $4,800,000 for

Agricultural estimates, as requested. Also included in this amount

is $25,279,000 for the Census of Agriculture, as requested.

The Committee encourages NASS to conduct Monthly Hogs and

Pigs Inventory reporting, and Barrow and Gilt Slaughter reporting.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,036,779,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 987,303,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,045,533,000

The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil, water,

and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; commodity conver-
24

sion and delivery; human nutrition; and the integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental conditions.

ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information and library services through traditional library functions and modern

electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and private organizations, and individuals.

As the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s in-house agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for conducting and

leading the national agricultural research effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas: research on broad regional and

national problems, research to support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to meet national emergencies, research

support for international programs, and scientific resources to the

executive branch and Congress.

The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and

technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living of all Americans. This

mission focuses on the development of technical information and

technical products which bear directly on the need to: (1) manage

and use the Nation’s soil, water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation’s environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of

agricultural products by observing practices that will maintain a

sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve living in

rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation’s balance of payments.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service,

the Committee recommends $1,045,533,000. This is $8,754,000

more than the 2003 level. This amount does not include $244,000

for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

The Committee recommendation includes $14,078,000 of the savings from project terminations proposed in the budget. These savings are to be redirected to those research areas for which increased funding is provided by the Committee. The Committee does

not provide funding for contingencies.

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends funding increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing research activities.

The remaining increase in appropriations from the fiscal year 2004

level is to be applied to pay and related cost increases to prevent

the further erosion of the agency’s capacity to maintain a viable research program at all research locations.

The Committee expects the agency to give attention to the

prompt implementation and allocation of funds provided for the

purposes identified by Congress.

In complying with the Committee’s directives, ARS is expected

not to redirect support for programs from one State to another

without prior notification to and approval by the House and Senate
25

Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the reprogramming procedures specified in this Act. Unless otherwise directed,

the Agricultural Research Service shall implement appropriations

by programs, projects, commodities, and activities as specified by

the Appropriations Committees. Unspecified reductions necessary

to carry out the provisions of this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the definitions contained in the ‘‘Program, project,

and activity’’ section of this report.

The Committee has included statutory language to return to Colorado State University land which was conveyed to the Agricultural Research Service on February 1, 1966. This land is no longer

being used by ARS.

The Committee’s recommendations with respect to specific areas

of research are as follows:

Aerial Application Research.—Aerial application is a necessary

crop protection tool in farming and permits large areas to be covered rapidly, thus ensuring timely and effective applications of

large farming areas. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003

funding level for expanded ARS aerial application research at the

College Station, TX, research station.

Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics.—The Committee provides

an increase of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to continue

work on the Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species at the

National Center for Genome Resources in New Mexico, as authorized in Section 227 of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act (Public

Law 106–224).

Agricultural Law, Drake University.—The Committee provides

an increase of $20,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for support

of a national center focusing on State and local food and agricultural law and policy. Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, is

highly qualified to serve as the location of the center.

Air Quality Research.—Agricultural operations produce a variety

of particulates and gases that influence air quality. Agriculture,

through wind erosion, tillage and harvest operations, burning, diesel-powered machinery and animal operations, is a source of particulate matter that can cause pulmonary problems to humans. While

extensive regulatory measures have severely impacted agricultural

production efficiencies, continuing urban expansion into high production regions have exacerbated the need for producers to further

modify effective production practices to reduce harmful emissions.

The Committee recognizes that expanded research is needed to

quantify these emissions, determine emission factors, and to develop management practices for producers to address this problem.

The Committee provides ARS an increase of $1,000,000 over the

fiscal year 2003 funding levels for collaborative research with Utah

State University’s Space Dynamics Laboratory [SDL] to develop

and evaluate sensors, protocols, and statistical procedures that accurately measure particulates and gaseous emissions from agriculture operations.

Alternative Crops and Value-Added Products.—The Committee is

aware that alternative crops and value-added products provide potential opportunities to enhance profitability. Niche marketing of

agriculture products displaying ‘‘identity-preserved’’ traits have re-
26

ceived premiums in the marketplace. The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2003 level for alternative and value-added products.

Animal Vaccines.—The U.S. food animal economy continues to be

threatened by infectious diseases that can devastate the cattle,

swine, and poultry industries. Increased research to investigate the

adverse impacts of diseases on cattle, swine, and poultry are critically needed to avoid potential economic disasters, such as the

spread of food and mouth disease. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for collaborative research between

ARS and the Universities of Connecticut and Missouri to develop

more effective animal vaccines.

Animal Waste Treatment.—The Committee understands the need

for additional research to find new and economical treatments to

eliminate animal wastes. The ARS research station at Florence,

SC, is investigating alternative treatments and techniques to respond to this major problem in swine production. The Committee

provides an increase of $300,000 over fiscal year 2003 for this research.

Appalachian Fruit Research Station.—The Committee recognizes

the importance of the fruit research program carried out at the Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, WV, and provides an increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for essential staffing to support the station’s ongoing research to identify

new alternatives for chemical control of insects, and to develop disease-resistant trees.

Appalachian Horticulture Research.—Ornamental horticulture,

floriculture and nursery crops, collectively constitute the third most

important crop in the United States, surpassed only by corn and

soybeans, with an average estimated value of more than

$11,000,000,000 a year. Tennessee has a vibrant nursery industry

and a growing floriculture industry. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 over fiscal year 2003 for ARS collaborative research with the University of Tennessee and Tennessee State University, including efforts to develop resistant genes in dogwoods

and other woody ornamentals, new tissue culture techniques, and

techniques to enable rapid deployment of new cultivars for the

marketplace.

Appalachian Pasture-Based Beef Systems.—The Committee is

aware of the benefits to be derived from the pasture-raised beef research program currently underway at the ARS Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center located in Beaver, WV. The research

partnership, which includes West Virginia University, Virginia

Tech, and ARS, is targeted to Appalachian cattle farmers. The

Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from the fiscal year

2003 level for this research, which will ensure the economic viability of these farmers and conserve and protect the region’s environment.

Aquaculture Research.—The Committee provides an increase of

$150,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to develop grain-based

products for use in fish feeds, human food, and industrial products

from novel cultivars of barley and oats in cooperation with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station in

Hagerman, ID.
27

Aquaculture Research.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of avoiding duplication in research administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture at various locations throughout the

country. In order to ensure that duplication does not occur in the

field of warmwater aquaculture research, the Stuttgart research facility should not engage in channel catfish research related to production systems, nutrition, water quality, genetics, disease diagnosis, or food processing which is ongoing at the National

Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center at Stoneville, MS.

Arid Lands Research.—The challenges for agricultural production and natural resource management in the desert Southwest

and adjoining border regions are immense. Technologies for arid

land agriculture are needed for the remediation of arid and semiarid rangelands, sustainable agriculture production for growers of

irrigated cotton and selected crops, and the restoration of disturbed

lands. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for expanded research in rangeland resource management, irrigated

farming technology, and environmental horticulture at the Jornada

Experimental Range Station at Las Cruces, NM.

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR.—The

Committee notes the importance of optimizing the nutrition and

health of children from conception through adolescence. The Center

is leading major research efforts to understand the relationship between chronic disease and diet, genetics, and lifestyle. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for expanded investigations on these issues.

Biological Control Research.—The Committee has been impressed by results of the various approaches which have been

taken by the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center in the

area of biological controls of cotton insect pests. The economic and

environmental benefits of this research could eventually reduce the

vulnerability of crops to major insect pests and create alternatives

to traditional crop protection methods. The Committee continues

funding for this project at the fiscal year 2003 level.

Biomass Crop Production.—The Committee continues the fiscal

year 2003 level for increased cooperative research between ARS

and South Dakota State University to further investigate the applicability of using a method of fiber extrusion to dry and process wet

distiller grains from ethanol production into high value feed for cattle, as well as conversion to increased ethanol production.

Biomedical Materials in Plants.—Increased research is needed to

carry out studies on tobacco and other plants as a medium to

produce vaccines and other biomedical products for the prevention

of many human and animal diseases. The Committee provides an

increase of $425,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for expanded

ARS cooperative research with the Biotechnology Foundation.

Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops and Livestock.—Biotechnology research has opened the path for sequencing and mapping the genes of crops and livestock, marking genes for adding

precision to breeding of improved plants and animals, and identifying gene products through proteomics technology. Other technological advancements can be achieved in the livestock industry

through the development of imaging at the molecular level using

light, heat, and/or fluorescing signatures. These biotechnology ef-
28

forts generate huge volumes of data, which must be managed,

transmitted electronically, and analyzed. The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to support cooperative research in genomics and bioinformatics and in the use of

biophotonics for the imaging of animal physiological processes at

the cellular level.

Broiler Production in the Mid South.—Reduced broiler production costs are essential for the industry to increase net profit and

remain competitive internationally. The Committee recognizes the

importance of the cooperation between the ARS Poultry Research

Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station at Mississippi State. This cooperation has resulted in improved bird nutrition, control of mycoplasma disease with vaccines,

and overall health, vigor, and growth of the birds through improved

housing environmental controls. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for cooperative research on reducing ammonia

levels in poultry litter, improving environmental controls, and reducing mortality in broiler flocks.

Canada Thistle.—The Committee recognizes the importance of

controlling and eradicating the Canada thistle, a noxious, invasive

weed that has surpassed leafy spurge in infested acreage in North

Dakota. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal

year 2004 to carry out research experiments to examine the population genetics and biology of Canada thistle and to combat this

weed in North Dakota and surrounding States. The research is to

be conducted at the ARS research facility at Fargo, ND.

Catfish Health.—Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and parasites

threaten the economic viability of the Nation’s billion dollar catfish

industry. Rapid expansion of the U.S. channel catfish industry increases the vulnerability of the industry to outbreaks of diseases

and parasites. Research urgently is needed to identify disease vectors, modes of transmission, life cycles and methods for controlling

catfish diseases caused by parasites, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. A

thorough understanding of the impact of environmental factors on

disease will lead to improved management practices for conventional catfish culture in earthen ponds. The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level for the comprehensive catfish health research program based at the Stoneville, MS, National Warmwater

Aquaculture Center. This Center is strategically located in the middelta, proximal to the vast majority of the U.S. commercial catfish

farming acreage and already has a critical mass of scientists, facilities, and instrumentation addressing the disease issue. Ongoing research in genomics and breeding can be expanded to select for fish

with disease and parasite resistance, but additional scientists, including a parasitologist and virologist, are required for a comprehensive disease and parasite genetic resistance research program.

Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.—The Committee is aware of the significance of the research currently underway relating to catfish and other food products at the Mississippi

Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology and continues

funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for research on shellfish safety

and methods of decreasing risks to consumers.
29

Central Great Plains Research Station.—This is the only ARS

station conducting research aimed at solving dryland production

problems in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the Central

Great Plains Research Station at Akron, CO, for research on extensive crop rotation strategies. Increased research will focus on biological diversity to reduce weed, disease, and insects inherent in

single crop rotation and utilize a complete systems approach to

quantify comparative yield benefits under various rotation

schemes.

Cereal Disease Research.—The Committee continues the fiscal

year 2003 level to support the core group of scientists currently

performing research at the Cereal Disease Research Laboratory, St.

Paul, Minnesota.

Children’s Nutrition Research Center.—The Children’s Nutrition

Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX,

has helped define the role of nutrition in children’s health, growth,

and development; contributed to nutritional guidelines used by

physicians, parents, and others responsible for the care and feeding

of children, and is unique in it’s ability to address a broad array

of children’s nutritional issues. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for increased investigation of the nutritional needs of pregnant and nursing

women, and children from conception to adolescence, at the Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX.

Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].—In order to reduce livestock

losses and to improve efficiency of production, it is important to

eradicate transmissable spongiform encephalopathies [TSE] in domestic animals. Scrapie of sheep and goats, bovine spongiform

encephalopathies [BSE] and chronic wasting disease [CWD] of deer

and elk are classes of TSE’s of ruminant animals and are fatal diseases that can affect both animals and humans. The Committee

continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the Animal Disease

Laboratory, Pullman, WA, and the National Animal Disease Laboratory, Ames, IA, for urgent research on CWD.

Cacao Germplasm.—The Committee is aware of the climatic differences encountered in maintaining cacao germplasm at the ARS

facility in Florida and is also aware of the sharp increase in commercial planting of cacao in Hawaii. The Committee recommends

that ARS consider moving its cacao germplasm collection to the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center to take advantage of the

more compatible cacao growing conditions at this location and to

provide the applied research support needed by Hawaii’s emerging

chocolate industry.

Coffee and Cocoa.—The disease resistance and alternative crop

research program for coffee and cocoa has important economic benefits and implications for foreign policy goals in South Central

America and West Africa. As a globally marketable cash crop, cocoa

can provide an alternative, environmentally beneficial choice for

small farmers and an incentive to Andean farmers to abandon illegal crops for those that can provide stable long-term economic benefit. Cocoa is produced primarily by small farmers in the tropics of

South Central America and West Africa that is also under severe

disease pressure which threatens the stability of world supply of
30

cocoa and the economies of other cocoa-producing nations. The

Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to fully realize the research potential of coffee and cocoa as alternatives to

illegal crops.

Corn Germplasm.—Corn is a key resource in Iowa and throughout the world, providing food, industrial uses, livestock feed and export. It is important to broaden the germplasm base of corn hybrids

grown by American farmers to establish genetic diversity and stability in corn production. The Committee continues the fiscal year

2003 level for the ARS Corn Germplasm Research Laboratory at

Ames, Iowa for research to increase the productivity and genetic diversity of maize grown in the United States.

Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin.—Contamination of corn by aflatoxin

limits corn production in the southern United States. Understanding the corn genome and where the genes for resistance are

located on the genome will accelerate the plant breeding process

leading to resistant corn lines. The Committee recognizes the

progress already made in the discovery and transfer of aflatoxinresistant corn germplasm to commercial seed companies as a result

of the cooperation between the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and the ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance

Research Unit at Mississippi State. The Committee has provided

the fiscal year 2003 funding level for ARS at Mississippi State to

continue this cooperative research on the development of corn

plants resistant to aflatoxin.

Cotton Genetics Research.—Global competition in the textile industry has caused domestic textile manufacturers to adopt more efficient cotton farm spinning technologies. These new technologies

require higher fiber strength to operate resistance to nematodes

and insect pests that annually inflict significant losses to the cotton

industry. There is a need to broaden the genetic base of cotton

germplasm with fiber properties that will meet today’s more efficient yarn spinning machines, as well as cotton varieties with improved host resistance to insects and pathogens. The Committee

continues the fiscal year 2003 level for cotton genetics research.

Cotton Genomics, Breeding, Variety Development, and Pest Resistance.—The Committee recognizes the progress that has been made

through the cooperative efforts of the ARS and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at Stoneville, MS, in

the research, development, and transfer of improved cotton

germplasm to the cotton industry. This cooperative research must

be accelerated to incorporate new genetic material into

agronomically-acceptable varieties and to transfer reniform nematode and other pest resistance into improved cotton lines. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level to enhance the

public cotton breeding program conducted by ARS at Stoneville,

MS.

Cotton Ginning Laboratory.—The Committee continues funding

at the fiscal year 2003 level for ARS cotton ginning research.

Dairy Forage Research.—The Committee recognizes the important research on dairy forage carried out by ARS at the U.S. Dairy

Forage Research Center in Madison, WI. The Committee provides

an increase of $1,400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for expanded dairy forage research at the center.
31

Delta Nutrition.—The Committee provides $300,000 for nutrition

activities through a cooperative agreement with the Southern University Center for Food Nutrition and Health Promotion in Louisiana. This funding will advance research to assess the human

health and nutrition status of underserved rural communities.

Ecology of Tamarix.—Tamarix (salt cedar) are woody invasive

plants which threaten aquatic systems by consuming large

amounts of water, out competing native vegetation like willow and

cottonwood trees for water. It is a serious problem in Nevada, California, Colorado, Texas, and other Western States. The Committee

is aware of the ARS biocontrol field trials on China beetles to

eradicate tamarix and provides an increase of $1,000,000 for fiscal

year 2004 to accelerate research on tamarix control using China

beetles and other biocontrols, and to expand research on cheat

grass at the ARS research station in Reno, NV.

Fish Disease Research.—The development of safe and effective

vaccines for prevention of disease in catfish is essential to the

growth of the catfish industry. There are currently only a number

of approved therapeutic compounds available for farmers to heal

diseases of fish. Vaccinations, successful in other animals, appear

to be the best means of preventing diseases. The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding

level to the ARS Fish Disease and Parasitic Research Laboratory

at Auburn, AL, for increased research on the development of commercially approved vaccines for catfish.

Floriculture and Nursery Research.—Nursery and greenhouse

products rank third in production in the Nation. As the public demands more plants and trees to help clean the air, prevent water

runoff and soil erosion, and improve water conservation and quality, the nursery industry is playing an expanding and significant

role in enhancing environmental quality. The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level for floriculture and nursery research

aimed at reducing chemical use, improved post-harvest life of flowers and plants, disease and pest resistant flowers and plants, control of root diseases, robotics research, and control of run-off from

greenhouse and nursery operations.

Food Safety and Engineering.—The Committee provides an additional $100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for increased collaborative research with Purdue University in the area of food safety and engineering.

Forage and Range Research.—The Committee recognizes the important research being carried out by ARS at the Forage and

Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT. The research program

seeks to develop and improve range and pasture plants, reinvigorate disturbed and over-used rangelands, effect revegetation following wild fires, combat invasive weeds, and provide improved forages for livestock. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000

from the fiscal year 2003 level for additional research required to

develop range and pasture plant varieties.

Forage-Livestock Systems.—The Committee provides an increase

of $600,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to ARS to continue a cooperative project with the University of Kentucky on tall

fescue breeding and improvement efforts to develop an enhanced

national forage base.
32

Formosan Subterranean Termite.—The management of this termite is essential to Louisiana economic well-being. This termite has

infested 32 parishes in Louisiana, with the most severe infestations

occurring in the New Orleans and Lake Charles areas. This insect

has caused millions of dollars worth of damage with an astonishing

$300,000,000 impact in New Orleans alone. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the

Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for expanded research efforts focusing on improved termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials,

and enhancement of bait technology.

The Committee also recognizes the University of Mississippi’s ongoing research and development efforts to assist USDA entomologists who are focused on the reduction of Formosan subterranean termites. The National Center for Physical Acoustics at the

University of Mississippi plays a unique role in development and

application of acoustic detection methods for accurately locating

Formosan termites in structures of the French Quarter in New Orleans. Accurate detection is an important aspect in control of these

insects. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003

level for continued research and development in the use of insect

acoustics.

Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory.—The

Committee recognizes the threat to long-term sustainability of the

Northern Great Plains range livestock industry from infestations of

noxious weeds such as leafy spurge and spotted knapweed. The objective of the Fort Keogh, MT, station is to develop low-input

rangeland management strategies that impede or control the

spread of noxious weeds into native rangelands and planted pastures. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level.

Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.—The Committee continues to be

concerned about the serious costs that the Glassy-winged sharpshooter [GWSS] and Pierce’s disease [PD] inflict on U.S. vineyards.

Citrus and nursery stock growers now have costly new shipping requirements to inspect and treat plants and crops to curb the spread

of GWSS–PD. The Committee provides an increase of $450,000

from the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS Parlier, CA, laboratory

to continue its research efforts and collaborations to control and

eradicate this devastating carrier and disease.

Grain Marketing and Research Center.—The Committee is aware

that ARS has co-located the research programs of the Wind Erosion

Research Unit and the Grain Marketing Research Center [GMPRC]

at the GMPRC location in Manhattan, Kansas. This co-location of

facilities results in inadequate research space for these individual

programs. The Committee expects ARS to conduct a feasibility

study detailing costs and plans for meeting the additional facility

space requirements created by this co-location. The Committee expects ARS to provide a report to the Committee on this study no

later than March 1, 2004.

Grand Forks Human Nutrition Laboratory.—Research is needed

to study rural health problems related to diet in the Northern

Great Plains. Particular emphasis will be given to the diets of Native Americans and the rural elderly. The Committee provides

$300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for this program to be car-
33

ried out by the ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center in cooperation with the University of North Dakota School of Medicine

and Health Sciences.

Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction Research.—With the consumption of grapefruit juice dramatically declining, there is a need to examine and attain more precise data on the effect of grapefruit juice

on the absorption rates of certain medications. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS Citrus Research Laboratory at Winterhaven, FL, for research to identify and characterize the components of grapefruit juice responsible for enzyme

suppression, understand the dosage affected, and determine the

rate of consumption for safety and efficacy.

Grape Genetics.—The Committee is aware that grapes are the

sixth largest crop in the United States and one of the most important cash crops worldwide. The United States is the fourth largest

producer of wine, responsible for about 10 percent of all world

wine. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 in fiscal

year 2004 for the grape genetics research program at the ARS facility in Geneva, New York.

Great Lakes Aquaculture Research.—The Committee recognizes

the important research studies that ARS carries out nationwide

that benefit the aquaculture industry and the American consumer.

There is a great need for expanded fundamental and applied research to improve production technology of Great Lakes species

such as whitefish, lake trout, yellow perch walleye, and northern

pike. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal

year 2004 for a cooperative program with the Great Lakes Aquaculture Center to support this research and an increase of $300,000

for a cooperative agreement with the University of Wisconsin for

Northern Wisconsin Aquaculture research.

Harry Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center.—Arkansas

leads the Nation in raising hybrid striped bass, as well as in producing 80 percent of the Nation’s baitfish and other food fishes.

The Committee understands that this Center plays a significant

role in meeting the needs of the U.S. aquaculture industry by conducting research aimed at improving yields, food quality, disease

control, and stress tolerance. The Committee continues the fiscal

year 2003 funding level for increased research on the genetic improvement of hybrid striped bass.

Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.—The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level for the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane producers and

to continue to support the expansion of new crops and products, including those from agroforestry, to complement sugarcane production in Hawaii.

Hides and Leather Research.—The USDA’s only hides and leather research is carried out at the Eastern Regional Research Center

in Wyndmoor, PA. The research provides the hides and leather industry with cost-effective and environmentally safe tanning processes which will enhance U.S. producers’ competitiveness in world

markets. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding

level for this research.

Hops Research.—The Committee is aware of the importance of

research to the hops industry in the Pacific Northwest. Hops are
34

grown commercially in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 for research on powdery

mildew that has caused widespread devastation to the hops production in the Northwest. This increase will be carried out at the ARS

research station at Corvallis, OR.

Horticulture Research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the cooperation between the ARS Small Fruits Research

Unit and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station at Poplarville, MS. This cooperation catalyzed and now

undergirds the Gulf Coast blueberry and other small fruit industries. This cooperation has expanded into the development of vegetable, melon, and ornamental industries and can revitalize small

farms in the south. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003

funding level for the cooperative research and development efforts

on ornamentals, vegetables, and melons at Poplarville, MS.

Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging [HNRCA].—The

HNRCA at Tufts University is one of six USDA research centers

that study the effects of human nutrition on health. The program

at HNRCA requires additional resources to maintain existing scientists and staff as well as to offset inflation and spiraling energy

costs. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 to ARS from

the fiscal year 2003 level to meet these resource needs.

Integrated Farming Systems.—The Committee understands that

Integrated Farming Systems represents the agriculture operation

in its entirety, including finances, natural resources and off-farm

environmental impacts. The National Soil Tilth Laboratory in

Ames, IA, conducts this research with special emphasis on nutrient

management. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level.

IPM Strategies for Northern Climate.—Insect pests, plant pathogens, and weed pests are serious threats to Alaska’s economic viability. The Committee recognizes the importance of agricultural research to enhance productivity and profitability of Alaska’s farming

industry, including the preservation and management of its valuable natural resources utilizing IPM strategies. The Committee

continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for expanded research

to develop IPM application approaches suitable to northern latitudes that support viable crop and nursery production systems and

the sustainability of natural resources.

Invasive Species.—The Committee understands the serious impact that invasive species have on production agriculture. Invasive

species are second only to loss of habitat in causing negative impacts on environmental areas and loss of biological diversity. The

Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this biological

control program.

Johne’s Disease (Bovine Paratuberculosis).—Johne’s is a contagious disease that causes chronic wasting or debilitating enteritis

and eventual death in cattle, sheep, goats, deer and other wild and

domestic ruminants. Infected animals intermittently shed the

microorganisms into milk and feces. Infection is difficult to diagnose because of the fastidious, slow growth of the microorganisms

and the poor reliability of the sero-diagnostic tools. Additional research is needed to develop improved diagnostics and vaccines, and

better understanding of the pathogenicity of the organism. The

Committee continues the funding level available in fiscal year 2003
35

for research to control this devastating disease affecting this Nation’s beef and dairy industries.

Karnal Bunt.—The Committee is aware of the significant threat

karnal bunt poses to the U.S. wheat industry and U.S. wheat exports. To aid in development of karnal bunt resistance and control

methods, the Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for research in this area. The Committee expects ARS to work with Kansas State University to establish a consortium in Manhattan, KS,

that will work with other land grant universities in this research

area.

Livestock Genome Sequencing.—The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center at

Clay Center, NE, for expanded genomics research to identify the

genes that influence disease resistance, reproduction, nutrition,

and other economically important traits in livestock. This research

is to be performed in collaboration with the University of Illinois.

Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF] Virus.—The Committee acknowledges the importance of research for the sheep-associated

virus, Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF], infecting small

ruminants. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding

level for research on the development of vaccines critical to the systematic eradication of MCF virus in small ruminants at the ARS

laboratory at Pullman, WA, in cooperation with the ARS sheep,

station at Dubois, ID, and Washington State University.

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute.—The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level for ARS to initiate collaborative research

with the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. This research will

develop high-quality corn in Wisconsin and other Mid-Western

States for increased nutritional value and adaptation to sustainable farming systems. Collaborative research will be directed at

corn breeding, analysis, corn quality, on-farm research and information dissemination.

Microbial Genomics.—The Committee recognizes the importance

and significance of the joint microbial genomics initiative between

the ARS Animal Disease Research Unit at Pullman, WA, and the

ARS Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX, and continues the fiscal

year 2003 level of funding.

Monkeypox Research.—The Committee is concerned about the recent outbreak of Monkeypox in the Midwest and the potential devastation posed by this disease to the United States. Homeowners

continue to acquire more exotic pets including snakes, frogs, turtles, etc., that cause over 90,000 illnesses to Americans annually.

The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for an interagency effort led by ARS to examine the presence of animal related

diseases and pathogen transmissions between animals and humans. The Committee directs that the Agency work directly with

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Centers for

Disease Control, and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Animal Health

Laboratory at Madison, WI, to develop and improve diagnostics and

control efforts in regard to this disease.

National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center.—The Committee notes the importance of aquaculture research to the State

of Maine, which leads the Nation in Atlantic salmon cultivation.

Other important aquaculture species in Maine include shellfish and
36

trout. Research on marine finfish is vitally important to Maine’s

aquaculture program. Finfish, including haddock, halibut, and cod,

are primary candidates for future diversity of Maine’s aquaculture

industry. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from the

fiscal year 2003 funding level for this research, which will be undertaken at the Franklin, Maine, research location.

National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant.—The National

Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant at Edwardsville, IL, was constructed to avail researchers and commercial producers with a

state-of-the-art facility to develop more efficient production of ethanol. The plant will operate on a time-share basis to Federal and

State agencies, universities, and commercial producers. The plant

has the near-term potential to improve the efficiency and decrease

the cost of corn conversion for ethanol production. The Committee

continues the fiscal year 2003 level to fund ARS research at the

pilot plant. The research will utilize both wet milled and dry milled

projects and will focus on processing efficiencies that can be adapted commercially in the near term.

National Nutrition Monitoring System.—Health and dietary information gathered from a combined U.S. Department of Agriculture/Department of Health and Human Services is critical to the

Nation and plays a key role in shaping national food policies and

programs including food safety, food labeling, child nutrition, food

assistance and dietary guidance. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for the combined national nutrition monitoring

program.

National Sclerotinia Initiative.—The Committee recognizes the

importance of controlling this disease which affects sunflowers, soybeans, canola, edible beans, peas and lentils. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this research initiative which

is centered at the ARS research station at Fargo, ND.

National Sedimentation Laboratory.—The National Center for

Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, in cooperation with

the Agriculture Research Service at Oxford, MS, has developed a

series of mathematical models to assess and mitigate upland soil

erosion, stream bank failure, and the transport and impact of sediment on stream morphology and ecology. These models have been

recognized nationally and internationally as being at the forefront

of research on understanding sediment transport processes. The

Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level to ARS

at Oxford for expanding cooperative research with the Center and

accelerating the transfer of the modeling technology to Federal and

State agencies responsible for mitigating soil erosion and sediment

transport in streams.

National Soil Erosion Laboratory.—The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2003 level for salaries and related research expenses for

a water quality researcher stationed at the USDA–ARS National

Soil Erosion Laboratory at West Lafayette, Indiana.

Natural Products.—The Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for the ARS to continue

and accelerate its cooperative research with the National Center

for Natural Products Research to discover and develop natural

product chemicals for use in agriculture.
37

Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory.—Diverse economic

and environmental pressures have impacted agriculture in the

Northern Plains. The Northern Grains Insect Research Laboratory

in Brookings, South Dakota focuses on production agriculture problems for the Northern Plains. This laboratory is working on research that directly benefits farmers, such as new cropping systems

and innovative crop rotations that minimize use of chemicals and

tillage. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the

fiscal year 2003 level for support of two additional scientist positions required by the laboratory to assemble a team of scientists to

address the diverse economic and environmental problems in the

Northern Plains.

Northern Great Plains Ecosystem.—The Committee is aware of

the research and outreach programs conducted by the ARS Biological Control and Soil Conservation Laboratory at Sidney, Montana.

A major focus of research at the station is targeted to biocontrol of

invasive and noxious weeds and enhancing the long-term sustainability of range, irrigated and dryland agriculture. Invasive weeds

alter ecosystem structure and function, reduces biodiversity, displaces native plants and requires widespread use of herbicides. The

Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level to strengthen this

program.

Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.—The Committee understands the importance of expanding research on irrigated cropping practices, crop rotation, water use, and integrated

pest management of weeds in irrigated and dryland crops in the

Northern Plains. This research will improve production and crop

quality, and will increase long-term economic returns to growers.

The Committee provides an increase of $900,000 for fiscal year

2004 for this research at the Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.

Noxious Weeds in the Desert Southwest.—Invasive and noxious

weeds are expected to infest 140 million acres in the United States

by the year 2010. Rangeland and pastures will be the primary land

types invaded by these species. The Committee supports the biocontrol research on invasive non-native and tree species carried out

by ARS at the Jornada Experimental Range in Las Cruces and continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this research.

Ogallala Aquifer.—Surface water in the Central High Plains region is severely limited and the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies

this area, has provided water for the development of a highly significant agricultural economy. However, the Ogallala Aquifer is a

finite resource. The Committee provides the Agricultural Research

Service an increase of $950,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for

research into the complex nature of water availability, potential

uses, and costs which will help determine future water policy in

this region. This research is to be based in Texas but coordinated

with other affected States, including Kansas.

Organic Research.—The Committee supports ARS activities at

appropriate locations to enhance research related to organic agriculture.

Ornamental and Horticulture Research.—The Committee recognizes the collaborative research program between ARS and the

University of Vermont [UVM]. Research currently underway at
38

UVM includes Pear thrips and the Asian Long-horned Beetle. UVM

research is critical to the protection of the ornamental and horticulture industries throughout New England. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000 for Pear thrips research from the fiscal year 2003 level.

Papaya Ringspot Virus.—The Committee provides the fiscal year

2003 level to the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources to monitor and refine control of the

papaya ringspot virus and to expand the techniques and knowledge

obtained from this program to other diseases and pests; and to coordinate a program to induce nematode resistance, flowering control, and mealy bug wilt disease resistance in commercial pineapple

varieties and to seek funds from the private sector to complement

Federal funds. The Committee views the nematode and ringspot

virus activities as supportive of a national agricultural research

agency and that of Hawaii.

Phytoestrogens Research.—The Committee is aware of the increased consumption of soy products and controversies surrounding

the health claims from those products. Phytoestrogens, plant-derived products that can mimic or block estrogen, remain a priority

issue for USDA researchers. Research studies have suggested that

phytoestrogens have a range of human health benefits that can

prevent certain diseases. However, extensive studies on their longterm benefits and side effects are lacking. The Committee provides

an increase of $400,000 for this research from the fiscal year 2003

level. Current research is carried out at the Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans in collaboration with other universities. The Committee directs $200,000 of these resources be used

in collaboration with the University of Toledo to fingerprint and

isolate novel products in stressed and unstressed soy.

Plant Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery Center.—The Committee recognizes the challenges of water availability, invasive

weeds, fire cycles, and conservation in the Western United States.

To meet these needs, the Committee supports the establishment of

a plant genetic diversity and gene discovery center at the ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory in collaboration with the Utah

Agricultural Experiment Station. The center will access plant genetic relationships and identify native plant species through DNA

technologies to help conservation efforts in genetic diversity and

support wild lands rehabilitation efforts after fire, mining, and

invasive weed control activities. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 in fiscal year 2004 for this program.

Poisonous Plant Research.—The USDA Poisonous Plant Research

Laboratory at Logan, Utah conducts vital research on the effects of

poisonous plants on livestock in support of the Nation’s livestock

industry. The Committee is aware of the important investigations

carried out by this laboratory and the significant contributions it

has made in agricultural plant and animal sciences. The Committee provides an increase of $1,200,000 in fiscal year 2004 to ensure scientific staffing and to strengthen ongoing poisonous plant

research programs.

Potato Production.—The Committee recognizes the important

contributions made by the USDA–ARS research units at Prosser

and Wapato, Washington, but encourages closer cooperation be-
39

tween the units in conducting research and solving problems in potato production.

Potato Research.—The Committee is concerned that funding levels and lack of personnel resources limit ARS’ ability to address

some aspects of potato variety research. The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level to meet research staffing needs at the Aberdeen, ID, research laboratory.

The Committee expects that the potato research funds appropriated to the ARS Research Unit in Wapato, Washington, be used

for actual potato research, and recommends that ARS allocate a

proportionate amount of these funds for potato entomology research, rather than only staff and indirect costs.

Potato Storage.—The Committee recognizes the need for expanded investigations on potato storage and provides an increase

of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 for this work. Research will be conducted at the ARS Madison, WI, laboratory on plant physiology, fumigation, and cultural practices to help growers reduce pesticide

inputs.

Precision Agriculture Research.—The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2003 level for the Mandan Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory for a precision agriculture research project and

global climate change research. The precision agriculture research

should be conducted in cooperation with the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium and DigitalGlobe. In addition, the Committee

has restored the funding provided last year for the Hettinger Extension Service Southwest Feeders Program. ARS researchers can

contribute significantly to the knowledge base UMAC can transfer

to producers.

Program Continuations.—The Committee directs the Agricultural

Research Service to continue to fund the following areas of research in fiscal year 2004 at the same funding level provided in fiscal year 2003: Acoustic Technology, Oxford, MS; Aerial Application

Research, College Station, TX; Aflatoxin in Cotton, Phoenix, AZ;

Agricultural Genome Bioinformatics, Ames, IA; Agricultural Law,

Drake University, NAL; Agroforestry Research, Booneville, AR; Alternative Crops and Value Added Products, Stoneville, MS; Animal

Vaccines; Animal Welfare Information Center, NAL; Appalachian

Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV; Appalachian Pasture

Based Beef Systems, Beaver, WV; Aquaculture Initiative for MidAtlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; Arctic Germplasm, Palmer, AK; Arid Lands Research,

Las Cruces, NM; Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, Little

Rock, AR; Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA; Barley Food Health

Benefits, Beltsville, MD; Bee Research, Logan, UT; Bee Research,

Weslaco, TX; Binational Agricultural Research and Development

Program; Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species, Ames,

IA; Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD; Biomedical Materials

in Plants, Beltsville, MD; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control

of Nematodes, Beltsville, MD; Biotechnology Research and Development Corp, Peoria, IL; Biotechnology Research to Improve Crops

and Livestock, Stoneville, MS; Bovine Genetics, Beltsville, MD;

Broiler Production in the Mid-South, Mississippi State, MS; Catfish

Genome, Auburn, AL; Catfish Health, Stoneville, MS; Central

Great Plains Research Station, Akron, CO; Cereal Crops Research,
40

Madison, WI; Cereal Crops, Northern Crops, Fargo, ND; Cereal

Disease Research, St. Paul, MN; Coffee and Cocoa Research,

Miami, FL; Beltsville, MD; Corn Germplasm, Mississippi State,

MS; Corn Germplasm, Ames, IA; Corn Resistant to Aflatoxin, Mississippi State, MS; Cotton Genetics Research, Florence, SC; Cotton

Genomics, Breeding, and Variety Development, Stoneville, MS;

Cotton Genomics, Breeding, Variety Development and Pest Resistance, Stoneville, MS; Cotton Ginning Research, Las Cruces, NM;

Dairy Forage, Madison, WI; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD; Delta

Nutrition Intervention Initiative. Little Rock, AR; Diet and Immune Function, Little Rock, AR; Dryland Production, Akron, CO;

Ecology of Tamarix, Reno, NV; Floriculture and Nursery Crops;

Food Safety and Engineering, Wyndmoor, PA; Food Safety for Listeria and E.coli; Forage and Range Research, Logan, UT; ForageLivestock Systems, Lexington, KY; Formosan Subterranean Termites, New Orleans, LA; Foundry Sand By-Products, Beltsville,

MD; Ft. Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles

City, MT; Grain Legume Plant Pathologist Position, Pullman, WA;

Grain Research, Manhattan, KS; Grand Forks Human Nutrition

Laboratory, Grand Forks, ND; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY; Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction; Winter Haven, FL; Great Basins

Rangeland, Boise, ID; Reno, NV; Burns, OR; Greenhouse Hydroponics Research, Wooster, OH; Harry Dupree National Aquaculture

Research Center, Stuttgart, AR; Harvesting Research for Sugarcane, Houma, LA; Hides and Leather Research, Wyndmoor, PA;

Honey Bee Research, Baton Rouge, LA; Hops Research, Corvallis,

OR; Horticulture Research, Poplaraville, MS; Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Boston, MA; Improved Animal Waste

Management, Florence, SC; Improved Crop Production Practices,

Auburn, AL; Improved Forage Livestock Production, Lexington,

KY; Integrated Farming Systems, Ames, IA; Integrated Farming

Systems/Dairy Forage, Madison, WI; IPM for Northern Climate

Crops, Fairbanks, AK; Irrigated Cropping Systems in the MidSouth, Stoneville, MS; Johne’s Disease, Ames, IA; Beltsville, MD;

Jornada Experimental Range Research Station, Las Cruces, NM;

Karnal Bunt, Manhattan, KS; Late Blight Fungus, Orono, ME;

Livestock and Range Research, Miles City, MT; Livestock Genome

Mapping, Clay Center, NE; Malignant Catarrhal Fever [MCF]

Virus, Pullman, WA; Medicinal Botanical Production and Processing, Beaver, WV; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Madison, WI; Microbial Genomics, Kerrville, TX; Pullman, WA; Minor

Use Pesticide [IR–4]; National Center for Cool and Cold Water

Aquaculture, Leetown, WV; National Center for Cool and Cold

Water Aquaculture—Aquaculture Systems—Freshwater Institute,

Leetown, WV; National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture, Orono,

ME; National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant; National

Germplasm Resources Program; National Nutrition Monitoring

System, Beltsville, MD; National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, ND;

National Sedimentation Laboratory Acoustics, Oxford, MS; National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin, Oxford, MS; National Sedimentation Laboratory Yazoo Basin/TMDLs, Oxford, MS;

National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL; National Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN; National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS; Natural Products, Oxford, MS;
41

Nematology Research, Tifton, GA; New England Plant, Soil, and

Water Research, Orono, ME; Northern Grain Insect Laboratory,

Brookings, SD; Northern Great Plains Ecosystem, Sidney, MT;

Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND; Noxious

Weeds in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, NM; Nutritional Requirements, Houston, TX; NW Small Fruits Research, Corvallis,

OR; Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN; Ogallala Aquifer, Bushland,

TX; Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA; Montpelier, FR; Ornamental and

Horticulture Research, Ithaca, NY; Ornamental Crops Research,

Poplarville, MS; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA;

Pierce’s Disease, Davis, CA; Parlier, CA; Ft. Pierce, FL; Potato

Breeding Research, Aberdeen, ID; Potato Research Enhancement,

Prosser, WA; Potato Research, Aberdeen, ID; Poultry Disease

(Avian Coccidiosis), Beltsville, MD; Poultry Disease (Avian Leukosis-J Virus); Precision Agriculture Research, Mandan, ND; Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, ID; Rainbow Trout, Leetown, WV; Rangeland

Resources Research, Las Cruces, NM; Red Imported Fire Ants,

Stoneville, MS; Regional Grains Genotyping Research, Raleigh, NC;

Residue Management in Sugarcane, Houma, LA; Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton, Stoneville, MS; Risk

Assessment for Bt Corn, Ames, IA; Root Diseases in Wheat and

Barley, Pullman, WA; Seafood Waste, Fairbanks, AK; Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitations, Oxford, MS;

Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS; Shellfish Genetics, Newport, OR; Small Farms,

Booneville, AR; Small Fruits Research, Poplarville, MS; Soil Plant

Nutrient Research, Ft. Collins, CO; Soil Tilth Research, Ames, IA;

Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR: Manhattan, KS; Stillwater,

OK; Bushland, TX; Lubbock, TX; Southwest Pecan Research, College Station, TX; Soybean and Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, NC; Soybean Cyst Nematode, Stoneville, MS; Soybean Genetics, Columbia,

MO; Soybean Research in the South, Stoneville, MS; Sudden Oak

Disease, Frederick, MD; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID; Sustainable Olive Production, Weslaco, TX; Sustainable Vineyard Practices, Davis, CA; Sustainable Viticulture Research, Davis; CA;

Sweet Potato Research, Stoneville, MS; Swine Lagoon Alternatives

Research, Florence, SC; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, WA; Trout

Genome Mapping, Leetown, WV; Turfgrass Research, Washington,

DC; U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC; U.S. Pacific Basin

Ag Research Center, Hilo, HI; U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory, Lubbock, TX; U.S. Vegetable Laboratory/

Staffing, Charleston, SC; Vaccines and Microbe Control for Fish

Health, Auburn, AL; Vegetable Crops Research, Madison, WI;

Virus-Free Fruit Tree Cultivars, Wapato, WA; Virus-Free Potato

Germplasm, Fairbanks, AK; Viticulture, Corvallis, OR; Waste Management Research, Mississippi State, MS; Water Management Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA; Water Resource Management,

Tifton; GA; Water Use Reduction/Producer Enhancement Research,

Dawson, GA; Watershed Research, Columbia, MO; Western

Grazinglands, Burns, OR; Western Wheat Quality Laboratory,

Pullman, WA; Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, Manhattan, KS;

Raleigh, NC; Fargo, ND; Wheat Quality Research, Manhattan, KS;

Fargo, ND; Wooster, OH; Pullman, WA; Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN;

Woody Genomics and Breeding for the Southeast, Poplarville, MS.
42

Rainbow Trout.—The Committee provides an increase of

$725,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to develop and test improved rainbow trout strains and alternative grain-based fish feeds

in cooperation with the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture

Experiment Station in Hagerman, Idaho.

Red Imported Fire Ants.—Nationally, the red imported fire ant

causes damage and control costs of over $1,000,000,000 per year.

As an invasive species, it has expanded from its apparent point of

entry at Mobile, Alabama, to encompass over 300 million acres in

12 Southern States including Mississippi and Texas, three Western

States including California, and Puerto Rico. Range expansion into

one-fourth of the United States and parts of Mexico is expected to

continue without centralized aggressive action. The Committee recognizes the leadership provided by ARS at Stoneville, MS, in the

development of natural enemy mass propagation and release technologies for area-wide suppression of the red imported fire ant and

halting its spread. Other research is directed toward development

of toxic baits and use of geographic information systems and remote sensing technologies to detect the delineate fire ant infested

areas. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003

level to expand cooperative research to implement multi-year, community-wide trials in the mid-South to eliminate populations of the

imported fire ant.

Regional Grains Genotyping Research.—Current regional ARS

laboratories characterize germplasm and improve resistance to

rusts, blights and insect pests. Regional genotyping centers will

overcome the barriers to practical use through DNA extraction and

high-throughout marker screening procedures. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for this research to be carried out

at the ARS research laboratory at Raleigh, NC.

Resistance Management and Risk Assessment in Bt Cotton and

Other Plant Incorporated Protectants.—Transgenic Bt cottons have

provided outstanding control of insecticide-resistant tobacco

budworms and suppressed other cotton caterpillar pests. However,

potential evolution of resistance in caterpillar pests to the Bt protein(s) in transgenic cotton threaten the viability of the Bt plant

protectant technology. The Environmental Protection Agency has

imposed strategies for managing the evolution of resistance to preserve the Bt technology, but it is important to develop data to validate these strategies. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003

level to ARS at Stoneville, MS, to coordinate a national program

for devising the most effective and economically sustainable production systems for ensuring the long-term integrity of Bt crop protection and resistance management.

Seafood Waste.—The disposal of seafood waste continues to be a

national and international problem. Additional research is needed

to determine alternative uses of discarded fish as a possible source

of additional income for seafood producers. The Committee supports the existing ARS/University of Alaska collaborative research

project on feedstuff that can be generated from materials usually

wasted during processing of seafoods. The Committee provides an

increase of $200,000 from the level of funding available in fiscal

year 2003 for expanded research to address this problem.
43

Sedimentation Issues in Flood-Control Dam Rehabilitation.— Nearly 11,000 flood control dams have been constructed by the

United States Department of Agriculture nationwide in 2,000 watersheds since 1944. These watershed projects represent a

$14,000,000,000 infrastructure, providing flood control, municipal

water supply, recreation, and wildlife habitat enhancement. The

life expectancy of these dams is projected to be 50 years. Sedimentation has reduced water-holing capacity, structural components have deteriorated, and safety regulations have become more

strict. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level

to ARS at Oxford, MS, for assessing the efficiency of these structures in regulating floodwater, including the use of acoustics techniques, and hazards that the sediments may pose if introduced into

the environment.

Shellfish Genetics.—ARS has established a shellfish genetics research program that focuses on genetics, ecology and food quality.

The Committee recognizes the importance of this multi-State research program and continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for

shellfish genetics research at the Oregon State University Hatfield

Marine Science Center in Newport, OR.

Silverleaf Whitefly.—The silverleaf whitefly, also known as the

sweetpotato whitefly, causes millions of dollars in crop damage in

several States, including Hawaii. The Committee recommends participation by all affected States in the collaborative effort to control

this pest.

Small Fruits Research.—The Committee supports the ongoing research conducted by the Small Fruit Genetics and Pathology Research unit at Corvallis, OR. The demand for fresh and processed

berries and grapes in both domestic and international markets continues to grow at a rapid rate. The Committee provides an increas

of $250,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for this research which involves cooperation between industry, State and

Federal research.

Soil Dynamics Research.—The extent of soil degradation in the

South not only impairs soil and water quality but also reduces profitability and economic sustainability of farms in the region. Improving profitability of farms in the South is critical to rural economies

as farm numbers continue to decline. The Committee provides an

increase of $300,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level to the

ARS Soil Dynamics Laboratory at Auburn, AL, for expanded research to develop technologies and strategies for managing soils to

increase farm profitability, and preserve the soil resource for future

generations.

Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research.—The Committee understands the

important contributions made by the ARS Ft. Collins Soil, Plant,

Nutrient Laboratory and continues the fiscal year 2003 funding

level to support the cropping systems and nitrogen management research program carried out at this laboratory.

Sorghum Research.—Sorghum is fourth on the list of economically important grains, behind corn, soybeans, and wheat. However, very little is known about the alternative uses of this major

U.S. cash crop with an estimated value of over $2,100,000,000. The

Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for expanded research at the ARS Grain Sorghum Research Laboratory,
44

Manhattan, KS, on the measurement of sorghum quality and the

development of alternative uses of this important crop.

Soybean Research in the South.—The Committee has continued

the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the continuation of the soybean research program located at the Delta Branch Experiment

Station in Stoneville, Mississippi with the USDA/ARS focusing on

soybean genetics and breeding, and Mississippi Agriculture and

Forestry Experiment Station devoting efforts to production systems

research.

Soybean Rust.—The Committee is aware of serious concerns

raised by the soybean industry due to the threat of soybean rust.

Soybean rust is a fungus that first appears on the leaves of the

plant and eventually causes pre-mature defoliation which brings

about substantial yield loss. The Committee encourages the Agriculture Research Service to consider the submission of a reprogramming request of existing funds relating to soybean research

to address the threat of soybean rust.

Sudden Oak Disease Syndrome.—This is a fungus that has afflicted wood and nursery products in California and Oregon in the

last several years. Very little is known on how the fungus is

spread, which species are vulnerable, and how afflicted species can

be treated. The Committee is concerned about the potential spread

of the fungus to other parts of the country without the appropriate

treatment and management of the disease. The Committee provides an increase of $450,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the

ARS Ft. Detrick, MD, research laboratory for research critical in

stemming the spread of this disease.

Sugarbeet Research.—There are 230,000 acres of sugarbeets

grown in Idaho and eastern Oregon requiring research technologies

to maintain and enhance production and profitability. The Committee provides an increase of $40,000 from the fiscal year 2003

funding level to support research to reduce irrigation and energy

costs essential to sugarbeet production. This research is carried out

at the ARS Kimberly, ID, research station.

Sugarcane Research.—The Committee is aware of the urgent

need for ARS research to provide viable, cost-effective ‘‘green cane’’

harvesting methods that will provide alternatives to burning cane

in the field. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 from

the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this research to be carried out

at the Houma, LA, research station.

Sustainable Olive Production.—The Committee notes the significance of olive oil as a value added product and its growing importance to farmers in the Southwest as a viable economic commodity.

Research is underway to develop sustainable methods for improved

olive oil production and quality in the Southwest. The Committee

provides an increase of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 for this research at the ARS Weslaco, TX, research station.

Sweet Potato Research.—Sweet potato is a high value, nutritious,

alternative crop for the Mid South. Improved production practices,

including timing of planting, agronomic practices, and pest control,

have the potential for doubling the level of production per acre, further increasing the profitability of this small farm crop. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for ARS, Stoneville, MS, to conduct research on sweet potato production in co-
45

operation with the Alcorn State University Demonstration Farm at

Mound Bayou, MS.

Swine Lagoon Alternatives Research.—The Committee is aware

of the research carried out at the ARS Florence, SC, laboratory to

treat the waste on small swine farms at a reasonable cost while

meeting stringent environmental regulations. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for this research.

Tree Fruit Industry.—The Committee is aware that the Department has been working with the U.S. tree fruit industry to develop

a technology roadmap which will establish research priorities to enhance fruit quality, strengthen access by the tree fruit industry to

technology advances, and ensure the U.S. tree fruit industry remains competitive in world markets. The Committee expects that

a strategic plan addressing the technology roadmap and the tree

fruit industry’s needs, which was scheduled for completion in May

2003, will include suggestions for future research initiatives based

on strong public/private collaborations. The Committee also expects

that the plan will be used to evaluate program policies and new

program initiatives to help the tree fruit industry remain globally

competitive.

Trout Genome Mapping.—The Committee recognizes the important tools of molecular genetics and biotechnology, and their application to solve problems facing the cool and cold water aquaculture

industry, which has had a flat growth profile nationally, but is an

emerging industry in the Appalachian region. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding

level for research on cool and cold water species at the National

Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, in collaboration with

West Virginia University.

Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus.—The Committee is aware of the

widespread losses caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus in Hawaii and encourages the agency to collaborate with and fund as appropriate University of Hawaii scientists to transfer generic resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus into University of Hawaii breeding lines for the impacted vegetable crops.

USDA–ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory.—

The USDA–ARS New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory,

Orono, ME, performs a critical function that benefits not only the

Maine economy, but the agriculture industry as a whole. The research performed at this laboratory—including cropping systems

and management practices, efficient use of nutrients and water,

and control of pathogens, insects and weeds—benefits numerous

agricultural interests, most notably the potato and livestock industries.

It is especially vital to New England potato growers that this lab

continue and even increase its important research. The laboratory

conducts experiments to address unique challenges that face potato

growers both in the region and across the Nation. Research at the

Orono facility, for example, has included tracking late blight disease, a devastating epidemic that costs potato growers approximately $3,000,000,000 annually. Of the nation-wide locations of

USDA–ARS laboratories, this is the only laboratory located in New

England and it should be noted that 95 percent of the potato acreage in the six New England States are in Maine where the labora-
46

tory has the benefit of being in close proximity to the grower’s

fields.

The Committee provides funding at no less than the fiscal year

2003 level to maintain the New England Plant, Soil, and Water

Laboratory and research programs.

U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.—The Committee restores base funding not included in the Administration’s

budget request, and provides an increase of $400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level for operating the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural

Research Center. Of the amount restored for fiscal year 2003 and

the added amount provided for fiscal year 2004, one-third is for the

Center to continue the recruitment and hiring of scientists and

technicians at rates consistent with construction of the Center and

its mission; one-third is for the University of Hawaii Hilo to increase its capacity to complement the research of the Center; and

one-third is for the University of Hawaii Manoa for improving its

statewide capacity to transfer research results and to communicate

industry-identified needs and issues to the research community.

U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.—The Committee is aware of the important scientific staffing requirements of the newly completed U.S.

Vegetable Laboratory located at Charleston, SC. Additional scientists are necessary to conduct priority research and to maximize

use of the facility. An increase of $300,000 is provided from the fiscal year 2003 level for research staffing.

Virus Free Fruit Tree Cultivars.—The Committee recognizes the

need for rapid foreign and domestic exchange of varieties to sustain

economic vitality of the U.S. tree fruit and nursery industries. The

Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level to implement new

technologies for more rapid and dependable methods of pathogen

detection and to provide secure production and maintenance of

virus-free fruit tree cultivars. The collaborative research is to be

carried out at the Prosser, WA research station with the Irrigated

Agriculture Research and Extension Center.

Viticulture Research.—With the emerging importance of the

grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest, the Committee

continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for the viticulture research position at the University of Idaho Parma Research and Extension Center, for research at the Center, and for cooperative research agreements with University of Idaho researchers for viticulture research.

Waste Management Research.—The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to the ARS for

the expanded joint research project with Western Kentucky University. The cooperative program to be located and carried out at

Bowling Green, KY, will be directed toward management of poultry

waste as a fertilizer source for pasture, food crops, as a nutrient

source for cattle, and other agricultural applications.

Water Quality/Water Use Research.—Agricultural producers in

the Southeast are seeking solutions to meet reduced irrigation requirements while maintaining or enhancing their net returns. The

National Peanut Research Laboratory at Dawson, GA, is conducting research to find solutions to a more restrictive water supply that impacts agriculture and rural economies in Southwest,
47

Georgia. The Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 level for

these investigations at the Dawson laboratory.

Watershed Research, Columbia, MO.—The Committee continues

the fiscal year 2003 level of funding to ARS for laboratory analysis

of water samples collected during implementation of, and in accordance with, the Missouri Watershed Research, Assessment, and

Stewardship Project.

Weed Management Program.—The Committee is aware of the

need for biologically-based weed management, using biocontrols

and revegetation to provide economical and environmentally sound

technologies to control weeds. The Committee provides an increase

of $300,000 for fiscal year 2004 to develop non-chemical alternatives for weed control.

Western Grazinglands Research.—The Committee is aware of the

important rangeland research program conducted at the Burns,

OR, laboratory to control invasive weeds which affect the Great

Basin. Research is targeted to management of rangelands, conservation, and sustainable practices. The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2003 level for this research.

Western Wheat Quality Laboratory.—The Committee recognizes

the important contributions made by the Western Wheat Quality

Laboratory in Pullman, Washington. The Committee continues the

fiscal year 2003 level to enhance its ability to handle more samples,

modernize equipment, and develop new predictive quality tests.

Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.—The Committee recognizes

the importance of the research carried out through the ARS National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. Fusarium head blight is

a major threat to agriculture, inflicting heavy losses to yield and

quality on farms in 18 States. The Committee continues the fiscal

year 2003 level of funding for this research.

Wind Erosion Research.—The Committee provides funding for

the Wind Erosion Unit in Manhattan, KS, at the fiscal year 2003

level. The Committee directs the ARS to avoid reprogramming or

routing any of the provided funds to or through other wind erosion

facilities in the ARS system during fiscal year 2004.

Wine Grape Foundation Block.—The Committee is concerned

about the potential for virus-infected wine grape rootstock which

could cause economic harm to Pacific Northwest wine grape growers and vintners. The Committee provides an increase of $150,000

from the fiscal year 2003 level for wine grape foundation block research at Prosser, WA.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... $118,703,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 24,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,000,000

1 Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of $110,000,000 provided by Public Law 108–11.

The ARS ‘‘Buildings and Facilities’’ account was established for

the acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, or

used by, the Agricultural Research Service. Routine construction or

replacement items continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the regular account.
48

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the

Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,000,000. This is

$72,703,000 less than the 2003 appropriation. The Committee’s

specific recommendations are indicated in the following table:

ARS BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

State and facility

Fiscal year—

Committee

recommendation 2003 enacted 2004 budget

estimate

Arizona: Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory, Maricopa ................................................................................................. 12,220 .......................... ..........................

District of Columbia: U.S. National Arboretum ................................... 1,689 .......................... ..........................

Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo .......... 2,981 .......................... 5,400

Idaho: Advanced Genetics Laboratory, Aberdeen ................................ 4,570 .......................... ..........................

Iowa: National Animal Disease Center, Ames ..................................... 1 32,786 .......................... ..........................

Kansas: U.S. Grain Marketing and Production Research Center,

Manhattan ....................................................................................... 4,252 .......................... ..........................

Maine: Northeast Marine Cold Water Aquaculture Research Center,

Orono/Franklin ................................................................................. 9,091 .......................... 3,000

Maryland:

Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library, Beltsville ......... 1,490 2,000 ..........................

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville ..................... 4,153 .......................... 3,000

Minnesota: Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul ................................. 3,179 .......................... ..........................

Mississippi:

Plant Propagation Facility, Oxford .............................................. 1,987 .......................... ..........................

Southern Horticultural Laboratory, Poplarville ............................ 9,140 .......................... ..........................

Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville ........... .......................... .......................... 5,400

Missouri: National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia .... .......................... .......................... 2,700

Montana: Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory,

Sidney .............................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,800

Oklahoma:.

Southern Plains Range Research Station, Woodward ................ 7,948 .......................... ..........................

Grazinglands Research Laboratory, Ft. Reno ............................. .......................... .......................... 2,400

South Carolina: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston ...................... 1,391 .......................... 3,500

South Dakota: Northern Grain Insects Research Laboratory, Brookings .................................................................................................. 8,544 .......................... ..........................

Utah: Poisonous Plant Laboratory, Logan ........................................... 1,485 .......................... ..........................

West Virginia: Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearnysville 472 .......................... 2,000

Wisconsin:

Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison ........................................ 8,345 .......................... ..........................

Nutrient Management Laboratory, Marshfield ............................ 2,981 .......................... 4,100

Upgrade security at all ARS laboratories ............................................ .......................... 22,000 11,700

Total ........................................................................................ 1 2 118,703 24,000 46,000

1 Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of $110,000,000 provided by Public Law 108–11.

2 Totals may not add due to rounding.

The Committee provides funds for the following projects. Due to

budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to provide the full

amounts required to complete construction of all projects.

U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.—The Committee provides funds for the completion of Phase I of the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hawaii.

National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center.—The

Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the next phase of construction of the National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Research Center [NCWMAC] in Orono and Franklin, Maine.
49

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.—The Committee provides $3,000,000 toward the construction of the Beltsville Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.

Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center.—The Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center is strategically located in the agriculturally important Yazoo-Mississippi River Delta. Millions of

acres of cotton, soybean, rice, and corn are located in this Delta

area, and the Delta leads the world in channel catfish production.

The Committee provides $5,400,000 for the completion of phase 1

of this construction and modernization project.

National Plant and Genetics Security Center.—The Committee

provides $2,700,000 to complete the planning and design phase of

this project. The Committee notes that the current collaborative effort between the ARS Plant Genetics Research Unit and the University of Missouri has resulted in a nationally-recognized crop biotechnology effort in maize, soybeans, and wheat at Columbia, Missouri.

National Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory.—The Committee provides $2,800,000 to complete construction of the next

phase of the National Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory in

Sidney, Montana. The Committee notes that the planned new

greenhouses and improved BL-2 quarantine facility will position

the Lab to better serve the region’s research needs in biocontrol of

invasive species, as well as improve productivity and economic viability of sustainable diverse, integrated dryland and irrigated cropping systems.

Grazinglands Research Laboratory.—The Committee provides

$2,400,000 for the completion of phases 1, 2, and 3 of the greenhouse complex at the Grazinglands Research Laboratory in Fort

Reno, Oklahoma. The Committee notes that this project includes

bio-containment capabilities which, when completed, will allow research on genetically-modified plants.

U.S. Vegetable Laboratory.—The Committee provides $3,500,000

for the completion of greenhouse and headhouse construction at the

U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina.

Appalachian Fruit Laboratory.—The Committee provides

$2,000,000 toward renovation and repair of the Appalachian Fruit

Laboratory in Kearneysville, West Virginia.

Nutrient Management Laboratory.—The Committee provides

funds for the completion of Phase I of the Nutrient Management

Laboratory in Marshfield, Wisconsin.

The Committee has provide $11,700,000 for physical security upgrades at ARS facilities. Prior to the obligation of funds, the Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the Committee

which describes those locations for which physical security needs

have been identified, as well as the locations for purposes for which

funds will be allocated.

The Committee notes that the ARS Analytical Services Laboratory and other labs in the University of Wyoming’s biological research building are involved in research into plague, rabbit fever,

Brucellosis, Q fever, and regularly receive suspect cases of anthrax.

The Committee suggests that some of these funds should be used

to harden the facility by designating a secure select agent labora-
50

tory, acquiring security clearances for faculty and technicians, and

renovating the building to make it more secure.

The Committee notes that there is widespread interest in additional construction and renovation of ARS facilities throughout the

country. This is not surprising when considering the fact that many

of the existing facilities are decades old. Therefore, the Committee

is requesting the assistance of ARS in determining the merits and

priority for these requests. The Committee notes that $11,700,000 has been provided in this

account for security upgrades at all ARS laboratories. The Committee also notes that several of the following construction projects

have been described by various ARS officials as top priorities.

Therefore, if ARS determines that any of the following projects

merit action in fiscal year 2004, these funds may be used for site

acquisition, design, or construction. Should ARS exercise this authority, the Committee expects to be notified of the projects selected for such action.

Aberdeen/Billingsley Creek, Idaho.—The Committee directs ARS

to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for

construction of an ARS trout farm facility at Billingsley Creek,

Idaho which would include concrete raceways and a pond/tank research complex. The report should detail building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements. The report should also detail existing and planned program and resource

requirements for this location, and should be submitted to the

Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March

1, 2004.

Animal Waste Management Research.—The Committee has been

made aware of the need for an animal waste management research

laboratory in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The Committee directs

ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope

for construction of an ARS facility in that location. The report

should detail building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration with Western Kentucky University. The report should also detail existing and

planned program and resource requirements for this location, and

should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the

House and Senate by March 1, 2004.

Forage-Animal Research Laboratory.—The Committee has been

made aware of the need for a facility to accommodate existing scientists and the expanding forage-animal production research program at Lexington, Kentucky. The Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for the

construction of such an ARS facility at that location. The report

should detail building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration with the University of Kentucky. The report should also detail existing and

planned program and resource requirements for this location, and

should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the

House and Senate by March 1, 2004.

Starksville, Mississippi.—The Committee has been made aware

of the need for a state-of-the-art laboratory and office facilities to

house ARS and Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station [MAFES] scientists. The Committee directs ARS to provide
51

a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for construction

of an ARS facility at this location. The report should detail building

size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration with the Mississippi State University.

The report should also detail existing and planned program and resource requirements for this location, and should be submitted to

the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by

March 1, 2004.

Vivarium and Animal Disease Research.—The Committee has

been made aware of the need for a vivarium and animal disease

research facility at Mississippi State University. The Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and

scope for construction of an ARS facility at that location. The report should detail building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific

capacity, and other requirements for collaboration with the Mississippi State University. The report should also detail existing and

planned program and resource requirements for this location, and

should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the

House and Senate by March 1, 2004.

Animal Biosciences Facility.—The Committee is aware of the

need for an animal bioscience facility at Montana State University

to provide a collaborative environment to allow investigators from

different disciplines to study issues related to cutting-edge biobased

food science and technology as well as animal science. The Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope for construction of an ARS facility at that location. The report should also detail building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for collaboration

with Montana State University. The report should detail existing

and planned program and resource requirements for this location,

and should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the

House and Senate by March 1, 2004.

Red River Valley, North Dakota.—The Committee has been made

aware of needs for improvements at the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota. The Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and

scope for facility needs at this location. The report should detail

any expansion of building size, costs, associated facilities, scientific

capacity, and other requirements for operations. The report should

also detail existing and planned program and resource requirements for this location, and should be submitted to the Committee

on Appropriations for the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.

University of Toledo.—The Committee has been made aware of

the need for an ARS laboratory, greenhouse, and office space for

USDA scientists involved in the greenhouse study at the University

of Toledo. The Committee directs ARS to provide a report on the

feasibility, requirements, and scope for the construction of an ARS

facility at this location. The report should detail building size, cost,

associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for

collaboration with the University of Toledo. The report should also

detail existing and planned program and resource requirements for

this location, and should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate by March 1, 2004.
52

Dairy Forage Lab.—The Committee has been made aware of improvement needs at Dairy Forage Laboratory facility locations at

Prairie du Sac and Madison, Wisconsin. The Committee directs

ARS to provide a report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope

for facility needs at these locations. The report should detail any

expansion of building size, costs, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for operations. The report should

also detail existing and planned program and resource requirements for these locations, and should be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations for the House and Senate by March 1,

2004.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

SERVICE

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on October 1,

1994, under the authority of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The Service was created by

the merger of the Cooperative State Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission is to work with university partners

and customers to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human sciences to benefit people, communities, and the

Nation.

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $616,792,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 514,228,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 617,575,000

The research and education programs administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s principal entree to the university system of the United States to support higher

education in food and agricultural sciences and to conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C.

361a–361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research Act of 1962 (16

U.S.C. 582a–7); Public Law 89–106, section (2) (7 U.S.C. 450i); the

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy

Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational

Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998; and the Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture participates with State

and other cooperators to encourage and assist the State institutions

to conduct agricultural research and education through the State

agricultural experiment stations of the 50 States, the District of

Columbia, and the territories; by approved schools of forestry; by

the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by other eligible institutions.

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination

among the State institutions, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and

the agricultural industry of America.
53

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For research and education activities of the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends $617,575,000. This amount is $783,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This does not include an increase of

$51,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for research and education activities of the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service, as compared to the

fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

2003

appropriation 2004 budget Committeerecommendation

Payments under Hatch Act .................................................................... 178,977 180,148 178,977

Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis) .................................. 21,742 21,884 21,742

Payments to 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University ........................... 35,411 36,000 35,411

Special research grants (Public Law 89–106):

Advanced genetic technologies (KY) ............................................ 671 .......................... 671

Advanced spatial technologies (MS) ............................................ 983 .......................... 983

Aegilops cylindricum (WA, ID) ...................................................... 381 .......................... 342

Agricultural diversification (HI) .................................................... 127 .......................... 127

Agricultural diversity—Red River Trade Corridor (MN, ND) ........ 497 .......................... 497

Agricultural science (OH) .............................................................. 497 .......................... 497

Agriculture water usage (GA) ....................................................... 291 .......................... 261

Agroecology (MD) .......................................................................... 397 .......................... 397

Air quality (TX, KS) ....................................................................... 869 .......................... 869

Alliance for food protection (GA, NE) ........................................... 298 .......................... 268

Alternative crops (ND) .................................................................. 199 .......................... ..........................

Alternative nutrient management (VT) ......................................... 185 .......................... 166

Alternative salmon products (AK) ................................................. 627 .......................... 631

Alternative uses for tobacco (MD) ................................................ 358 .......................... 358

Animal disease research (WY) ...................................................... 248 .......................... 248

Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS) ................... 1,604 .......................... 1,614

Apple Fire Blight (MI, NY) ............................................................ 492 .......................... 442

Aquaculture (AR) ........................................................................... 230 .......................... 172

Aquaculture (ID, WA) .................................................................... 770 .......................... 693

Aquaculture (LA) ........................................................................... 328 .......................... 350

Aquaculture (MS) .......................................................................... 582 .......................... 582

Aquaculture (NC) .......................................................................... 291 .......................... 261

Aquaculture (VA) ........................................................................... 124 .......................... 111

Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV) .............. 735 .......................... 750

Armillaria root rot (MI) ................................................................. 159 .......................... 143

Asparagus technology and production (WA) ................................ 278 .......................... 278

Babcock Institute (WI) .................................................................. 596 .......................... 600

Beef technology transfer (MO) ...................................................... 292 .......................... 292

Berry research (AK) ....................................................................... 199 .......................... 200

Biobased nanocomposite research (ND) ....................................... ........................ .......................... 199

Biomass-based energy research (OK, MS) ................................... 1,143 .......................... 1,143

Biotechnology (NC) ........................................................................ 304 .......................... 228

Biotechnology test production (IA) ............................................... 199 .......................... 199

Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA) .............. 240 .......................... ..........................

Bovine tuberculosis (MI) ............................................................... 346 .......................... 311

Brucellosis vaccine (MT) ............................................................... 490 .......................... 490

Center for Food Quality (UT) ......................................................... 149 .......................... ..........................

Center for Public Lands and Rural Economies (UT) .................... ........................ .......................... 250

Center for Rural Studies (VT) ....................................................... 338 .......................... 338

Chesapeake Bay agroecology/pfisteria initiative (MD) ................. 318 .......................... 318

Childhood obesity and nutrition (VT) ........................................... 149 .......................... 149
54

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2003

appropriation 2004 budget Committeerecommendation

Citrus canker (FL) ......................................................................... 487 .......................... ..........................

Citrus tristeza (CA) ....................................................................... 720 .......................... ..........................

Competitiveness of agriculture products (WA) ............................. 676 .......................... 676

Computational agriculture (NY) .................................................... 248 .......................... ..........................

Cool season legume research (ID, WA, ND) ................................. 334 .......................... 600

Cotton fiber quality (GA) .............................................................. 397 .......................... 397

Council for Agriculture Science and Technology .......................... ........................ .......................... 150

Cranberry/blueberry (MA) .............................................................. 171 .......................... 171

Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ) ........................... 234 .......................... 234

Crop diversification (MO) .............................................................. 795 .......................... 397

Crop integration and production (SD) .......................................... 273 .......................... 300

Crop pathogens (NC) .................................................................... 199 .......................... 199

Dairy and meat goat research (TX) .............................................. 63 .......................... 63

Dairy farm profitability (PA) ......................................................... 497 .......................... 497

Delta rural revitalization (MS) ...................................................... 204 .......................... 204

Designing foods for health (TX) ................................................... 820 .......................... 820

Diaprepes/root weevil (FL) ............................................................ 447 .......................... ..........................

Dietary intervention (OH) .............................................................. 248 .......................... ..........................

Drought mitigation (NE) ............................................................... 224 .......................... 224

Drought management (UT) ........................................................... ........................ .......................... 750

Efficient irrigation (NM, TX) ......................................................... 1,490 .......................... 1,490

Environmental biotechnology (RI) ................................................. 596 .......................... 596

Environmental research (NY) ........................................................ 392 .......................... ..........................

Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY) ....................................... 221 .......................... ..........................

Environmentally-safe products (VT) ............................................. 243 .......................... 243

Ethnobotany research (AK) ........................................................... ........................ .......................... 300

Exotic pest diseases (CA) ............................................................. 1,888 .......................... 2,000

Expanded wheat pasture (OK) ...................................................... 308 .......................... 277

Farm injuries and illnesses (NC) ................................................. 276 .......................... 138

Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT) ......................................... 828 .......................... 828

Feed efficiency in cattle (FL) ........................................................ 248 .......................... ..........................

Feedstock conversion (SD) ............................................................ 556 .......................... 750

Fish and shellfish technologies (VA) ............................................ 462 .......................... 415

Floriculture (HI) ............................................................................. 397 .......................... 397

Food chain economic analysis (IA) ............................................... 50 .......................... 250

Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO) ............. 1,515 .......................... 1,515

Food irradiation (IA) ...................................................................... 243 .......................... ..........................

Food Marketing Policy Center (CT) ............................................... 487 .......................... 487

Food processing center (NE) ......................................................... 42 .......................... ..........................

Food quality (AK) .......................................................................... 348 .......................... 350

Food safety (AL) ............................................................................ 1,118 .......................... 1,118

Food safety (OK) ........................................................................... 621 .......................... 558

Food safety (TX) ............................................................................ 199 .......................... 199

Food safety research consortium (NY) ......................................... 894 .......................... ..........................

Food safety risk assessment (ND) ................................................ 1,341 .......................... 1,650

Food security (WA) ........................................................................ 447 .......................... 402

Food Systems Research Group (WI) .............................................. 546 .......................... 550

Forages for advancing livestock production (KY) ........................ 431 .......................... 431

Forestry (AR) ................................................................................. 509 .......................... 458

Functional genomics (UT) ............................................................. ........................ .......................... 1,500

Future foods (IL) ........................................................................... 248 .......................... 300

Generic commodity promotions, research, and evaluation (NY) .. 194 .......................... ..........................

Genomics (MS) .............................................................................. 715 .......................... 715

Global change/ultraviolet radiation .............................................. 2,235 2,500 2,235

Grain sorghum (KS) ...................................................................... 139 .......................... 139

Grapefruit juice/drug interaction (FL) .......................................... 248 .......................... ..........................

Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture (ID,

OR, WA) .................................................................................... 454 .......................... 408

Grazing research (WI) ................................................................... ........................ .......................... 250

Greenhouse nurseries (OH) ........................................................... 149 .......................... ..........................

Greenhouse crop production (AK) ................................................. ........................ .......................... 500
55

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2003

appropriation 2004 budget Committeerecommendation

Hispanic leadership in agriculture (TX) ....................................... 447 .......................... ..........................

Hoop barns (IA) ............................................................................. 209 .......................... 325

Horn fly research (AL) ................................................................... ........................ .......................... 150

Human nutrition (IA) ..................................................................... 727 .......................... 732

Human nutrition (LA) .................................................................... 795 .......................... 715

Human nutrition (NY) ................................................................... 611 .......................... ..........................

Hydroponic tomato production (OH) ............................................. 99 .......................... ..........................

Improved dairy management practices (PA) ................................ 397 .......................... 397

Improved early detection of crop disease (NC) ............................ 193 .......................... ..........................

Improved fruit practices (MI) ....................................................... 237 .......................... 213

Increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities (ID) ................ 790 .......................... 790

Infectious disease research (CO) ................................................. 745 .......................... 745

Institute for biobased products and food science (MT) .............. 596 .......................... 596

Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR) ......................... 1,214 .......................... 1,214

Integrated production systems (OK) ............................................. 231 .......................... 207

Intelligent quality sensor for food safety (ND) ............................ 358 .......................... ..........................

International arid lands consortium ............................................. 514 .......................... 650

Iowa Biotechnology Consortium .................................................... 1,754 .......................... 1,765

Leopold Center hypoxia project ..................................................... ........................ .......................... 250

Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX) .............................................. 600 .......................... 540

Waste ............................................................................................ ........................ .......................... 150

Livestock genome sequencing (IL) ............................................... 447 .......................... ..........................

Livestock waste (IA) ...................................................................... ........................ .......................... 300

Lowbush blueberry research (ME) ................................................ 263 .......................... 263

Maple research (VT) ...................................................................... 149 .......................... 149

Meadowfoam (OR) ......................................................................... 293 .......................... 219

Michigan biotechnology consortium ............................................. 624 .......................... 468

Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (NE) ................ 477 .......................... 429

Midwest agricultural products (IA) ............................................... 628 .......................... 646

Midwest poultry consortium (IA) ................................................... 695 .......................... 700

Milk safety (PA) ............................................................................ 745 .......................... 745

Minor use animal drugs (IR–4) .................................................... 584 588 588

Molluscan shellfish (OR) .............................................................. 392 .......................... 284

Montana sheep institute (MT) ...................................................... 556 .......................... 556

Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology .............................................. 1,206 .......................... 603

Multi-commodity research (OR) .................................................... 397 .......................... 297

Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI) ............................ 123 .......................... 123

National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY, CO) ..... 668 .......................... 668

National biological impact assessment program ........................ 251 253 251

National Center for Soybean Technology (MO) ............................. ........................ .......................... 1,000

Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM) .......................... 146 .......................... 146

Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV) ....................................... 522 .......................... 522

New crop opportunities (AK) ......................................................... 487 .......................... 500

New crop opportunities (KY) ......................................................... 737 .......................... 737

Non-food uses of agricultural products (NE) ............................... 64 .......................... ..........................

Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL) ............................ 308 .......................... 285

Oil resources from desert plants (NM) ......................................... 224 .......................... 224

Olive Fly (CA) ................................................................................ 40 .......................... ..........................

Organic cropping (WA) .................................................................. 124 .......................... 250

Organic waste utilization (NM) ..................................................... 99 .......................... 99

Oyster post harvest treatment (FL) .............................................. 447 .......................... ..........................

Ozone air quality (CA) .................................................................. 427 .......................... 427

Pasture and forage research (UT) ................................................ 246 .......................... 250

Peach tree short life (SC) ............................................................. 260 .......................... 260

Perennial wheat (WA) ................................................................... 149 .......................... ..........................

Pest control alternatives (SC) ...................................................... 303 .......................... 303

Phytophthora root rot (NM) ........................................................... 184 .......................... 184

Pierce’s disease (CA) .................................................................... 2,235 .......................... 2,250

Plant biotechnology (IA) ................................................................ 248 .......................... ..........................

Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging (NM) ... 245 .......................... 245

Potato research ............................................................................. 1,574 .......................... 1,416
56

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2003

appropriation 2004 budget Committeerecommendation

Precision agriculture (KY) ............................................................. 737 .......................... 737

Preharvest food safety (KS) .......................................................... 207 .......................... 207

Preservation and processing research (OK) ................................. 223 .......................... 200

Protein utilization (IA) ................................................................... 422 .......................... 750

Rangeland ecosystems (NM) ........................................................ 318 .......................... 318

Regional barley gene mapping project ........................................ 755 .......................... 679

Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO,TX) ................. 318 .......................... 286

Rice Agronomy (MO) ..................................................................... 199 .......................... ..........................

Ruminant nutrition consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY) ....................... 447 .......................... 500

Rural Development Centers (ND, LA) ........................................... 176 .......................... 132

Rural obesity (NY) ......................................................................... 199 .......................... ..........................

Rural Policies Research Institute (NE, IA, MO) ............................ 1,262 .......................... 1,262

Russian wheat aphid (CO) ........................................................... 318 .......................... 318

Satsuma mandarin orange research (AL) .................................... 894 .......................... ..........................

Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and marketing (MS) ............................................................................... 301 .......................... 301

Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK) .................. 1,192 .......................... 1,192

Seafood safety (MA) ...................................................................... 422 .......................... 422

Seed research (AK) ....................................................................... 323 .......................... 400

Seed technology (SD) .................................................................... ........................ .......................... 350

Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID) ................................................ 397 .......................... 397

Soil and environmental quality (DE) ............................................ 129 .......................... 129

Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources .. 389 .......................... 389

Soybean cyst nematode (MO) ....................................................... 688 .......................... ..........................

Soybean research (IL) ................................................................... 844 .......................... 844

STEEP III—water quality in Pacific Northwest ............................ 666 .......................... 666

Sudden oak death (CA) ................................................................ 99 .......................... 99

Sustainable agriculture (CA) ........................................................ 497 .......................... ..........................

Sustainable agriculture (MI) ......................................................... 432 .......................... 432

Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA) ................... 149 .......................... 149

Sustainable agriculture systems (NE) .......................................... 59 .......................... ..........................

Sustainable beef supply (MT) ....................................................... 994 .......................... 994

Sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources

(VA) ........................................................................................... 596 .......................... 596

Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT) .............. 449 .......................... 449

Swine waste management (NC) ................................................... 492 .......................... 492

Synthetic gene technology (OH) .................................................... 167 .......................... ..........................

Technological development of renewable resources (MO) ........... 295 .......................... ..........................

Tick borne disease prevention (RI) ............................................... 99 .......................... 99

Tillage, silviculture, and waste management (LA) ...................... 422 .......................... 379

Tropical aquaculture (FL) ............................................................. 238 .......................... ..........................

Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR ................................... 8,942 .......................... 4,471

Tri-State joint peanut research (AL) ............................................ 596 .......................... 596

Uniform farm management program (MN) .................................. 298 .......................... 298

Value-added product development from agricultural resources

(MT) .......................................................................................... 409 .......................... 409

Value-added products (IL) ............................................................ 149 .......................... ..........................

Virtual plant database enhancement project (MO) ..................... ........................ .......................... 750

Viticulture consortium (NY, CA, PA) ............................................. 1,788 .......................... 1,788

Water conservation (KS) ............................................................... 78 .......................... 79

Water treatment (RI) ..................................................................... 149 .......................... ..........................

Water use efficiency and water quality enhancement (GA) ........ 536 .......................... 482

Weed control (ND) ......................................................................... 432 .......................... 432

West Nile virus (IL) ....................................................................... 373 .......................... 750

Wetland plants (LA) ...................................................................... 596 .......................... 336

Wheat genetic research (KS) ........................................................ 263 .......................... 263

Wheat sawfly research (MT) ......................................................... 502 .......................... 502

Wood utilization (AK, OR, MS, MN, NC, ME, MI, ID, TN, WV) ....... 6,130 .......................... 6,786

Wool research (TX, MT, WY) .......................................................... 292 .......................... 292
57

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2003

appropriation 2004 budget Committeerecommendation

Total, special research grants ................................................. 111,534 3,341 101,637

Improved pest control:

Expert IPM decision support system ............................................ 176 177 176

Integrated pest management ....................................................... 2,707 2,725 2,707

IR–4 minor crop pest management ............................................. 10,673 10,485 10,485

Pest management alternatives ..................................................... 1,608 1,619 1,608

Total, Improved pest control .................................................... 15,164 15,006 14,976

National Research Initiative .................................................................. 166,045 200,000 180,000

Animal health and disease (sec. 1433) ................................................ 5,065 5,098 5,065

Alternative crops .................................................................................... 1,188 .......................... 840

Critical Agricultural Materials Act ......................................................... 1,242 .......................... 1,242

1994 Institutions research program ...................................................... 1,093 998 1,093

Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management (NM,TX,MT) ............... 993 .......................... 1,000

Institution challenge grants .................................................................. 4,888 5,500 4,888

Graduate fellowships grants ................................................................. 3,222 4,500 3,222

Multicultural scholars program ............................................................. 992 998 992

Hispanic education partnership grants ................................................. 4,073 3,492 4,073

Capacity building grants (1890 Institutions) ....................................... 11,404 9,479 11,404

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ........................................................ 1,689 2,250 1,689

Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions education grants ..................................................................................... 3,477 2,997 3,500

Secondary agriculture education ........................................................... 994 1,000 994

Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE ........................ 13,661 9,230 13,661

Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475) ........................................................... 4,471 3,996 4,471

Federal administration:

Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA) ................................ 447 .......................... 450

Agriculture development in the American Pacific ........................ 548 .......................... 548

Agriculture waste utilization (WV) ................................................ 686 .......................... 690

Agriculture water policy (GA) ........................................................ 710 .......................... 710

Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND) ....................... 300 .......................... 300

Animal waste management (OK) .................................................. 333 .......................... 299

Aquaculture (OH) .......................................................................... 447 .......................... 447

Aquaculture (PA) ........................................................................... 248 .......................... 248

Biotechnology (MS) ....................................................................... 745 .......................... 745

Botanical research (UT) ................................................................ 636 .......................... 886

Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA) .................... 671 .......................... 250

Center for Food Industry Excellence (TX) ..................................... 248 .......................... ..........................

Center for innovative food technology (OH) ................................. 760 .......................... ..........................

Center for North American studies (TX) ....................................... 199 .......................... 199

Climate forecasting (FL) ............................................................... 894 .......................... ..........................

Cotton research (TX) ..................................................................... 1,182 .......................... 1,182

Data information system .............................................................. 2,732 2,750 2,732

Electronic grants administration system ..................................... 2,235 2,173 2,173

FECA surcharge ............................................................................. ........................ 51 ..........................

Feed efficiency (WV) ..................................................................... 159 .......................... 160

Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO) ............................ 338 .......................... ..........................

Geographic information system .................................................... 1,391 .......................... 1,600

Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH) ........................ 99 .......................... ..........................

High value horticultural crops (VA) .............................................. 248 .......................... 248

Information technology (GA) ......................................................... 248 .......................... ..........................

Livestock marketing information center (CO) .............................. 195 .......................... 195

Mariculture (NC) ........................................................................... 358 .......................... 322

Mississippi Valley State University ............................................... 1,043 .......................... 1,043

Office of Extramural Programs ..................................................... 445 448 445

Pasteurization of shell eggs ......................................................... 248 .......................... ..........................

Pay costs and FERS ...................................................................... 2,081 2,540 2,540

Peer panels ................................................................................... 347 349 349

Phytoremediation plant research (OH) ......................................... 636 .......................... 636
58

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICES [CSREES]—RESEARCH

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

2003

appropriation 2004 budget Committeerecommendation

PM–10 air quality study (WA) ...................................................... 435 .......................... 435

Precision agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research and Extension

Center (AL) ............................................................................... 477 .......................... 650

Produce pricing (AZ) ..................................................................... 79 .......................... ..........................

Rural systems (MS) ...................................................................... 348 .......................... 348

Salmon quality standards (AK) .................................................... 139 .......................... 150

Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC,TX) ........................ 4,187 .......................... 4,187

Sustainable agriculture development (OH) .................................. 497 .......................... ..........................

The Land Institute (KS) ................................................................ ........................ .......................... 100

Urban silviculture (NY) ................................................................. 239 .......................... ..........................

Vitis gene discovery (MO) ............................................................. ........................ .......................... 400

Water pollutants (WV) ................................................................... 596 .......................... 600

Water quality (ND) ........................................................................ 431 .......................... 431

Wetland plants (WV) ..................................................................... 179 .......................... ..........................

Total, federal administration ................................................... 29,466 8,311 26,698

Total, CSREES R&E .................................................................. 616,792 514,228 617,575

Hatch Act.—The Committee acknowledges the beneficial impact

Hatch Act funding has on land-grant universities. Hatch Act provides the base funds necessary for higher education and research

involving agriculture. The Committee recommends a funding level

of $178,977,000 for payments made under the Hatch Act.

Special Research Grants Under Public Law 89–106.—The Committee recommends a total of $100,486,000. Specifics of individual

grant allowances are included in the table above. Special items are

discussed below.

The Committee is aware of the need for special research grants

in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand promising

breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural sciences that are

awarded on a discretionary basis. In addition to these grants, the

Committee believes research should be supplemented by additional

funding that is obtained on a competitive basis.

Alternative Milk Policies.—The Committee that directs that of

funds made available to the Food and Agriculture Policy Research

Institute, $250,000 shall be provided for collaborative work between the University of Missouri and the University of Wisconsin/

Madison, for an analysis of dairy policy changes, including trade

related matters, and assist Congress in making policy decisions.

This project will be a one-stop shop for Congressional requests for

analysis of alternative dairy policies.

Aquaculture Centers.—The Committee recommends $4,471,000,

the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.

The Committee is aware of and supports aquaculture research efforts at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and Environmental Research Institute

that is carried out in collaboration with the North Central Regional

Aquaculture Center.

Technology Transfer.—The Committee directs CSREES to continue to support at the fiscal year 2003 level the cotton technology

transfer coordinator at Stoneville, MS.
59

Aquaculture (MS).—Of the $582,000 provided for this grant, the Committee recommends at least $90,000 for continued studies of

the use of acoustics in aquaculture research to be conducted by the

National Center for Physical Acoustics in cooperation with the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station [MAFES]

and the Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville.

Future Foods Initiative.—The Committee has provided $300,000

for the Future Foods Initiative at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The Committee expects the University to use a

portion of the funds for research and programs associated with the

World Food and Health Center.

International Arid Lands Consortium.—The Committee has pro- vided an additional $136,000 for the International Arid Lands Consortium for a joint initiative with Hands Together to implement a

water development plan, for drinking and irrigation water, in the

Artibonite region of Haiti.

Midwest Agricultural Products [MATRIC].—The Committee directs the Department to allocate the designated funds for MATRIC

equally between Iowa State University and the Greater Des Moines

Partnership.

Potato Research.—The Committee expects the Department to ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these funds are to

be awarded competitively after review by the potato industry working group.

Wood Utilization Research.—The Committee recommends

$6,786,000 for wood utilization research. Of this amount $500,000

is made available for the Mississippi Forest and Wildlife Research

Center to conduct forest inventories. In addition, of this amount,

$500,000 is made available to include West Virginia in this program.

Competitive Research Grants.—The Committee supports the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [NRI] and

provides funding of $180,000,000 for the program, an increase of

$13,955,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level. The Committee includes a general provision to make 20 percent of these funds available for a program under the same terms and conditions as those

provided in Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension,

and Education Reform Act of 1998.

The Committee remains determined to see that quality research

and enhanced human resources development in the agricultural

and related sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the

Committee continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of

the competitive research grant funds be used for USDA’s agricultural research enhancement awards program (including USDAEPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.

Alternative Crops.—The Committee recommends $840,000 for alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research efforts

on canola, the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.

Sustainable Agriculture.—The Committee recommends

$13,661,000 for sustainable agriculture, the same as the fiscal year

2003 level.

Higher Education.—The Committee recommends $28,837,000 for

higher education. The Committee provides $3,222,000 for graduate
60

fellowships; $4,888,000 for challenge grants; $992,000 for multicultural scholarships; $4,073,000 for grants for Hispanic education

partnership grants; and $3,500,000 for Alaska Native-serving and

Native Hawaiian-serving institutions.

The Committee notes that the Department’s higher education

multicultural scholars program enhances the mentoring of scholars

from under-represented groups. The Committee directs the Department to ensure that Alaska Natives participate fully in this program.

Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions

Education Grants.—The Committee provides $3,500,000 for noncompetitive grants to individual eligible institutions or consortia of

eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, with grant funds to

be awarded equally between Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the

programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242 (Section 759 of Public Law

106–78). The Committee directs the agency to fully comply with the

use of grant funds as authorized.

Federal Administration.—The Committee provides $26,698,000

for Federal administration. The Committee’s specific recommendations are reflected in the table above.

Geographic Information System Program.—The Committee recommends $1,600,000, an increase of $209,000 from the fiscal year

2003 level, for the Geographic Information System Program. The

Committee recommends the amount provided shall be made available for program activities of entities in the same areas as in 2003

on a proportional basis. In addition, it is expected that program

management costs will be kept at a minimum and any remaining

funds will be distributed to the sites.

The Land Institute.—The Committee recognizes the goals of research to develop a variety of diverse perennial grain crops that

could help prevent soil erosion and water pollution while still producing good grain yields. The Committee provides $100,000 for

Natural Systems Agriculture at The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, for this purpose.

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $7,054,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 9,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,000,000

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized

by Public Law 103–382 provides an endowment for the 1994 landgrant institutions (31 tribally controlled colleges). This program

will enhance educational opportunity for Native Americans by

building educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of

student recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty

preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. Beginning with 2001, income funds are also

available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall

withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal year,

and after making adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed

among the 1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the
61

proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; and

40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in equal

shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the

Committee recommends $9,000,000. This amount is $1,946,000

more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $450,520,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 422,268,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 450,084,000

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever

Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is authorized

to provide, through the land-grant colleges, cooperative extension

work that consists of the development of practical applications of

research knowledge and the giving of instruction and practical

demonstrations of existing or improved practices or technologies in

agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home

economics, related subjects, and to encourage the application of

such information by demonstrations, publications, through 4–H

clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at

the colleges.

To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State and

county extension offices in each State, the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs

to improve American agriculture and strengthen the Nation’s families and communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,084,000. This amount is $436,000 less than the

fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include an increase of $46,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in

the budget.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for extension activities, as compared to the fiscal year 2003

and budget request levels:

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—EXTENSION

ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003 enactedFiscal year 2004

budget

Committee recommendation

Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c) ......................................................................... 279,390 275,940 279,390

Smith Lever 3(d):

Farm safety ....................................................................................... 5,489 ........................ 5,489

Food and nutrition education [EFNEP] ............................................. 58,185 60,909 58,185

Indian reservation agents ................................................................. 1,983 1,996 1,983

Pest management ............................................................................. 10,689 10,759 10,689

Sustainable agriculture .................................................................... 4,843 3,792 4,843
62

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—EXTENSION

ACTIVITIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

budget

Committee

recommendation

Youth at risk ..................................................................................... 8,426 8,481 8,426

Youth farm safety education and certification ................................ 496 499 496

1890 colleges and Tuskegee University .................................................... 31,908 32,117 31,908

1890 facilities grants ................................................................................ 14,903 13,500 14,903

Extension services at 1994 institutions .................................................... 3,365 3,273 3,273

Grants to Youth Organizations .................................................................. 2,981 ........................ 2,981

Renewable resources extension act ........................................................... 4,516 4,093 4,516

Rural health and safety education ........................................................... 2,605 ........................ 2,605

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 429,779 415,359 429,687

Federal administration and special grants:

Ag in the classroom ......................................................................... 695 750 695

Agricultural and entrepreneurship education (WI) ........................... 129 ........................ 130

Agricultural telecommunications (NY) .............................................. 380 ........................ ........................

Alabama beef connection ................................................................. 124 ........................ 375

Beef producers improvement (AR) .................................................... 194 ........................ 174

Botanical garden initiative (IL) ........................................................ 238 ........................ ........................

Conservation technology transfer (WI) ............................................. 497 ........................ 500

Dairy education (IA) .......................................................................... 233 ........................ 235

Dairy industry revitalization (WI) ...................................................... 219 ........................ 220

Diabetes detection, prevention (WA) ................................................ 918 ........................ 918

E-Commerce (MS) ............................................................................. 373 ........................ 373

Efficient irrigation (NM/TX) ............................................................... 2,027 ........................ 2,027

Entrepreneurial alternatives (PA) ..................................................... 248 ........................ ........................

Extension specialist (MS) ................................................................. 149 ........................ 149

Family farm beef industry network (OH) .......................................... 1,377 ........................ ........................

FECA .................................................................................................. ........................ 46 ........................

Food animal residue avoidance database/FARAD ............................ 795 ........................ 795

Food preparation and marketing (AK) .............................................. 298 ........................ 300

Food product development (AK) ........................................................ 447 ........................ 450

General administration and pay ....................................................... 5,643 6,113 6,113

Health education leadership (KY) ..................................................... 894 ........................ 894

Income enhancement demonstration (OH) ....................................... 239 ........................ ........................

Iowa vitality center (IA) .................................................................... 278 ........................ 280

National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA) ...................................... 197 ........................ 250

National Wild Turkey Federation ....................................................... ........................ ........................ 250

Nursery production (RI) ..................................................................... 248 ........................ ........................

Nutrition enhancement (WI) .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 600

Oquirrh Institute ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 300

Pilot technology transfer (WI) ........................................................... 162 ........................ ........................

Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS) ................................................... 336 ........................ 336

Potato pest management (WI) .......................................................... 298 ........................ 300

Range improvement (NM) ................................................................. 243 ........................ 243

Resilient communities (NY) .............................................................. 124 ........................ ........................

Rural business enhancement (WI) ................................................... ........................ ........................ 200

Rural development (AK) .................................................................... 695 ........................ 700

Rural development (ND) ................................................................... 99 ........................ ........................

Rural development (NM) ................................................................... 392 ........................ 392

Rural technologies (HI, WI) ............................................................... 695 ........................ 348

Urban horticulture (WI) ..................................................................... 536 ........................ 650

Urban market development (NY) ...................................................... 124 ........................ ........................

Web-based agriculture classes (MO) ............................................... ........................ ........................ 200

Wood biomass as alternative farm product (NY) ............................ 194 ........................ ........................

Subtotal, federal administration .................................................. 20,741 6,909 20,397

Total, Extension activities ............................................................ 450,520 422,268 450,084
63

Conservation Technology Transfer.—Of the funds provided for

Conservation Technology Transfer, the Committee provides

$200,000 for a nutrient management and conservation education

program to meet the needs of the Wisconsin comprehensive nutrient management program in cooperation with Professional Dairy

Producers of Wisconsin, Dairy Business Association, and others. In

addition, the Committee provides $300,000 for the Dairy Discovery

Farm Program.

Farm Safety.—Of the funds recommended for farm safety, the

Committee recommends a funding level of $4,200,000 for the

AgrAbility project being carried out in cooperation with the National Easter Seal Society.

Potato Pest Management.—Of the funds provided for Potato Pest

Management, the Committee provides $150,000 for the ongoing effort between the University of Wisconsin, World Wildlife Fund, and

Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association. The Committee also directs $150,000 for an ongoing project with the University of Wisconsin for pesticide use reduction efforts for other commodities.

Rural Business Enhancement.—The Committee provides

$200,000 to the University of Wisconsin at Platteville for collaborative work with the University of Wisconsin Extension.

Urban Horticulture.—Of the funds provided for Urban Horticulture, the Committee directs $200,000 for University of Wisconsin Extension activities, $200,000 for a regional diagnostic center at Boerner Botanical Gardens, and $250,000 for Growing Power

of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $46,439,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 62,865,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,711,000

Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants program. Water Quality,

Food Safety, and Regional Pest Management Centers programs

previously funded under Research and Education and/or Extension

Activities are included under this account, as well as new programs

that support integrated or multifunctional projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Committee recommends

$46,711,000. This amount is $272,000 more than the fiscal year

2003 level.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for integrated activities:
64

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—INTEGRATED

ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

budget

Committee

recommendation

Critical Issues—Plant & Animal Diseases ............................................... 497 2,500 497

Crops at Risk from FQPA: Implementation ............................................... 1,487 1,497 1,487

Food Safety ................................................................................................ 14,870 14,967 14,870

FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems .................. 4,857 4,889 4,857

Homeland Security ..................................................................................... ........................ 16,000 ........................

International Science & Education Grants ................................................ 497 1,000 497

Methyl Bromide Transition Program .......................................................... 3,229 2,498 3,500

Organic Transition Program ....................................................................... 2,111 499 2,111

Regional Pest Management Centers ......................................................... 4,502 4,531 4,502

Rural Development Centers ....................................................................... 1,503 1,513 1,503

Water Quality ............................................................................................. 12,887 12,971 12,887

Total .............................................................................................. 46,439 62,865 46,711

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,470,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,003,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,470,000

This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV of the

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Grants are

made to eligible community-based organizations with demonstrated

experience in providing education on other agriculturally-related

services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in their

area of influence. Also eligible are the 1890 land-grant colleges,

Tuskegee University, Indian tribal community colleges, and Hispanic-serving postsecondary education facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of $3,470,000. This amount is the

same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $721,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 791,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 736,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory

Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws

enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s marketing, grading, and standardization activities related to grain;

competitive marketing practices of livestock, marketing orders, and

various programs; veterinary services; and plant protection and

quarantine. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
65

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$736,000. This amount is $15,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $682,758,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 694,897,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 705,552,000

The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities.

The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the animal and plant

resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives

are carried out under the major areas of activity, as follows:

Pest and Disease Exclusion.—The Agency conducts inspection

and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control activities in

foreign countries to reinforce its domestic activities.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].—The agency collects

user fees to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine activities

at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal

and plant diseases and pests.

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.—The Agency conducts programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect endemic and

exotic diseases and pests.

Pest and Disease Management Programs.—The Agency carries

out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and animal

diseases that threaten the United States; reduce agricultural losses

caused by predatory animals, birds, and rodents; provide technical

assistance to other cooperators such as States, counties, farmer or

rancher groups, and foundations; and ensure compliance with

interstate movement and other disease control regulations within

the jurisdiction of the Agency.

Animal Care.—The Agency conducts regulatory activities that

ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses as

the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These activities include inspection of certain establishments that handle

animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring certain horse shows.

Scientific and Technical Services.—The Agency performs other

regulatory activities, including the development of standards for

the licensing and testing of veterinary biologicals to ensure their

safety and effectiveness; diagnostic activities to support the control

and eradication programs in other functional components; applied

research to reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of new pest and animal damage control methods and

tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.
66

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Committee recommends total funding of

$705,552,000. This is $22,794,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation. This amount does not include $288,000 for FECA

administrative charges, as requested in the budget. The Committee

encourages the Secretary to utilize authorities and resources of the

Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] to provide assistance in response to animal and plant health threats, and to allow compensation to certain producers for losses sustained in connection with

these threats in instances when the additional assistance is

deemed necessary. The Committee is aware of the need to compensate producers for losses associated with avocado and citrus

production in California, poultry losses in California resulting from

avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease, goose production

losses in South Dakota in connection with West Nile virus, and

tree losses in Michigan due to infestations of the emerald ash

borer.

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

budget request

Committee recommendation

Pest and disease exclusion:

Agricultural quarantine inspection ............................................. 24,152 21,300 24,300

Cattle ticks ................................................................................. 6,313 6,575 6,534

Foot-and-mouth disease/emerging foreign animal diseases ..... 7,937 9,039 7,987

Import/export ............................................................................... 9,345 12,429 9,640

Trade issues resolution and management ................................. 11,452 11,621 11,546

Fruit fly exclusion and detection ................................................ 56,449 61,273 57,059

Screwworm .................................................................................. 30,480 30,751 30,552

Tropical bunt tick ....................................................................... 419 2,916 423

Total, pest and disease exclusion ......................................... 146,547 155,904 148,041

Plant and animal health monitoring:

Animal health monitoring and surveillance ............................... 93,216 93,962 96,038

Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement ...................... 8,483 9,566 9,211

Emergency Management System ................................................ 8,985 11,693 9,075

Pest detection ............................................................................. 22,261 27,051 22,577

Total, plant and animal health monitoring ........................... 132,945 142,272 136,901

Pest and disease management programs:

Aquaculture ................................................................................. 1,388 968 1,250

Biocontrol .................................................................................... 9,059 9,329 9,270

Boll weevil ................................................................................... 61,597 26,722 51,720

Brucellosis eradication ............................................................... 10,191 8,747 10,303

Chronic wasting disease ............................................................ 14,836 14,979 20,000

Emerging plant pests ................................................................. 74,800 109,463 86,400

Golden nematode ........................................................................ 626 971 642

Grasshopper ................................................................................ 4,341 4,287 5,709

Gypsy moth ................................................................................. 4,647 4,755 4,725

Imported fire ant ........................................................................ 2,421 2,140 2,429

Johne’s disease ........................................................................... 20,863 3,104 21,500

Low pathogen avian influenza ................................................... .......................... 2,003 ..........................

Noxious weeds ............................................................................. 1,899 1,142 1,953

Pink bollworm ............................................................................. 1,987 1,710 2,031
67

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003 enactedFiscal year 2004

budget request

Committee recommendation

Plum pox ..................................................................................... 4,025 3,471 4,041

Pseudorabies ............................................................................... 4,258 4,344 4,316

Scrapie eradication ..................................................................... 15,373 17,068 15,700

Tuberculosis ................................................................................ 14,798 15,135 14,925

Wildlife services operations ........................................................ 68,587 65,706 72,186

Witchweed ................................................................................... 1,520 1,536 1,526

Total, pest and disease management ................................... 317,216 297,580 330,626

Animal care:

Animal welfare ............................................................................ 16,301 14,704 16,400

Horse protection .......................................................................... 490 493 490

Total, animal care .................................................................. 16,791 15,197 16,890

Scientific and technical services:

Biosecurity ................................................................................... .......................... 2,920 ..........................

Biotechnology regulatory services ............................................... 3,825 3,946 3,921

Environmental services ............................................................... 2,534 2,615 2,598

Plant methods development laboratories ................................... 7,991 8,260 8,208

Veterinary biologics ..................................................................... 14,535 16,281 14,894

Veterinary diagnostics ................................................................ 17,209 20,973 18,697

Wildlife services methods development ..................................... 14,875 13,647 16,450

Total, scientific and technical services ................................. 60,969 68,642 64,768

Contingency fund ................................................................................. 4,076 4,139 4,112

APHIS information technology infrastructure ...................................... 4,214 4,602 4,214

Physical security .................................................................................. .......................... 6,273 ..........................

FECA surcharge .................................................................................... .......................... 288 ..........................

Total, salaries and expenses ................................................. 682,758 694,897 705,552

The Committee is unable to provide the full increases requested

in the President’s budget for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. However, the Committee does provide increases for

a number of specific animal and plant health programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue use of contingency

funding from Commodity Credit Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as identified in the President’s budget and

any additional emergencies as the Secretary determines necessary.

Pest and Disease Exclusion

AQI.—For fiscal year 2004, the Committee provides an appropriation of $24,300,000 for the AQI appropriated account. The Committee provides an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request

to conduct preclearance quarantine inspections of persons, baggage,

cargo, and other articles destined for movement from the State of

Hawaii to the continental United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the

United States Virgin Islands.

The Committee urges the Department to establish protocols that

allow shipment of untreated fruits and vegetables grown in Hawaii

to cold-weather States during winter months while maintaining

reasonable assurances that potential transshipment of such

produce will not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards of warm

weather States.
68

The Committee continues its interest in more efficient and less

disruptive inspection of passengers and cargo at Hawaii airports

and, from within available funds, directs APHIS to provide not less

than the number of inspectors and inspection equipment required

in the APHIS-Hawaii staffing plan for fiscal year 2003. The Committee also encourages the agency to aggressively identify and

evaluate flexible hiring and staff deployment arrangements, such

as the Senior Environmental Employment Program, to minimize

overtime rates charged to agricultural shippers. The Committee

further encourages APHIS to acquire and deploy commercially

available, state-of-the art inspection technology and equipment for

key ports of entry, such as Hawaii, to screen passenger luggage for

banned agricultural products to reduce the introduction of dangerous agricultural pests and diseases in the United States.

The Committee urges APHIS to continue working closely with

U.S. avocado growers to implement procedures for the importation

of Mexican avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to report on

the status of Mexican avocado imports, including problems in pest

surveys, oversight by APHIS personnel, and the diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved destinations. The Committee

directs APHIS to include independent, third party scientists in the

development of any pest risk assessment for Mexican avocados,

prior to the publication of any such pest risk assessment in the

Federal Register. The Committee also directs APHIS to report to

Congress prior to publishing any rules expanding the approved

areas or lengthening time periods for the importation of Mexican

avocados.

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection.—The Committee provides $57,059,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, of

which no less than the fiscal year 2003 level shall be used to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving into the United

States as well as activities at U.S. borders.

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.—The Committee

provides $95,888,000 for the Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance account. The Committee provides continued funding at

the fiscal year 2003 level for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Animal Health Consortium for ongoing activities related to

animal and animal-based product tracking and database management. The Committee also provides continued funding at the fiscal

year 2003 level for the National Farm Animal Identification and

Records Project. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000

for the New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop

an early detection and reporting system for infectious animal diseases. The Committee expects APHIS to work with the Wisconsin

Animal Health Consortium, the National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project, and the Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to coordinate activities and report to the Committee by

March 1, 2004 on the development of a National Animal Tracking

System.

The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 above the fiscal

year 2003 level, to continue the cooperative agreement with the

Murray State University, Breathitt Veterinary Center, Hopkins-
69

ville, KY, to determine the impact on animal health from common

agricultural chemical usage.

The Committee provides $250,000 toward an alkaline digester in

the State of Kansas to destroy and dispose of animal carcasses suspected of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy infection and

other diseases.

The Committee provides $250,000 to address bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial pathogens in the

State of Vermont.

The Committee is greatly concerned about the growing incidence

around the world of animal disease, such as chronic wasting disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, monkeypox, and others

which pose grave threats to the Nation’s livestock sector and the

public health. The Committee feels there should be an enhanced relationship between Federal and State veterinary programs to better

coordinate all activities related to the exclusion, management, or

eradication of these diseases. Toward that objective, the Committee

requests that APHIS work with the States to further develop a

Federal/State partnership to make more efficient use of limited resources, including the need for expanded laboratory capacity. The

Committee requests a report on this subject by March 1, 2004,

which will include a plan to work with States to improve existing

laboratory capacity.

The Committee provides $250,000 to establish a national institute at Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation, and communication for genetically modified agricultural products.

Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.—The Committee provides an increase of $728,000 for the animal and plant

health regulatory enforcement account for additional activities in

support of increased Animal Welfare Act compliance inspections.

The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal animal

fighting activities and directs the Secretary to work with relevant

agencies on the most effective and proper means for investigating

and enforcing laws and regulations regarding these activities.

Emergency Management Systems.—The Committee provides an

increase of $90,000 for the emergency management systems program.

Pest Detection.—The Committee provides an increase of $316,000

for pest detection. The Committee is concerned about continuing

threats posed by the accidental or intentional introduction of pests,

disease, or species into this country which could be devastating to

our agricultural resources. The Committee is aware of interest by

the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to

move toward completion of the Western Escambia County Agriculture Interdiction Station and encourages APHIS to work with

the State of Florida to determine and, if prudent, develop a collaborative agreement for operations at this station.

Pest and Disease Management

Aquaculture.—The Committee provides $1,250,000 for the aquaculture program. The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year

2003 level to continue telemetry and population dynamics studies
70

to develop environmentally and economically sustainable methods

to help catfish farmers manage cormorant and pelican populations.

Boll Weevil.—The Committee provides $51,720,000 for fiscal year

2004 to continue the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. This funding will provide the active eradication zone areas with a 30 percent

cost share and possible exceptions to address special funding requirements arising from extraordinary circumstances in some

States.

Brucellosis Eradication.—The Committee provides an increase of

$112,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the bruccellosis program. This amount continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level

for the State of Montana to protect the State’s brucellosis-free status and for the operation of the bison quarantine facility and the

testing of bison that surround Yellowstone National Park.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis

Committee, and encourages the coordination of Federal, State, and

private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater

Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally divided between

the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Chronic Wasting Disease.—The Committee is very concerned

about the escalating number of deer and elk in different regions of

the U.S. testing positive for chronic wasting disease and provides

an increase of $5,118,000 to expand the chronic wasting disease

certification and control program to include additional surveillance

and disease control activities with free-ranging cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely identification of the

presence of this disease.

The Committee is aware of the development of a rapid prion

assay that would more effectively test for BSE in meat processing

facilities and for chronic wasting disease in the field for evaluating

wild game. The Committee directs the Department to undertake a

review of this testing technology and, if warranted, to move forward with the use of this technology.

Of the amount provided for chronic wasting disease, $2,000,000

is for the State of Wisconsin, $250,000 is for the State of Utah, and

$500,000 is for the Conservation Medicine Center of Chicago which

is a collaboration between the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, and the Brookfield Zoo.

Emerging Plant Pests.—The Committee provides an increase of

$11,600,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for emerging plant

pests. Within this total, the Committee provides an additional

$5,000,000 for Pierce’s disease; $5,000,000 for citrus canker; and

the fiscal year 2003 level for the Asian long-horned beetle program

in Illinois and New York, of which no less than $1,500,000 shall

be for activities in the area of Chicago, IL. The Committee continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for sudden oak death

syndrome. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for activities related

to the emerald ash borer in the State of Michigan. The Committee

expects the Secretary to make funds available from the CCC for activities related to these and other plant pests in fiscal year 2004,

as necessary.
71

The Committee is aware that APHIS has a compensation program in place for wheat producers, grain handlers, and facilities

that karnal bunt impacts. However, the compensation provided for

handlers and facilities does not adequately represent the costs

these facilities incur when they receive deliveries of karnal buntinfected wheat. This inadequate compensation has led to many facilities refusing to participate in activities to prevent the spread of

karnal bunt in the United States. Due to the serious threat that

karnal bunt poses to U.S. wheat production and exports, the Committee expects APHIS to work with the grain handling industry to

develop an adequate compensation plan, and to report back to the

Committee on its recommendations no later than 120 days after

the date of enactment of this Act.

The Committee notes that APHIS signed a cooperative agreement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture to survey and eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle. The Committee recognizes that the citrus longhorned beetle presents a severe threat

to hardwood trees and tree fruit crops, and urges APHIS to direct

the resources necessary to eradicate the citrus longhorned beetle.

Grasshopper.—The Committee provides an increase of $1,368,000

above the fiscal year 2003 level for the grasshopper account. Of this

amount, no less than $1,000,000 shall be for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah: $150,000 to prepare

necessary environmental documents, and $500,000 to continue control measures. The Committee also provides an additional $300,000

for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Nevada, including survey, control, and eradication of crickets.

Imported Fire Ant.—The Committee provides $2,429,000 for the

imported fire ant account to continue sharing responsibility with

the States to conduct detection and nursery surveys; compliance

monitoring; enforcement for quarantine of nursery stock; and production, field release, and evaluation of promising control agents.

The Committee continues funding at the fiscal 2003 level for the

State of Tennessee for additional control activities.

Johne’s Disease.—The Committee provides an increase of

$637,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for Johne’s disease to expand the agency’s efforts to coordinate State certification programs

for herd-testing, and to provide additional assistance to States to

develop herd management plans that comply with APHIS’s national standards for certification. The Committee expects APHIS to

work with the Agricultural Research Service to coordinate activities

to research and develop an effective diagnostic test for Johne’s disease with appropriate field validation and methods development.

Noxious Weeds.—The Committee provides $1,953,000 for the noxious weeds account. This amount includes an increase of $150,000

for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase the availability

and distribution of biological control organisms used in an integrated weed management system. The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for an invasive species

program to prevent the spread of cogongrass in Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps to address this

invasive weed as a regional infestation problem.

The Committee continues its concern for the serious threat to

pastures and watersheds resulting from the introduction of alien
72

weed pests, such as gorse and miconia, into Hawaii, and directs

APHIS to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the

Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop an integrated

approach, including environmentally safe biological controls, for

eradicating these pests, and to provide funds as necessary.

Scrapie Eradication.—The Committee provides an increase of $325,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for the scrapie eradication

program, and directs the Secretary to use funds from the CCC, as

necessary, for additional eradication activities in fiscal year 2004.

Tuberculosis.—The Committee provides $14,925,000 for the tu- berculosis program. Of this amount, no less than $5,000,000 shall

be for activities in Michigan. The Committee is concerned about the

potential threats that wildlife poses for transmitting tuberculosis to

domestic livestock and directs the agency to increase technical and

operational assistance to Michigan producers to prevent or reduce

the transmission of tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The

Committee also encourages the agency to continue its research for

developing methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife

and livestock. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use

funds from the CCC, as necessary, for additional surveillance and

eradication activities in fiscal year 2004.

Wildlife Services Operations.—The Committee does not concur

with the President’s request to reduce funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow cooperators to assume a larger

share of the costs associated with preventing and reducing wildlife

damage. The Committee restores fiscal year 2003 funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct wildlife management programs such as livestock protection, migratory bird damage to crops,

invasive species damage, property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and endangered species protection.

The Committee notes the success of the oral rabies vaccination

program and provides an increase of $1,250,000 above the fiscal

year 2003 level for rabies control activities in fiscal year 2004. The

Committee encourages the Secretary to use funds from the CCC,

as necessary, for additional control activities in fiscal year 2004.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level to fully implement the recommendations of the Aviation

Safety Review Committee.

Of the amount provided to conduct wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities to prevent the spread of foreign animal diseases

in the United States, the Committee provides an increase of

$500,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level for remote diagnostic and

wildlife disease surveillance activities with North Dakota State

University and Dickinson State University.

The Committee is concerned about the growing number of livestock that are killed or injured by preying animals, especially

wolves, in the Western Great Lakes and Southwest regions of the

United States. The Committee provides continued funding at the

fiscal year 2003 level for integrated predation management activities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Of this amount, no less than $1,050,000 shall be available for activities in the Western Great Lakes States. A portion of the funding

shall be made available to assist livestock producers who are interested in the proper use of non-lethal alternatives and best manage-
73

ment practices in order to fully ensure that all such methods are

exhausted before any lethal control occurs.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for the Tri-state predator control program for livestock

operators in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Due to the increase in

federally listed endangered species, the States’ operations accounts

for wildlife services have suffered financially.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for a cooperative agreement with the University of Georgia, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Services Operations in the

State of Georgia to address the fluctuations in game bird and predator species resulting from recent changes in land use throughout

the southeastern United States.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for the operation of the State Wildlife Services office in

Hawaii to provide on-site coordination of prevention and control activities in Hawaii and the American Pacific. The Committee also

continues funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to coordinate and operate a comprehensive

brown tree snake prevention and detection program for Hawaii and

to initiate eradication and control of coqui frogs.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for wildlife service operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to meet the growing demands

of controlling predatory, nuisance, and diseased animals.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for the management of beavers in Mississippi. The Committee commends the agency’s assistance in cooperative relationships with local and Federal partners to reduce beaver damage to

cropland and forests.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level to continue control measures for minimizing blackbird

damage to sunflowers in North Dakota and South Dakota. The

Committee continues the fiscal year 2003 funding level for blackbird management efforts in Louisiana.

The Committee provides an increase of $100,000 to assist the Nevada Division of Wildlife with returning displaced wildlife back to

its natural habitat. This rescue initiative shall be a cooperative effort between Federal, State, local, and private sources.

The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for

a cooperative agreement with the Eastern Idaho Sandhill Crane

Lure Crop Project for integrated predator management activities to

reduce sandhill crane depredations and grain crop damage in Eastern Idaho.

The Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for

beaver control in the State of North Carolina, $150,000 for beaver

control in the State of Kentucky, $1,300,000 for the Predator Research Station in the State of Utah, an increase of $200,000 for the

control of birds in the State of New York, an increase of $225,000

for the control of blackbirds in the State of Kansas, and an increase

of $250,000 to address wildlife damage in the State of New Hampshire.

The Committee notes the growing problem due to cormorants in

the Lake Champlain basin and urges APHIS to provide support, as
74

deemed necessary, to assist in the management of cormorants in

the region.

Animal Care

Animal Welfare.—The Committee provides $16,400,000 for the

Animal Care Unit for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.

The Committee does not assume collections from unauthorized

animal welfare inspection user fees, as proposed in the President’s

budget.

Scientific and Technical Services

Veterinary Diagnostics.—The Committee provides $18,697,000 for

the veterinary diagnostics account for fiscal year 2004. The Committee provides $1,000,000 to update equipment needed to test certain animal samples in the State of Colorado.

Wildlife Services Methods Development.—The Committee pro- vides $16,450,000 for wildlife services methods development. Of

this amount, the Committee provides an increase of $200,000 from

the fiscal year 2003 level to enhance existing research efforts at the

National Wildlife Research Center field station in Starkville, MS,

for resolving problems regarding bird damage to aquaculture farms

in the Southeast. The Committee also provides an increase of

$400,000 from the fiscal year 2003 level to expand the existing program at the Jack Berryman Institute for addressing wildlife damage management issues, including wildlife disease threats and

wildlife economics, and facilitating a cooperative relationship with

the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The

Committee emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the Jack Berryman Institute and the National Wildlife Research Center. The remaining increase, beyond pay costs, is for

maintenance and operations necessary to support wildlife methods

development at the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, CO.

The Committee provides continued funding at the fiscal year

2003 level for the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center for rodent control only in active agricultural areas.

The Committee provides $750,000 for the National Wildlife Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities related

to emerging infectious diseases associated with wildlife populations

and human health.

Projects identified in the Senate directives as contained in the

Congressional Record of January 15, 2003, pages S356–S410, and

Conference Report 108–10 that the Committee directed to be funded for fiscal year 2003 are not funded for fiscal year 2004 unless

specifically mentioned herein.

In complying with the Committee’s directives, the Committee expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and activities

without prior notification to and approval by the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the reprogramming procedures specified in the Act. Unless otherwise directed,

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service shall implement

appropriations by programs, projects, and activities as specified by

the Appropriations Committees. Unspecified reductions necessary
75

to carry out the provisions of this Act are to be implemented in accordance with the definitions contained in the ‘‘Program, project,

and activity’’ section of this report.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $9,924,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,996,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,996,000

The APHIS appropriation for ‘‘Buildings and Facilities’’ funds

major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific program activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive

maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities.

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendation for this account as compared to the fiscal year 2003

and budget request levels:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

budget request

Committee

recommendation

Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and preventative maintenance ....................................................................... 4,957 4,996 4,996

Miami Animal Import Center, FL ................................................... 4,967 ............................ ............................

Total, Buildings and Facilities ......................................... 9,924 4,996 4,996

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$4,996,000. This amount is $4,928,000 less than the fiscal year

2003 appropriation.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $75,210,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 75,071,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,263,000

The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out programs

authorized by some 31 different statutory authorities, the primary

ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–

1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51–65); the Cotton

Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471–476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511–511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act

(21 U.S.C. 1031–1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).

Programs administered by this Agency include the market news

services, payments to States for marketing activities, the Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of marketing

agreements and orders, standardization, grading, classing, and

shell egg surveillance services, transportation services, and market

protection and promotion.
76

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service,

the Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,263,000. This

amount is $53,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

This amount does not include $167,000 for FECA administrative

charges, as requested in the budget.

Included in this amount is $1,500,000, an increase of $477,000

over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, for the National Organic

Program. The Committee believes that part of this funding should

be used to hire an Executive Director for the National Organic

Standards Board, to create a Peer Review Panel to oversee the

USDA accreditation process for organic certifiers, and to pay expenses for volunteer technical advisors to assist in the scientific

evaluation of materials considered for inclusion of the National

List.

The Committee provides $14,586,000 for the Pesticide Data Program. The Committee recognizes the importance of the Pesticide

Data Program [PDP] to collect reliable, scientific-based pesticide

residue data that benefits consumers, food processors, crop protection, pesticide producers, and farmers. The PDP is of particular importance since the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act,

which requires thorough re-evaluation of agricultural pesticides

and tolerances for uses on individual crops. The PDP is an effective

tool to maintain the availability of critical products which allow the

production of safe and affordable foods.

The Committee encourages the Department to make grants to

the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Alaska regional marketing organizations to promote wild salmon.

The Committee provides $6,179,000 for costs associated with the

Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999.

The State of Alaska has developed the Alaska Grown Program to

promote the sale of Alaskan products in both military and civilian

markets. The Committee fully supports this program and expects

the Department again to give full consideration to funding applications submitted for the Alaska Grown Program, which includes

Alaska agricultural products and seafood harvested in the State.

The Alaska Grown Program should coordinate with other regional

marketing entities.

The amount provided also includes $6,175,000 for the microbiological data program so that baselines may be established for

the incidence, number and types of food-borne microorganisms. The

Committee expects AMS to coordinate with other agencies of

USDA, other public health agencies of the government, and industry to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that the data collected can be used by all interested parties.

The Committee is aware of the transportation cost differentials

among those U.S. farmers and ranchers having access to low cost

ground transportation and those who lack such access, and recommends that the Agency provide technical assistance to those departments of agriculture serving U.S. farmers and ranchers outside

of the 48 contiguous States in identifying and evaluating transportation alternatives that would allow these producers to compete

globally.
77

The Committee encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS and

RMA on the collection of segregated data on the production and

marketing of organic agricultural products. This data should be included in the ongoing baseline of data collection regarding agricultural production and marketing, as directed in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Specifically, data should be collected on prices, yields, acreage and

production costs in the organic sector.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2003 ..................................................................................... $61,619,000

Budget limitation, 2004 ......................................................................... 62,577,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,577,000

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–

35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading and

classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton Standards

Act, the Tobacco Inspection Act, the Naval Stores Act, the U.S.

Warehouse Act, and other provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in the industry.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service of $62,577,000. This

amount is $958,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 level.

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $14,910,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 15,392,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,392,000

Under section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 612c),

an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected during

each preceding calendar year and unused balances are available for

encouraging the domestic consumption and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition programs of the

Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years

2002–2004:

SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL

YEARS 2002–2004

Fiscal year—

2002 actual 2003 estimate 2004 estimate

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) ...................... $6,139,942,369 $5,798,093,321 $5,927,395,463

Less Rescission ................................................................. ¥468,370 ................................ ............................

Transfer from CCC ............................................................ ............................ 250,000,000 ............................

Less Transfers:

Food and Nutrition Service ............................................... ¥5,172,458,000 ¥4,745,663,000 ¥4,699,661,000
78

SECTION 32 ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL

YEARS 2002–2004—Continued

Fiscal year—

2002 actual 2003 estimate 2004 estimate

Commerce Department ..................................................... ¥79,126,813 ¥75,223,778 ¥79,724,463

Total, Transfers ............................................................ ¥5,251,584,813 ¥4,820,886,778 ¥4,779,385,463

Budget Authority ........................................................................ 887,889,186 1,227,206,543 1,148,010,000

Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year .......................... 107,824,527 192,156,087 ............................

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations ......................................... ............................ 13,000,000 ............................

Available for Obligation ............................................................. 995,713,713 1,432,362,630 1,148,010,000

Less Obligations:

Commodity Procurement:

Child Nutrition Purchases ........................................ 399,934,661 15,000,000 400,000,000

State Option Contract .............................................. ............................ 5,000,000 5,000,000

Removal of Defective Commodities ......................... ............................ 1,000,000 1,000,000

Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Project ............................ 6,000,000 ................................ ............................

Emergency Surplus Removal ................................... 206,898,187 183,232,371 ............................

Diversion Payments .................................................. ............................ ................................ ............................

Direct Payments ....................................................... 172,867,307 ................................ ............................

Disaster Assistance ................................................. ............................ 500,000 ............................

Lamb Grading and Certification Support ................ 592,057 950,626 ............................

Estimated Future Purchases .................................... ............................ 304,036,633 415,575,000

Total, Commodity Procurement ........................... 786,292,212 1,406,719,630 821,575,000

Administrative Funds:

Commodity Purchase Service ................................... 6,906,166 10,733,000 11,043,000

Marketing Agreements & Orders ............................. 10,359,248 14,910,000 15,392,000

Total, Administrative Funds ................................ 17,265,414 25,643,000 26,435,000

Total, Obligations ................................................ 803,557,626 1,432,362,630 848,010,000

Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year ............................ 192,156,087 ................................ 300,000,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of

$15,392,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing

agreements and orders. This amount is $482,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 level.

In previous fiscal years, section 32 funds have been spent to purchase and distribute salmon for donation to schools, institutions,

and other domestic feeding programs. The Committee directs the

Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] to assess the existing inventories of pink salmon, salmon nuggets, and pouched salmon and determine whether there is a surplus and continued low prices. If a

surplus exists, the Committee expects the Department to purchase

salmon for use in schools, institutions, and other domestic feeding

programs, and for humanitarian aid.

The Committee encourages USDA to use all existing authorities

under the section 32 program through emergency surplus removal

and other commodity purchases, including fruit and vegetable purchases as mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill, to continue the Fruit

and Vegetable Pilot Program during fiscal year 2004. The Committee requests a report on the feasibility of continuing the Fruit
79

and Vegetable Pilot Program on a permanent basis under current

section 32 authorities within 120 days of the enactment of this Act.

The Committee is aware that section 10603 of Public Law 107–

171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, mandates that the Secretary must use a minimum of $200,000,000 each

fiscal year to purchase fruits, vegetables and other specialty food

crops. The Committee reminds USDA of the language included in

section 53 of the conference report accompanying this law and expects that these purchases will be made according to Congressional

intent.

In the utilization of section 32 funds for USDA feeding programs,

the Department of Agriculture shall not exclude or discriminate

against farmer-owned cooperatives when considering contracts.

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,338,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,347,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,338,000

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is

authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of

1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are made

to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market alternative

farm commodities; determine methods of providing more reliable

market information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This program has made possible many types of projects, such

as electronic marketing and agricultural product diversification.

Current projects are focused on the improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and seeking new outlets for existing farm

produced commodities. The legislation grants the U.S. Department

of Agriculture authority to establish cooperative agreements with

State departments of agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the agricultural marketing chain. The States

perform the work or contract it to others, and must contribute at

least one-half of the cost of the projects.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For payments to States and possessions for Federal-State mar- keting projects and activities, the Committee provides $3,338,000.

This amount is $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The Committee directs that $2,000,000 be provided to the

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the creation of specialty markets.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $39,690,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 41,688,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,638,000

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary’s 1994 reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are carried out

under the U.S. Grain Standards Act and other programs under the

authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the
80

inspection and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the

Packers and Stockyards Act, assurance of the financial integrity of

the livestock, meat, and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices

which affect meat and poultry prices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,638,000. This amount is $4,052,000 less than the

fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include

$41,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget.

The Committee expects the Department to continue the market

catalog reporting.

The Committee understands GIPSA is assessing how the agency

can facilitate the efficient marketing of grain by augmenting, not

supplanting, existing market mechanisms. The Committee encourages the Department to establish a cooperative relationship with

the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the Illinois Corn Growers

Association, and provides $500,000 to continue a study of process

verification systems with protocols.

The Committee recognizes that the Livestock Mandatory Price

Reporting Act has been in effect since October, 1999, and encourages GIPSA to complete implementation of the Swine Contract Library.

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2003 ..................................................................................... $42,463,000

Budget limitation, 2004 ......................................................................... 42,463,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,463,000

The Agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing

system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and official

inspection of rice and grain-related products under the Agricultural

Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was amended in 1981

to require the collection of user fees to fund the costs associated

with the operation, supervision, and administration of Federal

grain inspection and weighing activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a $42,463,000 limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses. This amount is the same as

the fiscal year 2003 level.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $595,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 792,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 611,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Con-
81

gress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry,

and egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $611,000. This amount is

$16,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $754,821,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 797,149,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 783,761,000

The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection Service

are to assure that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the

Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection

Act; and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing

plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June

17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic plants

preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare

meat or poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to States which maintain

meat and poultry inspection programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $783,761,000. This amount is

$28,940,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This

amount does not include $1,034,000 for FECA administrative

charges, as requested in the budget.

The Committee has provided an increase of $26,017,000 above

the fiscal year 2003 appropriation for Federal food safety and inspection. This increase includes funding for an additional 80 inplant FSIS inspectors, bringing the total number of FSIS slaughter

inspectors to 7,680.

The Committee has provided an increase of $67,000 from the fiscal year 2003 funding level for activities related to the Codex

Alimentarius.

Humane Slaughter.—Activities relating to humane slaughter are

fully funded. In fiscal year 2003, the Committee provided FSIS

with $5,000,000, available for 2 years, and has included statutory

language in this bill to require that FSIS hire no less than 50 FTEs

to work solely on the enforcement of the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act [HMSA]. The Committee understands that FSIS

plans to have hired 38 of these FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2003,

and expects the remainder of the FTEs to be hired during fiscal

year 2004. The Committee expects FSIS to maintain funding for
82

these FTEs in its fiscal year 2005 budget request. Further, the

Committee expects that the 17 District Veterinary Medical Specialist positions created in fiscal year 2001 will continue in fiscal

year 2004.

Import Inspection.—The Committee remains aware that FSIS

uses two methods to determine whether the inspection systems of

foreign countries that sell meat and poultry to the United States

meet the same standards as our domestic meat inspection system.

These methods include USDA audits of foreign plants and laboratories, and USDA inspection of foreign meat and poultry at the

U.S. border. The Committee has provided an increase of $1,777,000

for USDA to hire seven additional foreign program auditors and to

increase the number of equivalency review trips. The Committee

understands that this funding will allow the number of countries

reviewed by USDA auditors to increase from 33 to 40. Further, the

Committee requests notification when the additional seven auditors

are hired, identification of the countries they will be auditing, and

the number of audits they will be performing. In addition, the Committee requests information regarding the total number of countries and audits planned for inspection by USDA in fiscal year

2004.

When a significant number of plants initially audited in a particular country fail to meet U.S. safety standards, the Committee

continues to expect the Department to exercise all authorities to

limit imports from all plants in that country which have not been

audited in the previous 12 months, as well as imports from those

plants that failed initial audits, until subsequent findings establish

that proper inspection systems are in place.

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

budget request

Committee recommendation

Food safety inspection:

Federal .............................................................................................. 675,086 713,686 701,103

State .................................................................................................. 49,379 50,232 49,854

International ...................................................................................... 16,005 18,682 18,380

Codex Alimentarius .................................................................................... 2,556 2,677 2,629

FAIM ........................................................................................................... 11,795 11,872 11,795

Total .............................................................................................. 754,821 797,149 783,761

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $614,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 916,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 635,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s

international affairs (except for foreign economics development)
83

and commodity programs. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency, including the

Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk Management Agency, and the

Foreign Agricultural Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$635,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation.

The Committee continues to urge the Secretary to work with representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate non-governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified dry milk

exported under humanitarian assistance programs.

The Committee urges the U.S. Agency for International Development and USDA to manage the Food Security Commodity Reserve

effectively to meet international food aid commitments of the

United States, including supplementing Public Law 480 title II

funds to meet emergency food needs.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3, 1994,

pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103–354. The

FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity

price support and production adjustment programs financed by the

Commodity Credit Corporation; the Conservation Reserve Program

[CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the warehouse examination function;

farm ownership, farm operating, emergency disaster, and other

loan programs; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop loss protection for growers of

many crops for which crop insurance is not available. In addition,

FSA currently provides certain administrative support services to

the Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency [RMA].

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations Transfers from

program accounts

Total, FSA, salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ........................................................................... 970,389 279,209 1,249,598

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................ 1,016,836 294,096 1,310,932

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 988,768 284,941 1,273,709

The account ‘‘Salaries and expenses, Farm Service Agency,’’

funds the administrative expenses of program administration and

other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Public

Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The

consolidation provides clarity and better management and control

of funds, and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
84

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expenditures under numerous separate accounts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency [FSA], including funds transferred from other program accounts, the Committee recommends $1,273,709,000. This amount is $24,111,000

more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not

include $110,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in

the budget.

The Committee recognizes the pressures FSA has been under to

downsize staff levels. However, concerns have been raised about

the criteria being used for further staff reductions and the potential

impact these reductions will have on farm services in all States.

Until these concerns have been addressed, States in compliance

with the original Espy reorganization plan should not be required

to undertake further staff reductions.

The Committee provides $750,000 for comprehensive environmental and cultural resources training, review and compliance programs for employees and provides $250,000 for third party review

of and assistance for environmental and cultural resource documentation and assessments. The Committee strongly encourages

the Department to identify and partner with a private sector entity

to develop this program. Preference should be provided to an entity

that has a demonstrated track record in successfully developing environmental training programs for Federal employees of other government agencies and should be accredited by a land grant university or other higher learning institution. Special consideration

should be given to identifying an entity that also meets the general

guidelines of a small business with annual receipts under

$6,000,000 in accordance with the NAICS guidelines.

The Committee notes the FSA headquarters in the State of Alaska lacks the necessary staff to adequately support an area one-fifth

the size of the United States. The Committee has provided

$100,000 to hire an information technology specialist and a clerical

support person in the Palmer office.

Peanut Promotion Assessments.—Historically, the Farm Service

Agency [FSA] has deducted assessments, which are mandated by

Federal and State laws, when peanuts go into the United States

Department of Agriculture [USDA] loan program. These assessments are used to fund research and promotion programs that peanut growers vote for in referenda conducted pursuant to Federal

and State laws.

In 2002, FSA did not collect any peanut promotion assessments.

Because of this inaction, great confusion occurred in the marketplace and inhibited the ability of peanut growers to fund their research and promotion programs. Therefore, the Committee directs

FSA to continue to collect assessments as mandated by Federal and

State statutes when peanuts are placed under loan. Within 6

months of the date of enactment of this Act, FSA shall provide a

report to the Committee on its efforts to implement this directive.
85

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,974,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,974,000

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural

Credit Act of 1987. Originally designed to address agricultural

credit disputes, the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act

of 1994 to include other agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water loan programs,

grazing on National Forest System lands, and pesticides. Grants

are made to States whose mediation programs have been certified

by the Farm Service Agency [FSA]. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural mediation program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,974,000 for State mediation

grants. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $100,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,000

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who,

through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market

due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the dairy indemnity program, the Committee recommends

$100,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is

used to insure or guarantee farm ownership, farm operating, and

emergency loans to individuals, as well as the following types of

loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe

land acquisition and boll weevil eradication. The insurance endorsement on each insured loan may include an agreement by the

Government to purchase the loan after a specified initial period.

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of

Agriculture.

The following programs are financed through this fund:
86

Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not

supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Total indebtedness to FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct loans and $759,000

for guaranteed loans. Loans are made for 40 years or less.

Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop

or maintain a reasonable standard of living. Total indebtedness to

FSA may not exceed $200,000 for direct loans and $759,000 for

guaranteed loans. The term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inventory and is made to an eligible buyer by providing FSA loans.

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Made to any Indian tribe

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act which does

not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest

in lands within the tribe’s reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the

tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs provided to farmers.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total level for farm loans of

$3,248,475,000. This amount is $663,585,000 less than the fiscal

year 2003 level.

The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended

by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and the

budget request levels:

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 2003

enacted

Fiscal year 2004

budget

Committee recommendation

Farm ownership:

Direct ..................................................................................... 129,155 140,149 129,158

Guaranteed ............................................................................ 993,500 1,000,000 950,000

Farm operating:

Direct ..................................................................................... 601,068 650,000 601,068

Guaranteed unsubsidized ..................................................... 1,688,950 1,400,000 1,200,000

Guaranteed subsidized ......................................................... 397,400 266,249 266,249

Indian tribe land acquisition ......................................................... 1,987 2,000 2,000

Boll weevil eradication loans ........................................................ 100,000 60,000 100,000

Total, farm loans .............................................................. 3,912,060 3,518,398 3,248,475
87

LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Subsidies Administrative expenses

Total ACIF Insured loan Guaranteed loan Total Appropriations Transfer to FSA

Appropriations, 2003 .................. 118,917 107,884 226,801 7,948 277,361 512,110

Budget estimate, 2004 .............. 124,675 86,020 210,695 8,000 290,136 508,831

Committee recommendation ....... 115,192 79,090 194,282 7,948 283,020 485,250

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and

loan guarantees committed, as well as for administrative expenses.

The following table reflects the cost of loan programs under credit reform:

[In thousands of dollars]

2003 enacted 2004 budget Committee recommendation

Loan subsidies:

Farm ownership:

Direct .................................................................................. 14,995 30,945 28,518

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 7,451 5,400 5,130

Farm operating:

Direct .................................................................................. 103,744 93,730 86,674

Guaranteed unsubsidized .................................................. 53,540 46,620 39,960

Guaranteed subsidized ...................................................... 46,893 34,000 34,000

Indian tribe land acquisition 1 ................................................... 178 .......................... ..........................

Boll weevil eradication loans 2 ................................................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, loan subsidies ......................................................... 226,801 210,695 194,282

ACIF expenses ...................................................................................... 285,309 298,136 290,968

1 Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.

2 Negative subsidy rate for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 is calculated for this program.

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $70,248,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 78,488,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 71,422,000

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions

relative to the Federal crop insurance program that is authorized

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by

the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA], Public Law

106–224, and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

(2002 Act), Public Law 107–171.

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance program. This Act provides higher government subsidies for producer

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and

development for new insurance products and under-served areas

through contracts with the private sector; and tightens compliance.

Functional areas of risk management are: research and development; insurance services; and compliance, whose functions include

policy formulation and procedures and regulations development.

The 2002 Act maintains the basic crop insurance program largely

without change. This Act also requires the continuation of the Adjusted Gross Revenue [AGR] pilot program, which provides insur-
88

ance coverage for crops for which traditional crop insurance is not

available. However, the 2002 Act eliminates the ARPA provision

that allowed selection of continuous coverage levels, rather than

coverage levels at fixed intervals.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For administrative and operating expenses for the Risk Management Agency, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$71,422,000. This amount is $1,174,000 more than the fiscal year

2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $18,000 for

FECA administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

The Committee is concerned that there are several provisions in

the crop insurance program that have been harmful to potato producers. Therefore, RMA is directed to work with potato producers

to identify these problems and report its findings to the Committee

within 180 days of the enactment of this Act.

The Committee does not include the administration’s legislative

proposal to reduce the crop insurance administrative expense reimbursement from 24.5 percent to 20 percent. This proposal has the

potential to disrupt crop insurance services to farmers by forcing

consolidation or withdrawal of companies that currently provide

crop insurance. In 2002, crop insurance provided more than

$3,800,000,000 to farmers affected by drought, and farmers’ reliance on the program continues to grow. The Committee believes

that renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement would be

a more appropriate means by which to adjust the reimbursement

rate.

The Risk Management Agency continues to develop a Cost of

Production [COP] crop insurance pilot program that includes 12

crops: almonds, apricots, cotton, corn, cranberries, nectarines, onions, peaches, soybeans, sugarcane, rice, and wheat. The Committee instructs RMA to include hard, soft, and durum sub-classes

of wheat when implementing the COP pilot program for wheat.

The Committee is aware of the benefits to producers of risk management programs like the Dairy Options Pilot Program. The program introduces dairy farmers to the futures and options markets

and gives producers first-hand experience in buying put options

contracts to ensure a minimum price for their milk. The Committee

encourages the Agency to continue funding this important risk

management program.

The Committee is aware that the cap on RMA’s assigned risk

pool has not been updated for States since 1997, but that new negotiations should be complete in fiscal year 2004, and take effect

by the 2005 crop year. However, since 1997, many States have experienced extreme weather and other conditions which have caused

significantly higher losses than anticipated when their current caps

were negotiated. Therefore, the Committee recommends that RMA

should begin now to work with individual States, as appropriate,

to adjust their risk pool caps in order to more adequately reflect

the needs of each State.

The Committee encourages RMA to develop and implement an

actuarially-sound rider option to the current crop insurance program for avocados to cover losses due to quarantines, and to do so

in close cooperation with the California avocado industry. The
89

Committee further requests the Department to report on the economic impacts of recent domestic quarantines and to analyze options for protecting avocado growers against future losses due to

such regulatory actions. The Committee expects the Department to

report within 6 months on its progress in developing a program for

a rider option for avocado crop insurance that will address future

quarantines imposed due to any injurious pest or disease, including

fruit fly infestation.

CORPORATIONS

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... $2,886,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 1 2 ...................................................................... 3,368,000,000

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 3,368,000,000

1 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended, are

provided. 2Does not include a reduction of $81,000,000 to reflect the impact of Section 723 as proposed

in the budget request.

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was designed to

replace the combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.

The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment,

delivery expenses, program-related research and development,

startup costs for implementing this legislation such as studies, pilot

projects, data processing improvements, public outreach, and related tasks and functions.

All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are

mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.

Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a basic level

of protection against catastrophic losses, which cover 50 percent of

the normal yield at 55 percent of the expected price. The only cost

to the producer is an administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.

The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] amended

the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to more affordable

risk management tools and improved protection from production

and income loss, and to improve the efficiency and integrity of the

Federal crop insurance program. ARPA allows for the improvement

of basic crop insurance products by implementing higher premium

subsidies to make buy-up coverage more affordable for producers;

make adjustments in actual production history guarantees; and revise the administrative fees for catastrophic [CAT] coverage. More

crops and commodities have become insurable through pilot programs effective with the 2001 crop year. ARPA provides for an investment for over $8,200,000,000 in 5 years to further improve

Federal crop insurance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary,
90

estimated to be $3,368,000,000. This amount is $482,000,000 more

than the current fiscal year 2003 estimate.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned

Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and

protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including products,

foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of

these commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal

corporation within the Department of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, approved June 29, 1948 (15

U.S.C. 714).

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling,

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities;

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental

payments for such land for the duration of Conservation Reserve

Program contracts.

Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following

statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, as

amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (the 1938 Act);

the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act); and the

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), enacted May 13, 2002.

Under the 2002 Act, the Secretary is required to offer a program

of direct and counter-cyclical payments and extend nonrecourse

marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments for contract commodities (soybeans, wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley,

oats, upland cotton, rice, other oilseeds, and peanuts). The 2002 Act

also provides for marketing loans for wool, mohair, honey, small

chickpeas, lentils and dry peas. A national Dairy Market Loss Payment [DMLP] program is established by the 2002 Act, providing

that producers enter into contracts extending through September

30, 2005. A milk price support program is also provided to support

the price of milk via purchases of butter, cheese, and nonfat dry

milk. The rate of support is $9.90 per hundredweight.

The 2002 Act directs the Secretary to operate the sugar program

at no cost to the U.S. Treasury by avoiding sugar loan forfeitures

in the nonrecourse loan program. The nonrecourse loan program is

reauthorized through fiscal year 2007 at 18 cents per pound for

raw cane sugar and 22.9 cents per pound for refined beet sugar.

In the conservation area, the 2002 Act extends and expands the

conservation reserve program [CRP], the wetlands reserve program

[WRP], the environmental quality incentives program [EQIP], the
91

farmland protection program [FPP], and the wildlife habitat incentives program [WHIP]. Each of these programs is funded through

the CCC.

The 2002 Act also authorizes and provides CCC funding for other

conservation programs, including the conservation security program and the grassland reserve program.

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors,

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of

Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and chairman of the

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their positions in the Department

of Agriculture.

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the

personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service Agency

[FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county committees.

The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales Manager,

other agencies and offices of the Department, and commercial

agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Corporation’s activities.

The Corporation’s capital stock of $100,000,000 is held by the

United States. Under present law, up to $30,000,000,000 may be

borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, from private lending agencies,

and from others at any one time. The Corporation reserves a sufficient amount of its borrowing authority to purchase at any time all

notes and other obligations evidencing loans made by such agencies

and others. All bonds, notes, debentures, and similar obligations

issued by the Corporation are subject to approval by the Secretary

of the Treasury.

Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a–11, 713a–12), annual

appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing

with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the

Corporation for net realized losses.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... $16,285,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 1 ......................................................................... 17,275,000,000

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 17,275,000,000

1 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation

[CCC] for net realized losses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year

2004 to be $17,275,000,000. This amount is $990,000,000 more

than the current estimated limitation.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2003 ..................................................................................... $5,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000
92

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s [CCC] hazardous waste

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The

CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are also

paid from USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000. This

amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 limitation.
(93)

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $740,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 918,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 761,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out the

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural resources and

the environment. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Natural Resources Conservation Service and

the Forest Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and

Environment, the Committee recommends an appropriation of

$761,000. This amount is $21,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation.

The Committee continues its opposition to administration proposals to fund technical assistance for Farm Bill conservation programs from discretionary accounts provided in this Act. The Committee provides statutory language under the Conservation Operations, the Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Watershed and

Flood Prevention Operations, and the Watershed Rehabilitation

Program accounts to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated

under these accounts to provide technical assistance to carry out

programs listed in section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985.

The Committee notes that section 2701 of the Farm Security and

Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides for the certification of third

party providers to assist in the implementation of conservation programs. However, it should be noted that the stated purpose of this

provision was to meet the immediate technical assistance needs to

carry out the many new conservation programs included in the

2002 Farm Bill. This authorization was not intended to supplant

current USDA conservation positions, but to supplement them during this period of increasing workload in much the same way the

Farm Service Agency would hire temporary employees to implement new or time sensitive commodity programs. The Committee

does recognize that the inclusion of third party providers will meet

many of the short term objectives of competitive sourcing and,

therefore, strongly believes that any positions employed under the

authorization of section 2701 be applied to any numerical competitive sourcing goals that may be assigned to the Department.s
94

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was established pursuant to Public Law 103–354, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). NRCS combines the authorities of the former Soil Conservation Service as

well as five natural resource conservation cost-share programs previously administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Through the years, this Service, together with

the agricultural conservation programs and over 2 million conservation district cooperatives, has been a major factor in reducing

pollution. The Natural Resources Conservation Service works with

conservation districts, watershed groups, and the Federal and

State agencies having related responsibilities to bring about physical adjustments in land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis,

and reduce damage by flood and sedimentation. The Service, with

its dams, debris basins, and planned watersheds, provides technical

advice to the agricultural conservation programs, where the Federal Government pays about one-third of the cost, and, through

these programs, has done perhaps more to minimize pollution than

any other activity. These programs and water sewage systems in

rural areas tend to minimize pollution in the areas of greatest

damage, the rivers and harbors near our cities.

The conservation activities of the Natural Resources Conservation Service are guided by the priorities and objectives as set forth

in the National Conservation Program [NCP] which was prepared

in response to the provisions of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 [RCA] (Public Law 95–192). The long-term

objectives of the program are designed to maintain and improve the

soil, water, and related resources of the Nation’s nonpublic lands

by: reducing excessive soil erosion, improving irrigation efficiencies,

improving water management, reducing upstream flood damages,

improving range condition, and improving water quality.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $819,641,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 703,605,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 826,635,000

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include:

Conservation Technical Assistance.—Provides assistance to district cooperators and other land users in the planning and application of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the

quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and conserve water,

enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and reduce upstream flooding;

all to protect and enhance the natural resource base.

Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related resource data for land conservation, use, and development; guidance

of community development; identification of prime agricultural producing areas that should be protected; environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
95

Resource appraisal and program development ensures that programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall respond to the

Nation’s long-term needs.

Soil Surveys.—Inventories the Nation’s basic soil resources and

determines land capabilities and conservation treatment needs.

Soil survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies, State, and local organizations.

Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.—Provides estimates of annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and relates

to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future

water supplies.

Plant Materials Centers.—Assembles, tests, and encourages increased use of plant species which show promise for use in the

treatment of conservation problem areas.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For conservation operations, the Committee recommends an ap- propriation of $826,635,000. This amount is $6,994,000 more than

the 2003 level. This amount does not include $198,000 for FECA

administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends funding increases, as specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. Amounts provided by the Committee for specific conservation measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made available to States.

Projects identified in the Senate directives as contained in the

Congressional Record of January 15, 2003, pages S356–S410, and

Conference Report 108–10 that were directed to be funded by the

Committee for fiscal year 2003 are not funded for fiscal year 2004,

unless specifically mentioned herein. The Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue the Georgia Agricultural Water Conservation Initiative.

The Committee directs the agency to maintain a national priority

area pilot program under the guidelines of the Environmental

Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the Delta of the State of

Mississippi.

The Committee provides $900,000 for a study to characterize the

on-site consequences, estimate off-site impacts, and develop strategies to facilitate land use change while preserving critical natural

resources. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with

Clemson University.

The Committee provides $290,000 to expand the cooperative efforts with the Claude E. Phillips Herbarium in the State of Delaware.

The Committee provides $3,000,000 to maintain a partnership

between USDA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

The Committee provides $23,500,000 for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, of which no less than $550,000 shall be for

grazing land conservation activities in the State of Wisconsin.

The Committee provides $350,000 to obtain and evaluate materials and seeds of plants indigenous to regions north of 52 degrees

North Latitude and equivalent vegetated regions in the Southern
96

Hemisphere (south of 52 degrees South Latitude). The Committee

directs the agency to continue working in conjunction with the

Alaska Division of Agriculture in this effort. The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement

with Western Kentucky University. The Committee provides $700,000 to continue support of agricultural development and resource conservation on the Island of

Molokai in the State of Hawaii.

The Committee recognizes the need for a special outreach effort

so that USDA can serve small-scale Appalachian farmers in sustaining agriculture production while protecting natural resources.

The Committee provides $860,000 for the Appalachian Small Farmer Outreach Program. Sound economic grazing systems, marketing

strategies, and uniformity of production quality will ensure the

competitiveness of livestock operations and help maintain small

farm enterprises. This initiative will provide livestock producers access to the needed one-on-one assistance.

The Committee provides $1,500,000 for technical assistance for

the Franklin County Lake Project in the State of Mississippi.

The Committee expects NRCS to continue to support all existing

offices in the State of Alaska at current levels. Also, the Committee

notes that currently all administrative functions for NRCS are handled out of Spokane, Washington—1,000 miles from the Alaska

headquarters. The Committee directs the agency to provide an additional two staff positions to enable the Palmer office to manage

human resources, budget, and contracting operations in Alaska.

The Committee directs the agency to work with soil scientists at

regional land-grant universities to continue the pilot project in

Washington, Sharkey and Yazoo Counties, Mississippi, to determine the proper classification and taxonomic characteristics of

Sharkey soils. The Committee provides $1,200,000 to address the erosion in the

Loess Hills/Hungry Canyon area in Western Iowa. The Committee

is aware that the Eastern Red Cedar and other invasive species of

woody plants are having a very negative effect on prairies in the

Loess Hills, a unique soil important to many rare animals and

plants. The Committee encourages the Department to support efforts to minimize this problem.

The Committee provides $160,000 to conduct nitrogen soil tests

and plant-available nitrogen tests, and to demonstrate poultry litter and wood composting in an effort to improve farmers’ economic

returns and minimize potential water quality conditions resulting

from excess application of nutrients from manure and fertilizers on

West Virginia’s cropland.

The Committee provides $1,425,000 for the Delta Conservation

Demonstration Center in Washington County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $200,000 to continue the Idaho OnePlan in Canyon County, Idaho.

The Committee provides $300,000 to continue the expansion of

the Potomac and Ohio River Basins Soil Nutrient Project to include

Jefferson, Berkeley, and Greenbrier Counties. This funding will enable the NRCS, in cooperation with West Virginia University and

the Appalachian Small Farming Research Center, Natural Soil

Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE to identify and characterize
97

phosphorous movement in soils to determine appropriate transportation, the holding capacity, and the management of phosphorous.

This information is critical in helping Appalachian farmers deal

with nutrient loading issues and in protecting the Chesapeake Bay

from eutrophication and the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and

Gulf of Mexico from depletion of life-sustaining oxygen. The Committee provides $350,000 for evaluating and increasing

native plant materials in the State of Alaska. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for technical assistance for

the Tanana River watershed project in Salcha, Alaska. The Committee provides $800,000 for the continued development

of a geographic information system database in the State of South

Carolina to integrate commodity and conservation program data at

the field level for watershed analysis purposes. The Committee provides $9,500,000 for Snow Survey and Water

Supply Forecasting, which includes full funding for activities related to snowpack telemetry [SNOTEL]. The Committee provides $600,000 to provide technical assistance

for improved nutrient management and protection of water resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The Committee provides $450,000 for the Little Red River Irrigation Project in the State of Arkansas. The Committee provides $3,000,000 to provide technical assistance for the Kentucky Soil Erosion Control/Soil Survey Program. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for cattle and nutrient management in stream crossings in cooperation with Mississippi Conservation Districts.

The Committee provides $400,000 to continue the Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture in cooperation

with the Iowa Soybean Association. The Committee provides $4,500,000 for the establishment of a

Geographic Information System Center of Excellence in cooperation

with West Virginia University.

The Committee encourages the agency to support watershed

management and demonstration projects in cooperation with the

National Pork Producers Council.

The Committee provides $175,000 for a cooperative agreement

between NRCS and Alcorn State University for the analysis of soil

erosion and water quality.

The Committee provides $6,459,000 for the Wildlife Habitat

Management Institute [WHMI] for the development and transfer of

fish and wildlife technology to States and field offices. The Committee expects WHMI to expand the development of technology to

improve the habitat of declining species such as the bobwhite quail,

sage grouse, and associated species.

The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the conversion to

sprinkler irrigation in the vicinity of Minidoka, Idaho, in order to

reduce water quality impairments resulting from the return of

water runoff to the aquifer by way of agricultural drain wells.

The Committee provides $900,000 for the New Jersey State Conservation Cost Share Program.

The Committee provides $600,000 to continue assistance for conservation programs related to cranberry production in the States of

Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
98

The Committee provides $300,000 to provide expedited conservation planning of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project in the

State of Florida. The Committee expects the agency to work in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The Committee provides $500,000 for the ecological site description project in the State of Idaho. The Committee directs the agency to work in cooperation with the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts.

The Committee provides $400,000 for fiscal year 2004 for flood

protection around the Humphreys County Hospital and the City of

Belzoni, Humphreys County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $250,000 for the Utah CAFO/AFO pilot

project.

The Committee provides $500,000 for geographic information

system based mapping and hyperspectral imaging of agricultural

lands in the State of Alaska.

The Committee provides $2,500,000 for a native grassland demonstration project in the vicinity of Tar Creek, Oklahoma.

The Committee provides $1,100,000 for the Dry Creek project in

the State of Utah.

The Committee provides $100,000 for fiscal year 2003 for drainage improvements on Watkins Drive in the City of Jackson, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $300,000 for fiscal year 2003 for drainage improvements in the City of Port Gibson, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the environmental benefits of using vegetative buffers along waterways.

The agency is directed to work in cooperation with the University

of Wisconsin-Madison.

The Committee provides $500,000 for conservation programs in

the Great Lakes Watershed.

The Committee expects the NRCS to work in conjunction with

the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, regarding dairy waste management and in the development of a working

arrangement regarding planned expansion of the Dairy Forage

Laboratory activities at Marshfield, Wisconsin and the possible establishment of a NRCS Waste Management Institute at that location.

The Committee provides $6,000,000 to implement the Source

Water Protection Program and encourages that these funds be used

in States with the greatest needs.

The Committee provides $300,000 to assist in the Wyoming soil

survey mapping project.

The Committee notes that the Natural Resource Inventory [NRI]

has not included the State of Alaska due to factors such as accessibility of remote locations, climate, and staff availability. The Committee believes that natural resources data collection in Alaska is

of critical national importance. As such, the Committee provides an

additional $1,500,000 for NRI pilot activity development in Alaska

and directs NRCS to provide no later than December 30, 2004 a report describing the technology, personnel, and other resources

needed to include Alaska in the NRI annual reporting system.
99

The Committee provides $120,000 for the Conservation Land Internship Program in the State of Wisconsin to help students learn

about resource conservation.

The Committee provides $500,000 for fiscal year 2003 for technical assistance in the State of North Carolina to address concerns

with the application of phosphorous on agricultural lands.

The Committee provides $200,000 for the Old Canton Road erosion control project in Hinds County, Mississippi.

The Committee is disturbed that the State of Alaska has largely

been ignored thus far in the implementation of the Farm Security

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill). The Committee

notes that while Alaska comprises 20 percent of the United States,

it has received minimal funding from participation in the Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as conservation

and watershed technical assistance. The Committee directs the

Secretary to take all necessary measures to maximize participation

and to provide a fair allocation of resources under the Farm Bill

to Alaska. The Committee directs the Secretary to report on her actions by January 15, 2004.

The Committee provides $800,000 for additional conservation

technical assistance funding to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts.

The Committee provides $500,000 for a study to examine the effect of vegetation manipulation on water yields and other watershed functions. The agency is directed to work in cooperation with

Utah State University.

The Committee provides $2,100,000 for the Georgia Soil and

Water Conservation Commission cooperative agreement.

The Committee provides $467,000 for bank stabilization and

channel improvement work in the Oaklimeter Watershed in the

State of Mississippi.

The Committee provides $100,000 for a surface water impoundment in Choctaw County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $300,000 for the Richland Creek Watershed in Rankin County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $780,000 for the Lower Payette Ditch

Irrigation Diversion Project in the State of Idaho.

The Committee provides $300,000 for the West Cary Watershed

and Farmland Protection Project in the State of North Carolina.

The Committee provides $500,000 for range revegetation at Fort

Hood in the State of Texas.

The Committee understands that pursuant to a 1988 memorandum of understanding, Indian Conservation Districts were

transferred from the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior to NRCS. This transfer has significantly increased the workload for NRCS offices in States with former Indian

Conservation Districts. The Committee is concerned that funding

for affected offices has not kept pace with the increased workloads

and that services to these communities may have suffered. Within

120 days of enactment of this legislation, NRCS shall review all offices that incorporated Indian Conservation Districts and assess

service delivery, staffing needs, and funding requirements. The
100

agency shall report its findings to the Committee on Appropriations

no later than 60 days after completion of its review.

The Committee provides $500,000 for the Innovative Environmental Technologies program in the State of Indiana.

The Committee provides $250,000 for technical assistance for a

water project in Hardin County, Kentucky.

The Committee provides $300,000 for the McCarthy Watershed

project in the State of Alaska.

The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement

with the University of Northern Iowa.

The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement

with the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation District.

The Committee provides $500,000 for the continued development

of a conjunctive use optimization model in the Pawcatuck Watershed in the State of Rhode Island.

The Committee provides $300,000 for the testing of emerging alternative technology in the State of Vermont to reduce phosphorus

loading in Lake Champlain.

The Committee provides $900,000 for a surface water impoundment in the Port De Luce Watershed in the State of Louisiana.

The Committee provides $300,000 for a study on the effectiveness of agriculture and forestry best management practices on

water quality. The Committee directs the agency to work in cooperation with Louisiana State University.

The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement

with the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Committee for

conservation and sustainable agricultural activities.

The Committee provides $1,000,000 for a cooperative agreement

with the Sand County Foundation in the State of Wisconsin to

carry out an expanded nitrogen removal test project.

The Committee provides $300,000 for a cooperative agreement

with the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the Pioneer Farm

project.

The Committee provides $600,000 to carry out riparian restoration activities along the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in the State

of New Mexico.

The Committee provides $150,000 for the evaluation of manure

management systems in the State of New York. These systems

should be developed in a manner to control phosphorous, nitrogen,

pathogens, and odors through the implementation of best alternative manure management systems that will help maintain economic viability on farms in the Northeast.

The Committee provides $600,000 for a cooperative agreement

with Tufts University to conduct pilot programs in the State of

Connecticut to improve conservation practices and enhance the diversification of agricultural production in the area.

The Committee is aware that Devils Lake in the State of North

Dakota is now more than 25 feet higher than it was in 1993, and

the local community has been working with NRCS for many years

on options to address flooding in this basin. To advance these efforts, the Committee provides $600,000 to the North Central Planning Council so that it may work with the Devils Lake Basin Joint

Water Resource Board on a Devils Lake water utilization test
101

project to determine to what extent excess water from Devils Lake

can be used to irrigate land for beneficial use. The Committee provides $1,490,000 to continue the Red River

Basin Flood Prevention Project in the State of North Dakota in cooperation with the Energy and Environmental Research Center. The Committee provides $450,000 for assistance in the Iroquois

River Watershed in Iroquois County, Illinois. The Committee provides $250,000 for the Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited. The Committee provides $250,000 for a wildlife habitat education

program in the State of Illinois, in conjunction with the National

Wild Turkey Federation. The Committee provides $900,000 to continue implementation of

pilot projects designed for nutrient reducing waste treatment systems for dairy operations in the State of Florida.

The Committee has been informed on the importance of Eelgrass

habitats to marine ecosystems along the coast of the Atlantic

Ocean. Eelgrass is a primary source of food for many plants and

animals in areas such as Narragansett Bay in the State of Rhode

Island and provides many additional conservation benefits, such as

protection of the coastline from erosion. The Committee urges the

Department to give consideration to the use of EQIP funding for

projects in Rhode Island, and similar areas, that will enhance these

habitats.

Section 2503 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

2002 authorizes a Farm Viability Program through which producers may receive assistance for planning and implementation of

strategies for long-term economic viability of farming operations,

including conservation practices. The Committee provides $200,000

to establish a Pilot Farm Viability Program Project in the State of

Vermont.

The Committee provides $250,000 for assistance for an On Farm

Management Systems Evaluation Network.

The Committee provides $750,000 to continue the Delta Water

Resources Study in the State of Mississippi.

The Committee provides $250,000 for an erosion control project

in Rankin County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides $500,000 for a cooperative agreement

with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for conservation education.

Plant Materials Centers.—The Committee provides no less than

$11,269,000 for NRCS plant material centers.

The Committee notes the need for extensive rehabilitation and

restoration of public lands in Western States, such as Nevada,

which is required to reduce hazardous fuels on those lands, reduce

the threat of wildfires, and conserve wildlife habitat. The Committee believes there is a need to develop a program and location

related to productive and successful native plant materials and restoration. Toward that goal, the Committee provides $500,000 for

the establishment of a plant materials center in the vicinity of

Fallon, Nevada.

The Committee provides $375,000 for the planning and design of

a new storage facility at the Alaska Plant Materials Center.
102

FARM BILL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... $432,160,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

The Farm Bill Technical Assistance account funds all of the technical assistance costs of certain conservation programs authorized

by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public

Law 107–171). These are the same conservation programs included

in NRCS’s Farm Security and Rural Investment Programs account—the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Ground

and Surface Water Conservation, Klamath Basin Water Conservation, Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives

Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve Program,

and Conservation Security Program. The Farm Security and Rural

Investment Programs account funds the financial assistance needed to deliver conservation measures on agricultural lands. The

Farm Bill Technical Assistance account would fund the technical

assistance needed to plan, design, layout, and install conservation

systems funded by the 2002 Farm Bill programs. This would include both NRCS’s technical assistance costs, as well as the costs

for certified, non-Federal technical service providers to provide

technical assistance to farmers and ranchers for 2002 Farm Bill

programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not provide funding for the Farm Bill Technical Assistance Account. This subject is addressed under the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.

WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $11,124,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law

83–566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of the

Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001–1008), and section 6 of

the act provided for the establishment of the River Basin Surveys

and Investigation Program (16 U.S.C. 1006–1009). A separate appropriation funded the two programs until fiscal year 1996 when

they were combined into a single appropriation, watershed surveys

and planning.

River basin activities provide for cooperation with other Federal,

State, and local agencies in making investigations and surveys of

the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of the investigations

and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide for the development

of agricultural, rural, and upstream watershed aspects of water

and related land resources, and as a basis for coordination of this

development with downstream and other phases of water development.

Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation between

the Federal Government and the States and their political subdivi-
103

sions in a program of watershed planning. Watershed plans form

the basis for installing works of improvement for floodwater retardation, erosion control, and reduction of sedimentation in the watersheds of rivers and streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water. The work of the Department in watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations to develop their watershed work plan by making investigations and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local

organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water management, and sedimentation problems in a watershed and works of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also include

estimated benefits and costs, cost-sharing and operating and maintenance arrangements, and other appropriate information necessary to justify Federal assistance for carrying out the plan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For watershed surveys and planning, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000. This amount is

$1,124,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $109,285,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 40,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,000,000

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law

566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States and

their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or rivers and

streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization,

and disposal of water.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility for administration of activities, which include cooperation

with local sponsors, State, and other public agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve, develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works of improvement for flood prevention, including the development of recreational facilities and the

improvement of fish and wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help finance the local share of the cost of carrying out

planned watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For watershed and flood prevention operations, the Committee

recommends an appropriation of $55,000,000. This amount is

$54,285,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment Project in the

State of West Virginia.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete measures regarding the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed, Upper Deckers

Creek Watershed, and Little Whitestick Creek Channel improvements in the State of West Virginia.
104

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for the Lost River Watershed Project in the State of West Virginia.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the

Square Butte Project in the State of North Dakota.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for Big Creek/Hurricane Creek, Moniteau Creek, East Locust

Creek, West Fork of Big Creek, East Yellow Creek, McKenzie

Creek, Hickory Creek, East Fork of Grand River, Troublesome

Creek, Willow Cravens Creek, and Upper Locust Creek projects in

the State of Missouri.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the

Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Upcountry Maui Watershed,

Lahaina Watershed, and the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed projects

in the State of Hawaii.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the

Kuhn Bayou Project in the State of Arkansas.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to provide assistance for the Ditch 26 Improvement Project in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for the Turkey Creek, Troublesome Creek, 12-Mile Creek,

East Fork of Grand River, West Fork of Big Creek, A&T

Longbranch, Mill Creek, Hacklebarney, Bear Creek, Little Paint,

Mill-Pacauyne, Soap Creek, Little Sioux River, and West Tarkio

Creek projects in the State of Iowa.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to complete the

Dry Gulch-Martin Lateral, Muddy Creek-Orderville, Tri-Valley,

and Coal Creek projects in the State of Utah.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for small watershed projects in the State of Vermont.

The Committee provides funds for the Muenster Lake Project in

the State of Texas.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for the Piney Creek Watershed Project in Yazoo County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides funding for the agency to continue assistance for the Matanuska River Erosion Control Project in the

State of Alaska.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to continue assistance for the construction of the Town Creek Floodwater Retarding

Structure #8 in Lee County, Mississippi.

The Committee provides funds for the agency to begin assistance

in the Marmaton Watershed in the State of Kansas.

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $29,805,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 10,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,805,000

The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with Section 14 of the Watershed

Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 4, 1954

(U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by Section 313 of Public Law

106–472, November 9, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 1012), and by section 2505
105

of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public

Law 107–171).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the watershed rehabilitation program, the Committee recommends $29,805,000. This amount is the same as the fiscal year

2003 level.

The Committee directs that funding under this program be provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of high priority need in order to protect property and ensure public safety.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $50,668,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 49,943,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,000,000

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, for developing overall work plans for resource

conservation and development projects in cooperation with local

sponsors; to help develop local programs of land conservation and

utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying out

such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting such work on private

lands; and to make loans to project sponsors for conservation and

development purposes and to individual operators for establishing

soil and water conservation practices.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For resource conservation and development, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,000,000. This amount is

$332,000 more than the 2003 level.
(106)

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural

Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of State, district, and county offices.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $632,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 913,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 651,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted

by the Congress with respect to the Department’s rural economic

and community development activities. The Office has oversight

and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service,

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the

Committee recommends an appropriation of $651,000. This amount

is $19,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee is aware the Department has previously provided

funding for the National Rural Development Partnership [NRDP].

The NRDP, and its associated State Rural Development Councils,

provide technical support and guidance for rural development at

the State and local level. The Committee encourages the Department to continue support for this important organization from

within available funds.

The Committee recognizes that the town of Tchula, Mississippi,

has requested technical and program assistance for housing, business, and other essential community needs. The Committee expects

the Secretary to provide additional resources, and encourages the

use of available national reserve funds to assist this Delta community.

The Committee applauds the Department for establishing the

Centralized Service Center [CSC] in St. Louis, Missouri, which has

resulted in significant cost savings. The Committee encourages the
107

Department to work within USDA and with other Federal agencies

to explore the possibility of turning this facility into a Governmentwide Federal debt collection center.

The Committee recommends continued staffing and operations of

the Rural Business Cooperative Service Office in Hilo, Hawaii, to

address the continuing and increasing demands for marketing and

purchasing cooperatives.

The Committee is aware of and supports the ongoing activities

of the Farm Worker Institute for Education and Leadership Development [FIELD] and encourages the Secretary to support this effort through technical assistance programs available within the Department.

The Committee is concerned that the Department is restricting

not-for-profit developer-owners of essential community facilities

from entering into contracts to provide services with a third party

not-for-profit entity for childcare and other related services. The

Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to address this policy

prohibition to allow such activities and insure the government’s interests are protected with third party contracts. The developerowner should be responsible for securing Departmental approval

for any changes in existing contracts addressing issues that include

services provided, liability, maintenance and administrative fees.

The Committee notes that section 6102 of the Farm Security and

Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized the expansion of 911 access for rural areas subject to regulations issued by USDA. To date,

USDA has not begun the rulemaking process for this program. The

Committee encourages the Department to initiate the rulemaking

process as expeditiously as possible to expand and improve 911 access for rural areas.

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $901,837,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 477,864,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 769,479,000

The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996 (Public Law 104–127), consolidates funding for the following

programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,

water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, direct

and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity grants. This proposal

is in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104–127.

Consolidating funding for these 12 rural development loan and

grant programs under RCAP provides greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs.

With the exception of the 10 percent in the ‘‘National office reserve’’ account, funding is allocated to rural development State directors for their priority setting on a State-by-State basis. State directors are authorized to transfer not more than 25 percent of the

amount in the account that is allocated for the State for the fiscal

year to any other account in which amounts are allocated for the
108

State for the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to

be reallocated nationwide.

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development

Act of 1972 to finance a variety of rural community facilities. Loans

are made to organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community

facilities providing essential services to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall community development, such as fire and rescue services, health care, transportation, traffic control, and community, social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily

serve rural residents of open country and rural towns and villages

of not more than 20,000 people. Health care and fire and rescue facilities are the priorities of the program and receive the majority

of available funds.

The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law

104–127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities,

such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75

percent of the cost of developing the facility.

The Rural Business and Industry Loans Program was created by

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural Development

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act authorities. Business and industrial loans are made to public,

private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain

Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such

purposes include financing business and industrial acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is not

within the outer boundary of any city having a population of 50,000

or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and urbanizing

areas with a population density of more than 100 persons per

square mile. Special consideration for such loans is given to rural

areas and cities having a population of less than 25,000.

Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the Rural

Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies and

nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small and

emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the acquisition and development of land; the construction of buildings, plants,

equipment, access streets and roads, parking areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
109

Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under section

306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act,

as amended. Grants may be made, not to exceed $1,500,000 annually, to public bodies and private nonprofit community development

corporations or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze

business opportunities that will use local rural economic and

human resources; to identify, train, and provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business

support centers; to conduct economic development planning and coordination, and leadership development; and to establish centers

for training, technology, and trade that will provide training to

rural businesses in the utilization of interactive communications

technologies.

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the Consolidated Farm

and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as amended).

This program makes loans for water and waste development costs.

Development loans are made to associations, including corporations

operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated as public or quasipublic agencies, that

propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects and can

supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay

development costs.

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.

Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pollution of water

resources and for improving the planning and management of solid

waste disposal facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], the

Committee recommends $769,479,000. This amount is $132,358,000

less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee recognizes that the direct community facilities

loan program is an essential tool in addressing basic needs in rural

America. The Committee also notes that this program has a negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004, the first time since the inception of the program in 1974. Demand for this program far exceeds

available funding. To meet the needs for our rural communities,

the Committee strongly encourages the Department to consider establishing a program level of $500,000,000 to meet these needs.

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,

as compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:
110

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee 2003 recommendation appropriation

2004 budget

request

Community:

Community facility direct loan subsidies ............................. 15,762 ............................ ............................

Community facility grants .................................................... 25,766 17,000 24,838

Economic impact initiative grants ....................................... 24,837 ............................ 25,000

High energy costs grants ..................................................... 29,805 ............................ 30,000

Subtotal, community ........................................................ 96,170 17,000 79,838

Business:

Business and industry guaranteed loan subsidies .............. 35,498 29,280 27,000

Rural business enterprise grants ......................................... 47,679 44,000 48,000

Rural business opportunity grants ....................................... 3,974 3,000 4,000

Subtotal, business ............................................................ 87,151 76,280 79,000

Utilities:

Water and waste disposal direct loan subsidies ................. 102,642 35,132 30,141

Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 612,374 345,952 577,000

Solid waste management grants ......................................... 3,500 3,500 3,500

Subtotal, utilities .............................................................. 718,516 384,584 610,641

Total, loan subsidies and grants ..................................... 901,837 477,864 769,479

Rural Community Advancement Program.—The Committee provides the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for transportation technical assistance.

The Committee directs the Department to continue the Rural

Economic Area Partnership [REAP] initiative. The Committee directs that of the $24,000,000 provided for loans

and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American

Tribes, $250,000 be used to implement an American Indian and

Alaska Native passenger transportation development and assistance initiative.

Community Facilities Loans and Grants.—The Committee is

aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to

applications relating to community facilities for the following: Alaska Rural Telecommunications Service; Illinois Valley Community

Arts and Economic Center, OR; Maine Rural Community Innovation Center, MA; Noxubee County Multi-Purpose Facility, MS;

Franklin Parish School Renovations, LA; Union and Wallowa

Counties Rail Line, OR; City of Port Gibson, MS; Mississippi Blood

Services, MS; Southern Plain Conference Center, OK; Elmo, UT;

Casey County Agricultural Center, KY; Montana Food Bank, MT;

Coushatta Tribe, LA; Jefferson Street Drainage Improvement

Project, LA; Grand Isle Multiplex Center, LA; Golden Meadow

Multi-purpose Facility, LA; City of Bozeman, MT; City of Port Gibson, MS; Vineland Produce Auction Association, NJ; City of

Bayfield, WI; Bawcomville Flood Control Pump, LA; White County

Emergency Warning System, AR; Central Upper Peninsula Fitness,

Growth and Learning Center, MI; Village of Owego, NY; Heritage

Christian Home Center, NY; Salkehatchie Leadership Center, SC;

Miles City Improvement District, MT; West Baton Rouge Parish
111

Communications Center, LA; Donaldsonville Natural Gas Line, LA;

Public Ice Facilities, Bristol Bay Borough, AK; Kawerak’s Bering

Region Cultural Center, Nome, AK; and the Southern Training and

Social Services Complex, LA.

Economic Impact Initiative Grants.—The Committee includes

statutory language to provide $25,000,000 for the Rural Community Facilities Grant Program for areas of extreme unemployment

or severe economic depression.

High Energy Cost Grants.—The Committee includes statutory language to provide $30,000,000 for the Rural Community Advancement Program for communities with extremely high energy

costs which is to be administered by the Rural Utilities Service.

Business and Industry Loan Program.—The Committee encourages the Department to give consideration to applications for rural

business opportunity grants [RBOG] for the following: Santiam

Canyon Economic Development, OR; Quinebaug-Shetucket Corridor, CT; and the Louisiana Communication and Information

Technology Capability Project, LA.

The Committee includes statutory language to provide for a community planning pilot program in the State of Alaska.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants.—The Committee is also aware

of and encourages the Department to give consideration to applications for rural business enterprise grants [RBEG] for the following:

Sustainable Systems, MT; Mission Valley Market, MT; Power Applications Resource Center at Montana State University-Northern;

University of Montana Business Incubators, MT; Grants to Public

Broadcasting Systems; New Product Development and Commercialization Center, OK; Calista Native Corporation, AK; Vineland

Produce Auction Association, NJ; Southern Maryland Regional

Processing Kitchen and Agriculture Business Incubator, MD;

Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, CT; Technology Venture

Center TechRanch, MT; New York Agricultural Development, NY;

Agricultural Innovation Center, NJ; Hibbing Technology Business

Center, MN; Kershaw County Industrial Park, SC; Southeastern

Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership, MA; Continental Structural Plastics, LA; Quachita Terminal and Dock, LA; Bering Straits

Native Corporation, Nome, AK; Vermont Maple Industry Council;

Covington Northern Kentucky Regional Farmers Market; Daviess

County BioTech Cluster Initiative, KY; Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; Chesapeake Innovation Center, MD; Center for Blackbelt

Development, GA; Rural Enterprise Assistance Program, NE; Mobile Slaughter Facility, OR; Oregon Center for Rural Policy; Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative, OH; and Chesapeake Fields Institute, MD.

The Committee includes statutory language to provide no less

than $5,000,000 in grants to statewide private nonprofit public television systems.

The Committee expects the Department to ensure that the system by which applications for rural business enterprise grants are

considered does not discriminate against applications which may

benefit multiple States.

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants.—The Committee is

aware of and encourages the Department to consider applications

for water and waste disposal loans and grants for the following
112

projects: Iron County Sewer and Waste Water Treatment Facility,

UT; City of Oxford, MS; Port Gibson, MS; City of Wasilla, AK;

Pueblo of Picuris, NM; Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM; Pueblo of San

Felipe, NM; Carnuel MDWWCA, NM; Pueblo of Laguna, NM;

Pueblo of Acoma, NM; Pueblo of Pojoaque, NM; Miles Crossing

Sanitary Sewer District, OR; Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority, NC; Dillon County Bingham Project, SC; Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, MT; Alger County, MI; City of Watervliet, MI;

Alachua County, FL; Desoto County, FL; St. John the Baptist

Drinking Water, LA; Dallas County, AR; Brushy Island Water Improvement Association, AR; Albany Water Conservation, OR; Miles

City Improvement District, MT; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, LA;

Neshoba County Central Water Association, MS; Adair County,

KY; Russell County, KY; and Hardin County, KY.

The Committee includes statutory language to make up to $30,000,000 in water and waste disposal loans and grants available

for village safe water for the development of water systems for

rural communities and native villages in Alaska. In addition, the

Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to consider

applications to the national program from small, regional hub villages in Alaska with a populations less than 5,000 which are not

able to compete for village safe water funding; $25,000,000 for

water and waste systems for the Colonias along the United StatesMexico border; and $24,000,000 for water and waste disposal systems for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes. In addition,

the Committee makes up to $13,000,000 available for the circuit

rider program.

The Committee includes statutory language ensuring that Alaska

receives 5 percent of the total amount available for the circuit rider

program.

The Committee encourages the Department to work with the

Union-Lincoln Water Supply Initiative to provide technical assistance relating to alternative sources of water for the Sparta Aquifer

that supplies Northern Louisiana and Southern Arkansas.

The Committee provides $3,000,000 to fund the activities of the

Northern Great Plains Regional Authority [NGPRA], as authorized

in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Within

180 days of enactment of this Act, NGPRA shall provide the Committee with a report on its anticipated fiscal needs in future years.

The report should also explain the NGPRA’s grant awarding criteria. Furthermore, the Committee expects that Northern Great

Plains, Inc. will establish the policies and procedures of the Authority as required by law.

Individually Owned Household Water Well Program.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 for the Individually Owned Household

Water Well Program as authorized in section 6012 of Public Law

107–171. The Committee encourages the Department to work with

interested parties, including the Foundation for Affordable Drinking Water, to implement this new program.

Water and Waste Technical Assistance Training Grants.—The

Committee provides a significant increase in the technical assistance account for water and waste systems and expects the Secretary to provide an increase in grant funding to the National

Drinking Water Clearinghouse. The Committee is aware of and en-
113

courages the Department to consider applications from the Alaska

Village Safe Water Program to provide statewide training in water

and waste systems operation and maintenance.

Solid Waste Management Grants.—The Committee is aware of

the need for landfill improvements for Point Barrow, Alaska, and

urges the Department to give priority consideration for an application for a solid waste management grant.

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established

review process.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year—

Committee recommendation 2003 appropriation 2004 budget request

Appropriations ................................................................................ 144,789 147,520 140,922

Transfer from:

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ....... 429,564 482,787 439,453

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ................................................................... 37,587 41,562 37,920

Rural Telephone Bank Program Account .............................. 3,062 3,462 3,182

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account ................. 4,163 4,850 4,283

Total, RD salaries and expenses ..................................... 619,165 680,181 625,760

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs

of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist in extending other

Federal programs to people in rural areas.

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $625,760,000 for salaries and expenses for the Rural Economic and Community Development Programs. This amount is $6,595,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation. This amount does not include $169,000 for FECA

administrative charges, as requested in the budget.

The Committee expects that none of the funds provided for Rural

Development, Salaries and Expenses should be used to enter into

or renew a contract for any activity that is best suited as an inherent function of Government, without prior approval from the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Such activities

may include, but are not limited to, any function that affects eligibility determination, disbursement, collection or accounting for

Government subsidies provided under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of the Rural Development mission area or the

Farm Service Agency.

The Committee is aware that USDA Rural Development-Alaska

staff works with the Denali Commission. The Committee expects
114

the Department to look favorably on a request for Anchorage office

space for Rural Development staff to share with the Denali Commission staff in the Commission’s office. If such a request is agreed

to, USDA is directed to reimburse the Denali Commission through

the existing cooperative interagency agreement.

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under Federal

Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.

The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of life in

rural America by assisting rural residents and communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs that

work in partnership with State and local governments and the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits through the use

of low-cost credit programs, especially guaranteed loans.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends total appropriations of

$1,505,651,000 for the Rural Housing Service. This amount is

$61,791,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee encourages the Department to continue to setaside funds within rural housing programs to support self-help

housing, home ownership partnerships, housing preservation and

State rental assistance, and other related activities that facilitate

the development of housing in rural areas.

The following table presents loan and grant program levels recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2003

levels and the 2004 budget request:

LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2003 2004 request

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:

Single family housing (sec. 502):

Direct .................................................................................. 1,037,866 1,366,462 1,359,417

Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase ................................. 2,621,781 2,500,000 2,500,000

Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance ................................. 223,537 225,172 225,172

Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 34,772 35,003 35,004

Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538) ............................... 99,350 100,000 100,000

Rental housing (sec. 515) .......................................................... 115,053 70,830 115,052

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. 5,013 5,046 5,045

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 11,988 11,500 11,500

Self-help housing land development fund ................................. 4,979 5,000 1,623
115

LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2003 2004 request

Total, RHIF .............................................................................. 4,154,339 4,319,013 4,347,768

Farm Labor Program:

Farm labor housing loan level ................................................... 37,480 42,167 37,480

Farm labor housing grants ......................................................... 17,698 17,000 17,000

Total, Farm Labor Program .................................................... 55,178 59,167 54,480

Grants and payments:

Mutual and self-help housing .................................................... 34,773 34,000 34,000

Rental assistance ....................................................................... 721,281 740,000 721,281

Rural housing assistance grants [RHAG] .................................. 42,222 41,500 46,222

Total, rural housing grants and payments ............................ 798,276 815,500 801,503

Total, RHS loans and grants ................................................. 5,007,793 5,193,680 5,203,751

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant

to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended.

This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural housing loans

for single-family homes, rental and cooperative housing, and rural

housing sites. Rural housing loans are made to construct, improve,

alter, repair, or replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals, corporations, associations,

trusts, or partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and

related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These loans are

repayable in not to exceed 30 years. Loan programs are limited to

rural areas, which include towns, villages, and other places of not

more than 10,000 population, which are not part of an urban area.

Loans may also be made in areas with a population in excess of

10,000, but less than 20,000, if the area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

An increased priority should be placed on long term rehabilitation needs within the existing multi-family housing portfolio including increased equity loan activity and financial and technical

assistance support for acquisition of existing projects.

LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and

loan guarantees committed in 2003, as well as for administrative

expenses. The following table presents the loan subsidy levels as

compared to the 2003 levels and the 2004 budget request:
116

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Loan subsidies:

Single family (sec. 502):

Direct ................................................................................ 201,035 126,671 126,018

Unsubsidized guaranteed, purchase ............................... 31,986 39,250 39,250

Unsubsidized guaranteed, refinance ............................... 402 653 653

Housing repair (sec. 504) ......................................................... 10,786 9,612 9,612

Multifamily housing guarantees (sec. 538) ............................. 4,471 5,950 5,950

Rental housing (sec. 515) ........................................................ 53,649 30,464 49,484

Site loans (sec. 524) 1 .............................................................. 55 .......................... ..........................

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................. 928 663 663

Self-help housing land development fund ............................... 220 154 50

Total, loan subsidies ............................................................ 303,532 212,764 231,680

Administrative expenses .................................................................... 429,564 482,787 439,453

1 Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $721,281,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 740,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 721,281,000

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 established a rural rental assistance program to be administered

through the rural housing loans program. The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living in Rural

Housing Service financed rental projects and farm labor housing

projects. Under this program, low-income tenants will contribute

the higher of: (1) 30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly income; or (3) designated housing payments from

a welfare agency.

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental

rate established for the unit.

The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing

Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing programs

and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to

existing projects for units occupied by rent over burdened low-income families and projects experiencing financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any remaining authority will be used

for projects receiving new construction commitments under sections

514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families with certain limitations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For rural rental assistance payments, the Committee rec- ommends an appropriation of $721,281,000. This amount is the

same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The section 521 rental assistance program is the largest single

line item request in the Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Rural Development mission area. The Committee is

concerned that as of March 31, 2002, over 19,000 units of rental

assistance were unused. Given the tremendous need for this assistance, including the large number of rent overburdened tenants, the
117

Committee requests that the Secretary make the necessary

changes to effectively minimize this unused portion of rental assistance.

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $34,772,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 34,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,000,000

This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act

of 1949. Grants are made to local organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs under which groups of

usually 6 to 10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction

supervisors who will work with families in the construction of their

homes and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the self-help assistance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for mutual and selfhelp housing grants. This amount is $772,000 less than the fiscal

year 2003 appropriation.

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $42,222,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 41,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,222,000

This program consolidates funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs.

Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.—The Very Low-Income

Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of

title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair grant

program is carried out by making grants to very low-income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to make

such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to the health

of the occupants, their families, or the community.

These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or

additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens,

repairing or providing structural supports or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A

grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair loan.

No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form

of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of $27,500,

and grant assistance is limited to persons, or families headed by

persons who are 62 years of age or older.

Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and

technical assistance grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the

Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to very low-income
118

families in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent or more

of the population resides in substandard housing. In fiscal year

1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented under

this authority. This program provides low-income individuals and

families education and counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining

occupancy of adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to

become successful homeowners.

Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502

borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay claims of owners

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued.

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date financial assistance was granted.

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation

grants (section 522) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act

of 1983 authorizes the Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very low-income people.

The purpose of the preservation program is to improve the delivery of rehabilitation assistance by employing the expertise of housing organizations at the local level. Eligible applicants will compete

on a State-by-State basis for grants funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan write-downs, or grants to finance home

repair. The program will be administered by local grantees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program the Committee recommends $46,222,000. This amount is $4,000,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee provides $5,000,000 to administer a demonstration housing program for agriculture processing workers in the

States of Alaska, Mississippi, and Wisconsin.

The Committee encourages the Secretary to administer the Demonstration Housing Grants for Agriculture Processing Workers

through non-profit community-based organizations, including cooperatives, and fund grants of up to 75 percent of total development costs for each project awarded. The Department should also

require on-site tenant services in the selection criteria. The Committee provided funding for this purpose in fiscal year 2001 and requests the Department to take into consideration difficulties encountered previously and make necessary changes in any notice of

availability of funds. The Committee also encourages the Department to issue a notice for availability of funds within 60 days of

enactment of this Act.

The Committee is concerned that only a few States benefited

from the Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grant Program in

fiscal year 2003, and encourages the Secretary to consider an allocation process that ensures that no State or Territory receives more

than 5 percent of available funds. Priority should be given to entities that have experience in homeownership education and/or reducing delinquencies and foreclosures.
119

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2003 levels and the

budget request:

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 31,295 31,500 31,295

Supervisory and technical assistance ................................................. 992 .......................... 992

Rural housing preservation grants ...................................................... 9,935 10,000 8,935

Demonstration housing grants for agricultural processing workers .. .......................... .......................... 5,000

Total ........................................................................................ 42,222 41,500 46,222

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Loan level Subsidy

level Grants

Appropriations, 2003 ....................................................................................................... 37,480 18,373 17,698

Budget estimate, 2004 .................................................................................................... 42,167 18,018 17,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................ 37,480 16,015 17,000

The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized under

section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor housing

grant program is authorized under section 516 of the Housing Act

of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and contracts are made to

public and private nonprofit organizations for low-rent housing and

related facilities for domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not

exceed 90 percent of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may

be used for construction of new structures, site acquisition and development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and purchase of

furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining halls, community

rooms, and infirmaries.

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the cost of direct farm labor housing loans and grants, the

Committee recommends $33,015,000. This amount is $3,056,000

less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

RURAL BUSINESS—COOPERATIVE SERVICE

The Rural Business—Cooperative Service [RBS] was established

by Public Law 103–354, Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October

13, 1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural

Development Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service.

The mission of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service is to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by assisting new and
120

existing cooperatives and other businesses through partnership

with rural communities. The goals and objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in rural America through financial assistance, sound business planning, technical assistance,

appropriate research, education, and information; (2) support environmentally sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the

entire community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are

available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis on

those most in need.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 39,740 40,000 40,000

Direct loan subsidy ........................................................................ 19,179 17,308 17,308

Administrative expenses ................................................................ 4,163 4,850 4,283

The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program

was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by

the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 99–

425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (this is, small investment groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses,

community development corporations, private nonprofit organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business, industry, community facilities, and employment opportunities

and diversification of the economy in rural areas.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in

2004, as well as for administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For rural development (intermediary relending) loans, the Com- mittee recommends a total loan level of $40,000,000. This amount

is $260,000 more than the 2003 loan level.

The Committee encourages the agency to consider the following

for intermediary relending loans: LED Microenterprise, LA; Forest

County Technology, PA; and the Clarion County Economic Development, PA; and Women in Technology in Hawaii and Wisconsin.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 14,869 15,002 15,002

Direct loan subsidy 1 ...................................................................... 3,176 2,792 2,792

1 Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of

1936.

The rural economic development loans program was established

by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law 100–203),
121

which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, by establishing a new section 313. This section of the Rural Electrification

Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of credits payment program and created the rural economic development subaccount. The

Administrator of RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds

in this program to provide zero interest loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, including funding for

feasibility studies, startup costs, and other reasonable expenses for

the purpose of fostering rural economic development.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct loan subsidy appropriation

for rural economic development loans of $2,792,000. This amount

is $384,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. As proposed in the budget, the $3,000,000 provided is derived by transfer

from interest on the cushion of credit payments.

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $8,941,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 11,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,967,000

Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act,

as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and operation centers for rural cooperative development with their primary

purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in rural

areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or institutions

of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75 percent

of the cost of the project and associated administrative costs. The

applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from non-Federal

sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on specific selection criteria.

Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.

2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,

primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, organizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives.

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to

any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, and

other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in

rural areas.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. The

program provides information and technical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices that are

environmentally friendly and lower production costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $8,967,000 for rural cooperative development grants. This amount is $26,000 more than the fiscal

year 2003 appropriation.
122

Of the funds provided, $2,500,000 is provided for the Appropriate

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate Technology.

The Committee has included language in the bill that not more

than $1,500,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance

to small, minority producers.

The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to

consider a grant application from the Rural Information Technology Cooperative, IA.

RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $14,870,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,370,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $14,370,000 for Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants. This amount is

$500,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of the funds

provided, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third round enterprise communities.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... $3,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,000,000

Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements

is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8106. This program may provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and

small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy systems and for energy efficiency improvements.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for the renewable energy program. In fiscal year 2003, $23,000,000 from the Commodity

Credit Corporation was provided to fund this program.

The Committee encourages the Department to give consideration

to applications for loans and grants for the renewable energy program for the following: Montana Bio-Refinery Project, MT; Biodiesel Feedstock Feasibility Study, MT; Agri-Waste to Ethanol Program, MN; Ethanol Feedlot Project in Mead, NE; and Ecofuels

Project in Wisconsin and Iowa.

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), October 13, 1994.

RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of the former

Rural Electrification Administration and the water and waste programs of the former Rural Development Administration.
123

The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in improving

the quality of life in rural America by administering its electric,

telecommunications, and water and waste programs in a service

oriented, forward looking, and financially responsible manner. All

three programs have the common goal of modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides funding and support service

for utilities serving rural areas. The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local utilities assist rural communities in

modernizing local infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. An appropriation to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and

loan guarantees committed in 2004, as well as for administrative

expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for

the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared

to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent ................................................................ 120,316 240,000 240,000

Direct, Muni ....................................................................... 99,350 100,000 1,000,000

Direct, FFB ......................................................................... 2,500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... 1,150,000 700,000 750,000

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 99,350 100,000 100,000

Guaranteed, Underwriting .................................................. 1,000,000 .......................... 1,000,000

Subtotal ......................................................................... 4,969,096 2,640,000 5,090,000

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent ................................................................ 74,542 145,042 145,000

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... 298,050 250,000 250,000

Direct, FFB ......................................................................... 120,000 100,000 120,000

Subtotal ......................................................................... 492,592 495,000 515,000

Total, loan authorizations ............................................. 5,461,608 3,135,042 5,605,000

Loan Subsidies:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent 1 .............................................................. 6,870 .......................... ..........................

Direct, Muni 1 ..................................................................... 4,004 .......................... ..........................

Direct, FFB 2 ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
124

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Direct, Treasury rate 2 ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 79 60 60

Guaranteed, Underwriting 2 ................................................ .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 10,953 60 60

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent 1 .............................................................. 1,275 .......................... ..........................

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... 149 125 125

Direct, FFB 2 ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 1,424 125 125

Total, loan subsidies ..................................................... 12,377 185 185

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 37,587 41,562 37,920

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans

Programs Account .............................................................. 49,964 41,747 38,105

(Loan authorization) ...................................................... 5,461,608 3,135,042 5,605,000

1 Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.

2 Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 are calculated for these programs.

RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Loan level Direct loan

subsidy

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ........................................................................................... 173,503 2,394 3,062

Budget estimate, 2004 1 ...................................................................................... ...................... .................... 3,462

Committee recommendation 1 .............................................................................. 173,503 .................... 3,182

1 Negative subsidy rate for fiscal year 2004 is calculated for this program.

The Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] is required by law to begin privatization (repurchase of federally owned stock) in fiscal year 1996.

RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market rates and no

longer require Federal assistance.

The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of

directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the

Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and operation.

This will take place when 51 percent of the class A stock issued

to the United States and outstanding at any time after September

30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired. Activities of the

Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in

2004, as well as for administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a loan level of $173,503,000. This

amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.
125

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2003 level 2004 request

Loan and Grant Levels:

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:

Direct loans ........................................................................ 300,000 50,000 300,000

Grants ................................................................................ 46,636 25,000 40,000

Broadband Program:

Direct loans ........................................................................ .......................... 40,000 40,000

Treasury rate loans ............................................................ .......................... 255,963 255,963

Guaranteed loans ............................................................... .......................... 40,000 40,000

Grants ................................................................................ 9,935 2,000 10,000

Total, DLTB grants and loan authorizations ................. 356,571 412,963 685,963

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANTS

[Budget authority In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year—

2003 level 2004 request Committee recommendation

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:

Direct loan subsidies 1 ................................................................ .......................... .......................... ..........................

Grants ......................................................................................... 46,636 25,000 40,000

Broadband Program:

Direct loan subsidies .................................................................. .......................... 1,976 1,976

Treasury subsidies ...................................................................... .......................... 5,580 5,580

Guaranteed subsidies ................................................................. .......................... 1,560 1,560

Grants ......................................................................................... 9,935 2,000 10,000

Total, grants and loan subsidies ........................................... 56,571 36,116 59,116

1 Negative subsidy rates for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 are calculated for this program.

The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program is

authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act

of 1990 (104 Stat. 4017, 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by

the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This

program provides incentives to improve the quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced telecommunications services and

computer networks, and to improve rural opportunities.

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other

facilities providing rural residents access to better health care

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, the Committee recommends $59,116,000. This amount is

$2,545,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of this

amount, the Committee has provided $15,000,000 for public broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational tele-
126

vision broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert from

analog to digital operations. In addition, of the funds provided, $10,000,000 in grants shall be

made available to support broadband transmission and local dialup Internet services for rural areas. The Department should continue to provide financial support in addition to the Distance

Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband grant and loan accounts.

The Committee is aware of and encourages the Department to

give consideration to the following applications for grants and

loans: Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network; Caswell Foundation, NC; Rural Information Technology Cooperative, IA; Louisiana Online; Pioneer Public T.V., MN; Maui Community College

Skybridge Interactive Network, HI; Jamerson Rural Nevada Small

Business Project; Nurses for Tomorrow, WA; SWIFT Cyber Group,

WA; REAPNET Program in Bowling Green, KY; Montana Agriculture Knowledge Network; Kentucky Partnership for Farm Family Health and Safety in Bowling Green, KY; and National Rural

Telework Institute of Appalachia, OH.
(127)

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $595,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 786,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 611,000

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s

food and consumer activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Services, the Committee recommends an appropriation

of $611,000. This amount is $16,000 more than the fiscal year 2003

appropriation.

The Committee is aware of the innovative work in Iowa and Wisconsin to make milk available through school vending machines.

Due to their success in improving child health and nutrition, the

Committee supports expanding these pilot programs with available

funding.

The Committee has provided increases throughout FNS to promote healthy eating and to combat obesity. According to USDA statistics, since 1980, the percentage of children who are overweight

has nearly doubled, and the percentage of adolescents who are

overweight has nearly tripled. Almost 9 million young Americans,

or about 15 percent of all children, are overweight. This number

continues to increase, putting these children and adults at a higher

risk for health problems including diabetes, coronary heart disease,

stroke, and other ailments. The Committee believes it is imperative

that USDA maintain and increase obesity prevention and nutrition

education activities, and work with other government and private

entities to provide the public with appropriate, up-to-date information on healthy eating and exercise habits.

The Committee is aware of the efforts of several non-profit

groups throughout the country, such as Farm Share in Florida,

whose mission is to recover and distribute surplus fresh and nutritious fruits and vegetables. These organizations recover fresh

produce in bulk or by gleaning fields with the help of volunteers.

The produce is washed, sorted, packed, and distributed locally,

statewide and throughout the United States to a network of participating social service agencies serving the homeless and low-income

households. The Committee believes the activities carried out by

these organizations are extremely worthwhile, and strongly encourages USDA to support their efforts in any way possible.
128

The Committee is aware of the efforts of Share Our Strength and

its Operation Frontline program to improve the eating habits, food

budgeting skills, and overall self-confidence and sufficiency of program participants. The Committee encourages the Under Secretary

to work with Operation Frontline, as well as other innovative organizations, to identify funding which may be available to expand

their efforts.

The Committee notes the growing problem of childhood obesity

and recent reports that many school children receive a substantial

percentage of their calories from sweetened drinks, candy, and high

fat snacks. Likewise, many non-subsidized school lunches are high

in fat content and low in certain nutrients linked to school performance such as Omega 3 fatty acids. The Committee directs the Food

and Nutrition Service to work aggressively to develop food products

for the school lunch program that are appealing to children, high

in nutrition, and will foster lifelong healthy eating patterns. The

Committee also notes that learning disabilities and behavioral disorders have been linked to low serum levels of Omega 3 fatty acids.

Therefore, particular attention should be paid to developing food

choices that are high in Omega 3 fatty acids. FNS should develop

incentives to encourage schools to serve healthy food choices and

should impose disincentives to schools which continue to offer high

fat and sugar content foods to children either through the school

lunch program or other sources.

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is

scheduled to consider the reauthorization of Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] during the 108th Congress.

The following programs are included in the reauthorization: National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Special

Milk Program, Summer Food Service Program, and the Child and

Adult Care Food Program.

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate

diet for families and persons with low incomes and encourage better eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs

include:

Child Nutrition Programs.—The National School Lunch and

School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care

Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and

breakfasts to children attending schools of high school grades and

under, to children of preschool age in child care centers, and to

children in other institutions in order to improve the health and

well-being of the Nation’s children, and broaden the markets for

agricultural food commodities. Through the Special Milk Program,

assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute

or expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of fluid

milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
129

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and children

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The delivery of

supplemental foods may be done through health clinics, vouchers

redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved methods which

a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.

Food Stamp Program.—This program seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable them to obtain a better diet

by increasing their food purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access to funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico. The Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–171)

authorizes block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and

American Samoa, which provide broad flexibility in establishing

nutrition assistance programs specifically tailored to the needs of

their low-income households.

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations

who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp Program.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107–171, enacted May 13, 2002, provides that $140,000,000

from funds appropriated in the Food Stamp account be used to purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program.

Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides

funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP],

and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance

Program [TEFAP].

CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up to

age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women

with low incomes, and who reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.

TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies

to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities. The Soup Kitchen/Food Bank Program was absorbed into

TEFAP under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–193), by an amendment

to section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act.

Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents of

the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash

assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them in

meeting administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding

for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds

for this program are provided by direct appropriation.

Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal

operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded

from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition Policy

and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and revi-
130

sions to the food and guidance systems, and serves as the focal

point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health of all Americans.

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation Section 32

transfers Total

Appropriations, 2003 ....................................................................................... 5,834,480 4,745,663 10,580,143

Budget estimate, 2004 .................................................................................... 6,718,780 4,699,661 11,418,441

Committee recommendation ............................................................................ 6,718,780 4,699,661 11,418,441

The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B.

Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of

1966, provide Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of

cash and commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious

meals to children while they are attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in other organized activities away

from home. The purpose of these programs is to help maintain the

health and proper physical development of America’s children. Milk

is provided to children either free or at a low cost, depending on

their family income level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States for

administering the programs and directly administers the program

in the States which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for

nutritional training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under current law, most of these payments are made on

the basis of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to

lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the

Consumer Price Index for food away from home.

The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1998, Public Law 105–336, contains a number of child nutrition

provisions. These include:

Summer Food Service Program [SFSP].—Reauthorizes the program through 2004 and relaxes the site limitations for private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.

Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].—Permanently authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 18

in after-school programs, and provides funds for demonstration

projects to expand services to homeless children and family day

care homes in low-income areas. On July 1, 1999, the Homeless

Child Nutrition Program and the Homeless Summer Food Service

Program was transferred into the CACFP.

National School Lunch Program [NSLP].—(1) Significantly expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in afterschool care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in needy areas;

and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.

A description of Child Nutrition Programs follows:

1. Cash Payments to States.—The programs are operated under

an agreement entered into by the State agencies and the Department. Funds are made available under letters of credit to State

agencies for use in reimbursing participating schools and other institutions. Sponsors apply to the State agencies, and if approved,
131

are reimbursed on a per-meal basis in accordance with the terms

of their agreements and rates prescribed by law. The reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.

(a) School Lunch Program.—Assistance is provided to the

States for the service of lunches to all school children, regardless of family income. States must match some of the Federal

cash grant. In fiscal year 2004, the School Lunch Program will

provide assistance for serving an estimated 4.9 billion school

lunches including 2.0 billion for children from upper-income

families and 2.9 billion for children from lower and low-income

families. An estimated 29.1 million children are expected to

participate in the program daily during the school year.

(b) Special Assistance for Free and Reduced-Price Lunches.— Additional assistance is provided to the States for serving

lunches free or at a reduced price to needy children. In fiscal

year 2004, under current law, the program will provide assistance for about 2.9 billion lunches, of which 2.4 billion will be

served free of charge and 0.5 billion at reduced price. Over 17

million needy children will participate in the program on an

average schoolday during the year.

(c) School Breakfast Program.—Federal reimbursement to

the States is based on the number of breakfasts served free, at

a reduced price, or at the general rate for those served to

nonneedy children. Certain schools are designated in severe

need because, in the second preceding year, they served at

least 40 percent of their lunches at free or reduced prices and

because the regular breakfast reimbursement is insufficient to

cover cost. These schools receive higher rates of reimbursement

in both the free and reduced-price categories. In fiscal year

2004, the program will serve an estimated 1.5 billion breakfasts to a daily average of 9.1 million children.

(d) State Administrative Expenses.—The funds may be used

for State employee salaries, benefits, support services, and office equipment. Public Law 95–627 made the State administrative expenses grant equal to 1.5 percent of certain Federal payments in the second previous year. In fiscal year 2004,

$140,240,000 will be allocated among the States to fund ongoing State administrative expenses and to improve the management of various nutrition programs.

(e) Summer Food Service Program.—Meals served free to

children in low-income neighborhoods during the summer

months are supported on a performance basis by Federal cash

subsidies to State agencies. Funds are also provided for related

State and local administrative expenses. During the summer of

2004, approximately 138.5 million meals will be served.

(f) Child and Adult Care Food Program.—Preschool children

receive year-round food assistance in nonprofit child care centers and family and group day care homes under this program.

Public Law 97–35 permits profitmaking child care centers receiving compensation under title XX of the Social Security Act

to participate in the program if 25 percent of the children

served are title XX participants. Certain adult day care centers

are also eligible for participation in this program, providing
132

subsidized meals to nonimpaired individuals age 60 years or

older. The Child and Adult Care Food Program reimburses

State agencies at varying rates for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and meal supplements and for program-related State

audit expenses. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 1.9 billion

meals will be served.

2. Commodity Procurement.—Commodities are purchased for distribution to the school lunch, child care food, and summer food

service programs. The minimum commodity support rate for all

school lunch and child care center lunches and suppers served is

mandated by law and adjusted annually on July 1 to reflect

changes in the producer price index for food used in schools and institutions. The commodities purchased with these funds are supplemented by commodities purchased with section 32 funds.

3. Nutrition Studies and Education.—The National Food Service

Management Institute provides instruction for educators and

school food service personnel in nutrition and food service management.

4. Special Milk.—In fiscal year 2004, approximately 112.4 million

half-pints will be served in the Special Milk Program. These include about 106.4 million half-pints served to children whose family income is above 130 percent of poverty. During fiscal year 2004,

the average full cost reimbursement for milk served to needy children is expected to be 17.7 cents for each half-pint. Milk served to

nonneedy children is expected to be reimbursed at 13.8 cents for

each half-pint.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the child nutrition programs, the Committee recommends an

appropriation of $6,718,780,000, plus transfers from section 32 of

$4,699,661,000, for a total program of $11,418,441,000. This

amount is $838,298,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY

[In thousands of dollars]

Child nutrition programs 2003 estimate 2004 budget Committee recommendation

School Lunch Program ......................................................................... 6,074,648 6,683,704 6,683,704

School Breakfast Program ................................................................... 1,660,870 1,797,923 1,797,923

State administrative expenses ............................................................ 133,583 140,240 140,240

Summer Food Service Program ............................................................ 334,686 308,653 308,653

Child and Adult Care Food Program ................................................... 1,904,494 2,019,045 2,019,045

Special Milk Program ........................................................................... 16,449 15,270 15,270

Commodity procurement, processing, and computer support ............ 435,334 431,309 431,309

Coordinated review system .................................................................. 5,080 5,235 5,235

Team nutrition ..................................................................................... 10,025 10,025 10,025

Food safety education .......................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000

School Breakfast Grant Startup Program ............................................ 3,278 .......................... ..........................

Common Roots Program ...................................................................... 199 .......................... ..........................

Child Nutrition Archive Resource Center ............................................. 497 .......................... ..........................

Child nutrition program pay costs ...................................................... .......................... 37 37

Child nutrition program integrity funds .............................................. .......................... 6,000 6,000
133

The Committee provides $10,025,000 for TEAM nutrition. Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training grants

to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance materials; $800,000

for National Food Service Management Institute cooperative agreements; $400,000 for print and electronic food service resource systems; and $3,225,000 for other activities.

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education program.

The Committee also encourages States to conduct outreach to recruit new providers into the CACFP program through the 25 percent free or reduced price meal eligibility criteria option. The Committee recognizes the value that pooling has played in increasing

participation in the CACFP program.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS,

AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $4,696,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,769,232,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,639,232,000

The special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants,

and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant,

breast-feeding and post partum women and infants, and children

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 7.8 million participants at an average

food cost of $36.39 per person per month in fiscal year 2004.

The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods

which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the

WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental

foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice

which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter.

There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods:

(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods

through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet.

The food is free of charge to all participants.

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] has historically been funded from the WIC appropriation. FMNP is designed to accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of

WIC (or WIC-eligible) participants by providing them with coupons

to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and

vegetables, from farmers markets; and (2) to increase the awareness and use of farmers’ markets by low-income households. Although directly related to the WIC Program, about one-half of the

current FMNP operations are administered by State departments

of agriculture rather than the State WIC agencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,

and Children [WIC], the Committee recommends an appropriation
134

of $4,639,232,000. This amount is $56,768,000 less than the fiscal

year 2003 appropriation.

Although less than the President’s request, this funding level is

adequate to support the approximately 7.78 million women, infants, and children estimated in the President’s budget. Updated

estimates since the budget was submitted in February have revealed lower than projected participation rates in fiscal year 2003

and food costs that have decreased by approximately $0.50 per person per month. However, there have also been increases due to recent infant formula contracts with decreased rebates. All of these

factors were taken into consideration when calculating the appropriation for the WIC program. The Committee provides $5,000,000 for a childhood obesity pilot project, $10,000,000 for breastfeeding support initiatives, and

$30,000,000 for a management information system initiative. This

funding also maintains a WIC funding reserve of $125,000,000, the

same level as fiscal year 2003, to become available if the Secretary

deems necessary.

The Committee is aware that the WIC Farmers’ Market Program

provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low income mothers and

children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as

well. Therefore, the Committee provides $25,000,000 for the WIC

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, and directs the Secretary to

obligate these funds within 45 days. The Committee also provides $14,000,000 for infrastructure funding, as well as funding requested by the President for a study on

the effectiveness of the WIC program.

While the Committee continues to support and encourage State

and local agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of

participation referral to other health care services, it also continues

to recognize the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as

a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing demand

for core WIC program activities. The Committee wishes to clarify

that while WIC plays an important role in screening and referral

to other health care services, it was never the Committee’s intention that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and assessment functions in such a manner that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor was it the Committee’s intention

that WIC State and local agencies should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate cost sharing agreements.

The Committee again includes language in the bill to preserve WIC

funding for WIC services authorized by law to ensure that WIC

funds are not used to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations

or activities other than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of

the Child Nutrition Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the appropriate Federal agency.

To ensure equitable and fair access for all WIC agencies to the

WIC State Management Information Systems, Breastfeeding Peer

Counseling, and Childhood Obesity Prevention Project funds, the

Committee directs USDA to partner with WIC public health nutritionists and agency directors to consider the methodologies for the

distribution of those funds.

The Committee is concerned that the Department has published

interim infant formula cost containment regulations with no public
135

comment. The Committee strongly encourages USDA to work with

WIC State agency directors and other interested parties to review

the interim regulations and propose regulatory changes to ensure

maximum participant benefits.

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars]

Expenses Amount in reserve Puerto Rico

TEFAP commodity purchases

Total

Appropriations, 2003 ................................. 22,772,692 2,000,000 1,401,000 140,000 26,313,692

Budget estimate, 2004 .............................. 24,203,176 2,000,000 1,402,805 140,000 27,745,981

Committee recommendation ...................... 24,203,176 2,000,000 1,402,805 140,000 27,745,981

The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of

1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible

households receive food stamp benefits with which they can purchase food through regular retail stores. They are thus enabled to

obtain a more nutritious diet than would be possible without food

stamp assistance. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

2002, Public Law 107–171, enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes the

Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007.

The Food Stamp Program is currently in operation in all 50

States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

Participating households receive food benefits, the value of which

is determined by household size and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by law, the

Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household stamp allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan.

At the authorized retail store, the recipient presents his/her card

and enters a unique personal identification number into a terminal

that debits the household’s account for the amount of purchases.

Federal funds are shifted from the Federal Reserve to the EBT

processor’s financial institution so that it may reimburse the grocer’s account for the amount of purchases. The grocer’s account at

a designated bank is credited for the amount of purchases. The associated benefit cost is accounted for in the same manner as those

benefit costs that result from issuance of coupons.

As of May 2003, 46 Electronic Benefits Transfer [EBT] projects

were operating statewide in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. EBT is also operating in parts of California,

Delaware, Guam, Iowa, Maine, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia.

Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.—The Farm Security and

Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107–171, authorized

block grants for Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and American
136

Samoa which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility to establish

a nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to the

needs of its low-income households. However, the Commonwealth

must submit its annual plan of operation to the Secretary for approval. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107–171, enacted May 13, 2002, reauthorizes appropriations through fiscal year 2007. In addition to the provision of direct

benefits to the needy, a portion of the grant may be used to fund

up to 50 percent of the cost of administering the program. The

grant may also be used to fund projects to improve agriculture and

food distribution in Puerto Rico.

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations

who choose not to participate in the Food Stamp Program.

Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative

costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared

by the Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis. The

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, (Public Law 107–

171), substantially revised the performance requirements for States

under the Quality Control [QC] System. States with poor performance over 2 years face sanctions. States that demonstrate a high

degree of accuracy or substantial improvement in their degree of

accuracy under the QC system are eligible to share in a

$48,000,000 ‘‘bonus fund’’ established by Congress to reward States

for good performance.

State Administration also Includes State Antifraud Activities.—

Under the provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended

by the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993, States

are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their

food stamp fraud investigations and prosecutions.

States are required to implement an employment and training

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in the Food Stamp Program in gaining skills, training,

or experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a grant

program to States to assist them in providing employment and

training services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee recommends

$27,745,981,000. This amount is $1,432,289,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of the amount provided,

$2,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. This is

the same as the 2003 contingency reserve level and the budget request.

Included in this amount is up to $4,000,000 to purchase bison for

the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations from Native

American producers and Cooperative Organizations without competition.

The Committee is aware that there continues to be a pressing

need for infrastructure development in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations [FDPIR]. Warehousing facilities on
137

some reservations do not allow for the proper and efficient storage

and distribution of commodities, and Indian Tribal Organization

must be able to replace and upgrade equipment such as tractor

trailers and fork lifts. Facilities have not always been able to keep

pace with improvements in the food package, including the addition

of fresh produce and more frozen foods as program options, which

generates the need for cooler and freezer equipment.

Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

must submit for the Secretary’s approval a yearly plan that contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits under

the Nutrition Assistance Program [NAP] for Puerto Rico are provided during the following fiscal year. While the Committee notes

the program flexibility normally afforded to Puerto Rico, the Committee encourages the Secretary not to approve any NAP plan that

does not require at least 75 percent of NAP funds to be spent on

food at certain stores with point-of-sales devices.

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $163,431,000

Budget estimate, 2004 1 ......................................................................... 166,072,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 145,740,000

1 Includes $1,074,000 previously funded through the Food Donations Program.

The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the

Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses associated with the storage and distribution of commodities

through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].—Authorized by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection

Act of 1973, as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97–98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and children up to age

6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women who

have low incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity distribution projects directed

at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.

In fiscal year 2004 approximately 68,000 women, infants, and

young children and 342,000 elderly are authorized to receive food

packages each month. The foods are provided by the Department

of Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The authorized commodities are iron-fortified infant formula, rice cereal,

canned juice, evaporated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut butter or dry beans. Elderly participants

may receive all commodities except iron-fortified infant formula

and rice cereal.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002

Farm Bill), reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2007 and

establishes a specific administrative funding level for each caseload

slot assigned, adjusted each year for inflation.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].—Authorized

by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, the

program provides nutrition assistance to low-income people

through prepared meals served on site and through the distribution

of commodities to low-income households for home consumption.

The commodities are provided by USDA to State agencies for dis-
138

tribution through State-established networks. State agencies make

the commodities available to local organizations, such as soup

kitchens, food pantries, food banks, and community action agencies,

for their use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the

funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’

unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below

the poverty level.

In fiscal year 2002, $307,100,000 worth of commodities were distributed to assist needy individuals. Donations will continue in fiscal year 2003. Precise levels depend upon the availability of surplus commodities and requirements regarding displacement. In fiscal year 2003, $60,000,000 will be used to help State and local authorities with the storage and distribution costs of providing surplus commodities to needy individuals. Although the $60,000,000

was allocated to each State in the form of administrative funds,

each State is authorized to redirect funding for the purchase of additional commodities.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 reauthorizes funding to support the storage and distribution of commodities

through fiscal year 2007, and increases the amount authorized to

be appropriated from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000. The law permits

State and local agencies to use these funds to pay costs associated

with the storage and distribution of USDA commodities and commodities secured from other sources. At the request of the State,

these funds can be used by USDA to purchase additional commodities. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 also reauthorizes funding for the purchase of TEFAP commodities and increases the amount of funds available from $100,000,000 to

$140,000,000. In addition to the commodities purchased specifically

for TEFAP, commodities obtained under agriculture support programs are donated to States for distribution through TEFAP.

Pacific Island Assistance.—This program provides funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of commodities

and administrative funds. It also provides funding for use in nonPresidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs

in connection with relief for all disasters.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Commodity Assistance Program, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $145,740,000. This amount is

$17,691,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee does not agree with the President’s proposal to

fund the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program under the Commodity Assistant Program account. The Committee provides

$25,000,000 in funding for this purpose under the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] account.

The Committee continues to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among the

States, based on an assessment of the needs and priorities of each

State and the State’s preference to receive commodity allocations

through each of the programs funded under this account.
139

The Committee is aware that since 1997, commodities provided

through TEFAP have increased by approximately 400 percent, with

most of the increase coming through surplus or bonus commodities

purchased by USDA. The Committee is further aware that during

difficult economic times, the number of Americans in need of assistance through State and local food banks increases. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides $140,000,000 for

TEFAP commodities to be purchased with food stamp funds. The

Committee provides $50,000,000 for TEFAP administrative funding. In addition, the Committee provides the Secretary authority to

transfer up to an additional $10,000,000 from TEFAP commodities

for this purpose.

The Committee is aware that a significant quantity of food products are made available by hunters and other game harvesting operations which are approved through USDA or State inspected facilities, and present an additional source of donated commodities.

The Department should give consideration to this opportunity as a

means to supplement and provide variety to food assistance programs, and allow the use of TEFAP administrative funds for this

purpose. The Committee provides $94,991,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This amount is $18,765,000 less than the

fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Of this amount, no less than

$22,841,000 shall be available for administrative funding.

The Committee recognizes the success of the Seniors Farmers’

Market Nutrition Program, which is expected to provide fresh

fruits and vegetables to more than 419,000 low-income senior citizens and benefit more than 8,500 farmers in fiscal year 2003. The

Committee notes that $15,000,000 in funding is available for the

program in fiscal year 2004 through the Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002.

FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,074,000

Budget estimate, 2004 1 ......................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

1The fiscal year 2004 budget recommends transferring funds from this account to the Commodity Assistance Program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Funding for Pacific Island Assistance is provided under the Commodity Assistance Program account, as requested in the President’s

budget.

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $135,672,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 144,849,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 138,304,000

The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation provides

for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; Special

Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], including the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program; Food Stamp Program; Nutrition Assistance
140

for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Emergency Food

Assistance Program; and the Food Donations Programs, including

Pacific Island Assistance.

The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is to

efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to

State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and

other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and

other advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing

the progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and

(4) carrying out regular staff support functions.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $138,304,000. This amount is

$2,632,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This

amount does not include $32,000 for FECA administrative charges,

as requested in the budget.

The Committee is aware of concerns regarding which USDA

Agency is best suited to oversee and carry out research related to

food assistance programs within the Department. The Economic

Research Service has particular capacities related to economics

analysis and modeling. The food and Nutrition Service has longstanding expertise in programmatic operations of food assistance

programs. Given their respective capacities and areas of expertise,

research dollars at the Department of Agriculture are provided to

both ERS and FNS. The Committee provides $3,195,000, the same

as the fiscal year 2003 level, for studies and evaluations in the Nutrition Programs Administration account.
(141)

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations Transfers from

loan accounts Total

Appropriations, 2003 ......................................................................................... 129,103 4,229 133,332

Budget estimate, 2004 ...................................................................................... 140,798 4,393 145,191

Committee recommendation .............................................................................. 131,648 4,365 136,013

The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established March

10, 1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1.

Public Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricultural attache ́s from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The Agency maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and

reporting service to provide U.S. farmers and traders with information on world agricultural production and trade that they can use

to adjust to changes in world demand for U.S. agricultural products. This is accomplished through a continuous program of reporting by 63 posts located throughout the world covering some 130

countries.

The Foreign Agricultural Service analyzes agricultural information essential to the assessment of foreign supply and demand conditions in order to provide estimates of the current situation and

to forecast the export potential for specific U.S. agricultural commodities. Published economic data about commodities are combined

with attache ́ reports and subjected to analysis through advanced

econometric techniques to generate these estimates.

In addition, the Service is now using advanced techniques for

identifying, delineating, and assessing the impact of events which

may affect the condition and expected production of foreign crops

of economic importance to the United States. The crop condition activity relies heavily on computer-aided analysis of satellite, meteorological, agricultural, and related data.

The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm products, improve world

trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade

in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 80 offices around

the world where they provide expertise in agricultural economics

and marketing, as well as provide attache ́ services.

The Foreign Agricultural Service works in conjunction with market development cooperators, trade associations, State departments

of agriculture and their affiliates, and U.S. sales teams to develop

foreign markets for U.S. farm products. FAS sponsors overseas

trade exhibits to promote U.S. agricultural products, provides infor-
142

mation about foreign importers, and performs a wide range of market development activities.

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S.

agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement Program uses CCCowned commodities as export bonuses to provide export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in

conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private

firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments.

These programs are supplemented by the Cooperator Program, a

joint FAS-nonprofit private trade and producer association partnership program developing strategies for U.S. agriculture export expansion. In addition, GSM credit guarantee programs play an integral role in the recent progress of American agriculture in the

world marketplace.

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 includes authority to establish up to 25 agricultural trade offices. Currently, 17 such offices

are in operation at key foreign trading centers to assist U.S. exporters, trade groups, and State export marketing officials in trade

promotion.

The Service initiates, directs, and coordinates the Department’s

formulation of trade policies and programs with the goal of maintaining and expanding world markets for U.S. agricultural products. It monitors international compliance with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It identifies restrictive tariff and trade

practices which act as barriers to the import of U.S. agricultural

commodities, then supports negotiations to remove them. It acts to

counter and eliminate unfair trade practices by other countries

that hinder U.S. agricultural exports to third markets.

FAS also carries out the mission of the former Office of International Cooperation and Development [OICD] to promote U.S. agriculture and to advance the agriculture of developing countries as

parts of a complementary global agricultural system capable of providing ample food and fiber for all people. To accomplish this mission, FAS applies USDA policies and U.S. agricultural perspectives

in its programs of international agricultural cooperation and development, and in its work with foreign countries, international organizations, U.S. universities and other institutions, agencies of the

U.S. Government, and the U.S. private sector.

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section

5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including supplier

credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, (2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–103), (3) Public Law

480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) programs

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to encourage and

enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities.
143

A provision in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,

2003, Division A of Public Law 108–7, made permanent a prohibition on the use of agency funds to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $131,648,000. This amount is $2,545,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This amount does not include $16,000 for FECA administrative charges, as requested in the

budget.

The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 2003

level.

The Committee provides the fiscal year 2004 budget request level of $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee

encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional support

for the program through the Commodity Credit Corporation Emerging Markets Program.

The Committee continues to include language in a general provision in the bill, as requested in the budget, to allow up to

$2,000,000 of the amount appropriated to the FAS to remain available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations

in international currency exchange rates, subject to documentation.

The Committee expects the Secretary to use the fully-authorized

levels of the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP], consistent

with GATT Uruguay commitments, in order to ensure U.S. producers have fair access to foreign markets.

The Committee encourages the Foreign Agricultural Service to

assist the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation in marketing Alaska salmon and

other seafood to overseas markets.

To promote the export of domestic farm products and improve

world agriculture trade conditions, the Foreign Agricultural Service

must increase its efforts to improve the understanding among trading partners of the safety of biotechnology and the thoroughness of

the U.S. regulatory oversight of biotechnology. As trading partners

construct regulatory systems for biotechnology and commodity

trade, FAS is frequently requested to provide experts for the purpose of educating foreign government officials on the U.S. regulatory system. If the United States fails to participate in such discussions, those attempting to limit the access to foreign markets by

U.S. producers will be presented an opportunity to undermine confidence in the benefits and safety of the technology while reducing

trade opportunities for American producers. The Committee directs

FAS to allocate adequate funding to meet the needs of our trading

partners so that officials from the Department of Agriculture may,

when requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety of the

technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory process.

In addition, the Committee continues to urge the Secretary to

work with representatives of the dairy industry and appropriate

non-governmental organizations to increase the amount of fortified

dry milk exported under humanitarian assistance programs.
144

The Committee is aware of the continuing buildup of surplus

non-fat dry milk acquired by the CCC through the dairy price support program. The Committee is concerned with increasing storage

costs associated with this buildup and encourages the agency to

utilize all existing food donation programs to reduce this growing

surplus.

The Committee encourages FAS to support the Central Asia/

Krasnodar, Turkey and China Initiative project for the development of biotechnological and conservation activities and to develop

services modeled on the Cooperative Extension Service. The Committee also recommends FAS support for the ‘‘Good Neighbor Partnership—Azores’’ initiative by the Azores Collaborative Research

and Education Group [ACREG].

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars]

Credit level Loan subsidy Administrative expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ......................................................................... 153,663 115,416 2,045

Budget estimate, 2004 ...................................................................... 131,670 103,887 4,041

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 131,670 103,887 2,134

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the

lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans obligated in 2004

and beyond, as well as for administrative expenses.

Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit terms) for use under

section 104; and for furnishing commodities to carry out the Food

for Progress Act of 1985, as amended (title I).—Title I of the act authorizes financing of sales to developing countries for local currencies and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local

currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars

on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 5

years.

Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used in

carrying out activities under section 104 of the Agricultural Trade

Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended. Activities in

the recipient country for which these local currencies may be used

include developing new markets for U.S. agricultural commodities,

paying U.S. obligations, and supporting agricultural development

and research.

Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food for

Progress Act of 1985 to furnish commodities on credit terms or on

a grant basis to assist developing countries and countries that are

emerging democracies that have a commitment to introduce and

expand free enterprise elements in their agricultural economies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Public Law 480, title I, the Committee recommends total appropriations of $106,021,000. This amount is $11,440,000 less than

the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This appropriation will support
145

a Public Law 480, title I, credit level of $131,670,000 for fiscal year

2004, $21,993,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 level. The corresponding loan levels, loan subsidy amounts, and administrative

expenses are reflected in the table above, as compared to the fiscal

year 2003 and budget request levels.

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I OCEAN FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $24,995,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 28,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,000,000

Ocean freight differential costs in connection with commodity

sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars (title I).—The

Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight differential costs

on shipments under this title. These costs are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Public Law 480 ocean freight differential costs, the Committee recommends $28,000,000. This amount is $3,005,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... $1,440,575,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,185,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,192,000,000

1 Excludes emergency wartime supplemental appropriations of $369,000,000 provided by Public Law 108–11.

The Committee recognizes the important mission of the Public

Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote

broad-based equitable and sustainable development; expand international trade; develop and expand export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage the development of

private enterprise and democratic participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly supports the continued efficient operation of this important program.

Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad

(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are

also supplied for nonemergencies through public and private agencies, including intergovernmental organizations. The Commodity

Credit Corporation pays ocean freight on shipments under this

title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency

situations. The funds appropriated for title II are made available

to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these

organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.

Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad

(Title III).—Commodities are supplied without cost to least developed countries through foreign governments for direct feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity Credit Corporation
146

may pay ocean freight on shipments under this title, and may also

pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well

as internal distribution costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For Title II, the Committee recommends a program level of

$1,192,000,000. This amount is $248,575,000 less than the fiscal

year 2003 appropriation.

The Committee expects the administration to allocate no less

than 1,875,000 metric tons of the commodities provided under Title

II to non-emergency programs. Unanticipated emergency needs,

such as the famine in southern Africa, should be met primarily

through the section 416b program, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian

Trust, or emergency appropriations.

The Committee directs the administration not to place arbitrary

limits on monetization under the Public Law 480 title II program.

In food-deficit, import-reliant countries, monetization stimulates

the economy and allows needed commodities to be provided in the

marketplace. Food aid proposals should be approved based on the

merits of the program plan to promote food security and improve

people’s lives, not on the level of monetization.

The Committee supports the use of title II funds in fiscal year

2004 to continue the fiscal year 2003 level of funding for the orphan feeding program in Haiti.

The Committee notes the extraordinary effort made by the people

of Alaska through Rotary International, the Interfaith Council, the

Municipality of Anchorage, and other groups to collect and distribute food and other assistance to people living in the Russian

Far East. The Committee urges the Administration to work with

these entities to take advantage of their volunteer efforts in feeding

people in the Russian Far East, particularly abandoned children

living in orphanages and hospitals.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increased

the level of Public Law 480 Title II non-emergency assistance to

1,875,000 metric tons. Congress provided this level to help address

the underlying causes of hunger in the world. The Committee expects that funding for Public Law 480 Title II will be used for its

intended purpose and not for ad hoc emergency assistance. In the

event of additional emergency needs, the Committee reminds the

Department of the availability of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian

Trust.

As proposed in the budget, the Committee provides no new funding for title III grants. Authority is provided by law (7 U.S.C.

1736f) to transfer up to 15 percent of the funds available for any

fiscal year for carrying out any title of Public Law 480 to any other

title of the program. This authority may be used to transfer funds

to title III should a transfer be deemed appropriate.

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... $50,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000
147

Authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of

2002, Public Law 107–171, the McGovern-Dole International Food

for Education and Child Nutrition Program helps support education, child development, and food security for some of the world’s

poorest children. The program provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for

school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal education. Commodities made available for donation through agreements with private voluntary organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and foreign governments may be donated

for direct feeding or for local sale to generate proceeds to support

school feeding and nutrition projects. For fiscal year 2003,

$100,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation was used to

fund this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee provides $25,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole

Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The Committee

is aware that opportunities may exist to use Food for Progress resources in certain countries through arrangements consistent with

the objectives of the McGovern-Dole Program. The Secretary is encouraged to investigate the possible use of Food for Progress resources to supplement funds made available by this Act to carry

out activities consistent with the McGovern-Dole Program and report to the Committee on the specific countries for which this opportunity may exist and the extent to which such use is a prudent

allocation of resources.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS, GSM–102 AND GSM–103)

[In thousands of dollars]

Guaranteed loan levels 1Guaranteed loan subsidy 1Administrative ex- penses

Appropriations, 2003 ........................................................................... 4,225,000 293,927 4,032

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................ 4,155,000 297,000 4,312

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 4,155,000 297,000 4,152

1 No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted the

Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments

due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales contracts (up to

36 months) for defaults due to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the date of export to the

end of the deferred payment period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that portion of the payments agreed to in the

assurance agreement. Operation of this program is based on criteria which will assure that it is used only where it is determined

that it will develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The

program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide financing

to those areas where the institutions would be unwilling to provide

financing in the absence of the CCC guarantees. Other credit ac-
148

tivities may also be financed under the Export Credit Guarantee

programs including supplier credit guarantee, under which CCC

guarantees payments due to importers under short term financing

(up to 180 days) that exporters extend directly to importers for the

purchase of U.S. agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities

financing guarantees.

In 1986, the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program

(GSM–103) was implemented by CCC under its charter authority

as required by the Food Security Act of 1985. The program is similar to the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), but provides for CCC guarantees to exporters for commodities sold on

credit terms in excess of 3 years, but not more than 10 years. The

program also provides for adjusting the maximum amount of interest which CCC guarantees to pay under the payment guarantee

and permits freight costs to be covered for breeding animals financed under the GSM–102 and GSM–103 programs.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the program

account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee programs

are exempt from the requirement of advance appropriations of

budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508. Appropriations to this

account will be used for administrative expenses.
(149)

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the public

health and safety of Americans. FDA’s work is a blending of science

and law. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of

1997 [FDAMA] reaffirmed the responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective products reach the market to a timely way,

and to monitor products for continued safety after they are in use.

In addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the Nation’s war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of all regulated products, including food, and improving the availability of

medications to prevent or treat injuries caused by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.

The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients and

dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and

honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are safe and properly

labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown

dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as

emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in production and processing, have developed. This program plays a major role in keeping the United States food supply

among the safest in the world.

The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate areas,

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is responsible for

the life cycle of the product, including premarket review and

postmarket surveillance of human, animal and biological products

to ensure their safety and efficacy. For Human Drugs this includes

assuring that all drug products used for the prevention, diagnosis

and treatment of disease are safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of investigational new drug applications;

evaluation of market applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;

monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, or

imported into, the United States; and, regulating the advertising

and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal Drugs and Feeds

Program ensures only safe and beneficial veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention of diseases in animals

and the improved production of food-producing animals, are approved for marketing.

The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent,
150

safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood

banks and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms collecting

human source plasma, evaluates and licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization.

The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety

and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary

human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational,

and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces quality

standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Medical devices include thousands of products from thermometers and

contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave

ovens, and video display terminals.

FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson,

Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting peer-review

scientific research that provides the basis for FDA to make sound

science-based regulatory decisions through its premarket review

and postmarket surveillance. The research is designed to define

and understand the biological mechanisms of action underlying the

toxicity of products and developing methods to improve assessment

of human exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation

Prescription

drug user fees

Medical device user

fees

Mammography clinics

inspection fees

Export and

certification feesTotal

Appropriations, 2003 .................... 1,373,131 222,900 25,125 16,112 6,378 1,643,646

Budget estimate, 2004 ................ 1,394,617 249,825 29,190 16,576 6,649 1,696,857

Committee recommendation ......... 1,384,213 249,825 29,190 16,576 6,649 1,686,453

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For salaries and expenses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,384,213,000. This amount is $11,082,000 more than

the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The Committee also recommends $249,825,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee

collections, $29,190,000 in Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act user fee collections, $16,576,000 in Mammography

Quality Standards Act fee collections, and $6,649,000 in export and

certification fees, as assumed in the President’s budget. These

amounts are $26,925,000, $4,065,000, $464,000, and $271,000 more

than the 2003 levels, respectively. The Committee includes bill language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as

compared to the fiscal year 2003 and budget request levels:
151

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2003 enacted 2004 request

Centers and related field activities:

Foods ................................................................................................. 410,452 413,208 412,020

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ........... 148,069 144,351 144,382

Field activities ......................................................................... 262,383 268,857 267,638

Human drugs .................................................................................... 276,120 303,802 293,595

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ................. 176,669 206,979 197,536

Orphan product grants ............................................................ 13,270 13,270 13,270

Field activities ......................................................................... 86,181 83,553 82,789

Biologics ............................................................................................ 145,820 124,494 123,539

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ........... 117,584 97,854 97,084

Field activities ......................................................................... 28,236 26,640 26,455

Animal drugs .................................................................................... 88,349 85,224 84,646

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ..................................... 57,470 55,657 55,281

Field activities ......................................................................... 30,879 29,567 29,365

Medical and radiological devices ..................................................... 193,359 184,543 191,878

Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH] .............. 140,432 133,815 141,496

Field activities ......................................................................... 52,927 50,728 50,382

National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] ......................... 40,403 40,151 39,887

Other activities .......................................................................................... 84,134 91,821 90,154

Office of the Commissioner .............................................................. 13,080 29,422 29,075

Office of Management and Systems ................................................ 40,655 42,505 41,323

Office of Senior Associate Commissioner ......................................... 8,200 ........................ ........................

Office of External Relations .............................................................. ........................ 7,364 7,323

Office of International and Constituent Relations ........................... 7,362 ........................ ........................

Office of Policy, Legislation, and Planning ...................................... 8,044 5,567 5,514

Central services ................................................................................ 6,793 6,963 6,919

Rent and related activities ........................................................................ 36,261 42,498 40,261

Rental payments to GSA ............................................................................ 98,233 108,876 108,233

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ........... 1,373,131 1,394,617 1,384,213

The Committee recommends the following increases in budget

authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities: $20,500,000 for

counterterrorism activities related to food safety; $2,400,000 for activities related to patient safety; $10,000,000 for increased medical

device review; $600,000 to improve FDA’s over-the-counter [OTC]

drug program; $8,000,000 to reduce review times and increase the

number of generic drugs on the market; $3,000,000 for activities related to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act; $4,000,000 to

continue the relocation of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; and $1,374,000 to continue implementation of the Unified

Financial Management System. The Committee also recommends a

decrease in budget authority requested in the budget of
152

$57,575,000 associated with management savings and information

technology consolidation efforts.

The Committee understands that FDA and the Department of

Health and Human Services [DHHS] are making progress in migrating from FDA’s legacy systems and preparing for the implementation of the DHHS Unified Financial Management System.

The Committee expects the same funding ratios for the two respective projects as was established in fiscal year 2003 to continue

progress.

Other Activities Reorganization.—The Committee has provided

funding consistent with the President’s request for a reorganization

within the ‘‘Other Activities’’ line item. Specifically, the Office of

the Senior Associate Commissioner has been streamlined and re-titled the Office of External Relations [OER]. The OER will consist

of the current Advisory Committee Oversight and Management

Staff as well as the Office of Executive Secretariat, Office of Public

Affairs, Office of the Ombudsman, and Office of Special Health

Issues. Further, the funding and responsibilities of the Office of

International and Constituent Relations will be divided between

the Office of the Commissioner and the OER.

Rent Payments.—The Committee recommends $108,233,000 for

FDA rental payments to the General Services Administration

[GSA]. This is $10,000,000 more than the 2003 level. The Committee has included $4,000,000 for relocation expenses related to

the move of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to the

consolidated White Oak campus. It is expected that the remaining

$2,000,000 necessary for this phase of the move will be provided

from carryover funds available in the Prescription Drug User Fee

account.

Within the total funding available, at least $2,534,000 is for FDA

activities in support of Codex Alimentarius.

Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.—The Committee

provides $2,000,000, an increase of $250,000 over the fiscal year

2003 level, for the FDA to continue its contract with New Mexico

State University’s Physical Sciences Laboratory to operate the Food

Technology Evaluation Laboratory, which conducts evaluation and

development of rapid screening methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and to provide technology deployment modeling and

data analysis for food safety and product safety in order to facilitate FDA’s regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product

safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.

The Committee expects the FDA to continue its support for the

Waste Management Education and Research Consortium [WERC]

and its work in food safety technology verification and education at

no less than the fiscal year 2003 level.

With the growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health,

the Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety

should continue among Government, academia, and private industry. The national model for that collaboration has been the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] in SummitArgo, Illinois. The Committee expects the FDA to maintain sufficient funding for the National Center to continue the important

work done there.
153

In addition, the funding provided for food safety will ensure the

continuation of food contract inspections in the State of Alaska.

Specifically, it will allow the FDA to renew its contract with the

State of Alaska for inspections of food and seafood processors operating in Alaska. The current contract became effective on June 12,

2003. It will fund at least 292 inspections, approximately 272 seafood/HACCP inspections and 20 other food inspections, at a cost of

approximately $269,000. The establishments to be inspected will be

mutually agreed upon by FDA and the State of Alaska.

Seafood Safety.—General Accounting Office [GAO] reports on the

safety of seafood have documented the inadequacy of the FDA efforts to address foodborne hazards in seafood, including shellfish.

GAO found FDA’s seafood inspection system provides consumers

with inadequate protection for seafood-related foodborne illness.

The Committee urges FDA to promote the development of new food

safety technologies such as irradiation, flash freezing, high-pressure processing, or others that can cost-effectively reduce the incidence of pathogens, and technologies that can ensure constant safe

temperatures of seafood throughout the food chain.

The Committee supports the ongoing work of the Interstate

Shellfish Sanitation Conference and its joint efforts with the FDA

and the shellfish industry to formulate shellfish safety regulations

through the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee

recommends no less than the fiscal year 2003 level be directed

through the Office of Seafood Inspection to continue these activities, and directs that $200,000 be directed to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.

The Committee is concerned that FDA has not taken effective action to address foodborne illness risks from the consumption of raw

shellfish. In particular, the Committee is concerned that Interstate

Shellfish Sanitation Commission’s [ISSC] proposed steps to reduce

the rates of death and illness due to consumption of Vibrio

vulnificus-contaminated raw shellfish may not effectively address

public health concerns.

The Committee also continues its concern with the agency’s failure to bring FDA-regulated seafood into compliance with HACCP.

However, the Committee is aware that special or unique circumstances may exist for particular seafood processors. While ultimate HAACP compliance is not in question, the Committee is specifically aware of Hawaii’s lengthy and culturally important history

of hook-and-line fisheries, auction markets, and the high consumption of raw tuna and other pelagic fish in Hawaii, and strongly encourages the Agency to take into account both the history and the

industry’s practical experience in approving a plan that is consistent with healthy seafood products and national standards for

seafood safety.

The Committee has been advised that farmed salmon imported

from overseas is fed feed with chemical additives to change the

color of its flesh or the flesh is artificially dyed. A lawsuit was recently filed against national grocery chains alleging they do not

adequately label the fish which are dyed. The Committee directs

the Food and Drug Administration to continue to monitor information concerning the safety of the use of such additives and dyes in
154

seafood and to more aggressively enforce the clear and conspicuous

disclosure of such additives and dyes to consumers on consumer

packaging.

Chloramphenicol.—The Committee is aware that FDA currently

rejects all shrimp imports that test positive for chloramphenicol, an

antibiotic used in aquaculture that may cause severe effects in humans. However, FDA currently inspects approximately 2 percent of

all seafood imports. The Committee believes that this number is

too low, and encourages the FDA to use any available funding to

increase the frequency of inspections for imported seafood.

Mercury.—New reports highlight the need to increase Federal attention to mercury levels in seafood and improve Federal advisories

on potential mercury exposure through fish consumption. The Committee strongly encourages FDA to restart its fish monitoring program to track levels of mercury in frequently consumed seafood or

species with potentially high mercury levels, as well as revise its

mercury advisory to be consistent with recommendations from the

National Academy of Sciences and the FDA Food Advisory Committee.

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service.—The

Committee supports the work of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service [NARMS] and its collaborative relationship between FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention. The Committee expects the coordination of activities among these three areas of Government to

result in the most unbiased presentation of timely, accurate data

in the best interest of public health.

Orphan Products Grants.—Included in the Center for Drug Eval- uation and Research is $13,270,000 for the Orphan Products

Grants Program. This is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level.

Dietary Supplements.—The Committee believes that the potential

for dietary supplements to have positive health benefits has been

realized in many cases. However, it is essential that FDA continue

its efforts to ensure their safety, and to fully enforce the prohibition

of false, misleading or unsubstantiated claims regarding dietary

supplements implemented in the Dietary Supplement and Health

Education Act [DSHEA] of 1994. The budget request includes total

funding of approximately $4,700,000 for the CFSAN Adverse

Events Reporting System [CAERS], of which approximately

$1,500,000 is for dietary supplements. The Committee provides an

increase of $1,000,000 for CAERS over the budget request, bringing

total funding to $5,700,000. These funds are to be used to ensure

prompt identification of and response to adverse health events related to foods including dietary supplements. The Committee notes

that the budget request assumes additional reductions to the fiscal

year 2003 level of $6,600,000 resulting from information technology

consolidation savings. The Committee believes that the CAERS

program should be considered a high priority and any savings from

IT consolidation should not result in any diminution of the program. Therefore, prior to any modifications to this system, the

Committee instructs FDA to report on proposed consolidation efforts with detailed information on the impact to the system.

FDA has indicated that the ability to identify and analyze specific components in ingredients, including botanical ingredients, is
155

an essential component of research and regulatory programs directed at ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee expects the same level of review of

botanicals in dietary supplements to continue in fiscal year 2004.

This work is being carried out by FDA in collaboration with the

National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, MS.

Biotechnology.—The Committee understands that the FDA frequently receives requests from foreign governments for FDA regulators to visit foreign countries to educate regulators on the evaluation of the safety of biotechnology. Providing information on the

soundness of the U.S. regulatory process will promote the understanding of the benefits of biotechnology to human health and the

environment and improve the climate for acceptance of U.S. agricultural products abroad. The Committee directs the FDA to allocate adequate funding so that agency representatives may perform

this service.

Blood Product Safety.—The Committee remains concerned FDA

has not moved forward in finalizing its proposed rule to require

manufacturer tracking of blood-derived products and prompt patient notification of adverse events. The Committee continues to

urge FDA to complete implementation of this important blood product safety mechanism and requests quarterly reports on its

progress.

Blood Safety.—The Committee is aware that multiple standards

currently exist regarding the collection of recovered and source

plasma from blood, and encourages FDA to work with all stakeholders to ensure the equivalence of these standards in safeguarding the Nation’s blood supply.

Generic Drugs.—Prompt approval of generic drug applications is

imperative to making generic drugs available at the earliest possible date to American consumers. Therefore, the Committee is providing $52,845,000 for the generic drugs program, an increase of

$8,000,000. The Committee expects that this increase will result in

more than 85 percent of generic drug applications being reviewed

within 6 months of submission.

FDA Reclassification of Medical Gloves.—The Committee remains concerned about the prevalence of natural rubber latex allergy, particularly among heath care workers and patients, even

though a small percentage of the general population is sensitive to

latex protein. The Committee recognizes that proper glove choices

are important, as health care workers and their patients will encounter risks of infection and/or disease if barrier protection

against viral transmission is inadequate.

The Committee understands that latex gloves are acknowledged

for their barrier effectiveness. The Committee is also aware that as

a result of technological advances in manufacturing, the residual

protein in some latex gloves has been largely removed, reducing

the potential for allergic sensitisation.

Recognizing the need for the public, and particularly health care

workers, to be provided with the necessary information on proper

glove choices, the Committee directs that the FDA finalize the 1999

proposed regulation that would reclassify all surgeon’s and patient

examination gloves as Class II Medical Devices. This would enable
156

medical gloves that provide effective barrier protection with low or

zero allergen risk to be better appreciated and identified.

Standards of Identity.—The Committee is aware of the ongoing

debate surrounding increased importation and use of milk protein

concentrate. A General Accounting Office investigation highlighted

a dramatic increase in milk protein concentrate imports. The Committee remains concerned with FDA’s current lack of enforcement

of standards of identity as it relates to the potential illegal use of

milk protein concentrate in standardized cheese.

Office of Women’s Health.—The Committee believes that it is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are safe and

effective for women as well as men. The Committee notes that in

the budget request, the Office of Women’s Health at FDA is funded

at not less than $3,075,000 for program operation and oversight.

The Committee encourages FDA to ensure that the Office of Women’s Health is sufficiently funded to carry out its activities, and to

enhance its funding if necessary.

Medical Device Application Review.—The Committee is aware

that for the last several years, premarket approval applications for

breakthrough medical technologies have taken more than a year,

despite the 180-day statutory maximum for approval or denial of

such applications. In fact, it is the Committee’s understanding that

the average length of time for medical device premarket reviews is

still over 400 days.

In an effort to address this unacceptable level of service, the

medical device industry, the executive branch, and Congress

worked together to develop the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act [MDUFMA] which was signed into law on October

26, 2002. Under the provisions of this Act, the medical device industry would pay a fee upon application for approval of a medical

device, the FDA would meet certain statutory performance goals

for timely review of these applications, and additional appropriations would be provided.

Although this Committee was not consulted during the development of this Act, a partial installment of $4,000,000 was provided

in fiscal year 2003 in order to begin implementation of the law. It

was the Committee’s expectation that the necessary subsequent

funding would be included as part of the fiscal year 2004 request.

Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2004 budget request does not even

come close to the second-year amount necessary to meet the requirements of the law.

The Committee is extremely disappointed by this lack of commitment to MDUFMA, and strongly encourages the FDA to include

the necessary appropriation in the fiscal year 2005 budget request.

The Committee believes the intent of MDUFMA is extremely worthy, and that lifesaving medical devices should be approved as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Committee has provided an

increase of $10,000,000 for this program, and hopes to see increased support for MDUFMA in the future in order to prevent the

termination of this worthwhile law.

Further, the Committee notes a requirement contained in the

Senate report, printed in the January 15, 2003 Congressional

Record on pages S356–S410, that the FDA provide a report within
157

90 days of the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act on the obligation of the $4,000,000 provided for

MDUFMA in fiscal year 2003, to include the number of employees

to be hired, a description of their duties, and the effect those funds

will have on premarket review times for medical devices. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act was

signed into law on February 20, 2003. To date, this report has not

yet been received. The Committee expects agency compliance with

congressional directives, and urges in the strongest possible terms

that this report be received no later than 1 week following the filing of this report.

Implanted Medical Devices.—The Committee acknowledges current FDA requlations designed to improve post-market surveillance

for medical devices, and strongly encourages FDA to devote the

necessary resources to require registries and monitor well-designed

long-term safety studies for implanted devices, including but not

limited to jaw implants. As the aging U.S. population becomes

more dependent on implanted devices, the Committee believes it is

essential that the FDA allocate adequate resources to patient safety activities related to these devices, such as registries, post-market

surveillance, and long-term phase IV trials.

Tissue Safety.—Although FDA has placed proposed rules regarding donor suitability and good manufacturing practices related to

tissue safety in the Unified Agenda as an ‘‘other significant’’ priority, the Committee remains concerned that these rules have not

yet been finalized. In the fiscal year 2003 Senate report, printed in

the January 15, 2003 Congressional Record, pages S356–S410,

FDA was directed to finalize these rules ‘‘within 9 months of the

enactment of this Act.’’ The fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act was signed into law on February 20, 2003. Therefore, the

Committee expects FDA to finalize these proposed rules by November 20, 2003.

Chlorofluorocarbon Propelled Medicines.—The Committee is

pleased that the FDA has published a rule articulating a transition

strategy for removing chlorofluorocarbon [CFC] propelled medicines

from the U.S. market. The Committee is aware that several well

recognized patient and physician organizations which represent

those who suffer from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA requesting that it

take measures to remove albuterol from the list of essential uses

for CRCs. The Committee encourages the FDA to respond to the

petition request in a timely manner and, if appropriate, expeditiously implement a transition strategy as alternative non-CFC

products enter the U.S. market.

Prescription Drug Monograph System.—The Committee is aware

of interest in the establishment of a monograph system for prescription drug products that have been marketed to a material extent and for a material time without apparent safety or efficacy

problems and do not have premarket approval. FDA currently regards these products as ‘‘DESI’’ (Drug Efficacy Study Implementation) or ‘‘DESI–II’’ products for compliance purposes. Such a monograph system would be modeled after the Agency’s system for overthe-counter pharmaceuticals that was established 30 years ago for

products that were similarly generally recognized as safe and effec-
158

tive due to their long history of safe and effective marketing. The

Committee is sympathetic to those who advocate such a monograph

system, but recognizes that review of a proposal to establish such

a system falls under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education,

Labor, and Pensions Committee. However, in an effort to start the

dialogue, the Committee directs FDA to prepare a report for the

Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding the feasibility and cost of

such a new monograph system for prescription drug products as described above. In the meantime, the Committee believes that enforcement resources regarding pharmaceutical products should be

dedicated to activities that are most likely to improve the public

health.

Color Certification Fees.—The Committee is aware that the color

certification function, performed by FDA and paid for by user fees

from the certified color industry, moved into new temporary space

in October 2002, and is planning on moving into permanent space

in the fall of 2004. Increased rent and security costs for the temporary space, which is much larger than necessary and significantly more expensive, are being paid by the color certification user

fees. The Committee is aware that color certification user fee assessments have not increased since 1993, and that the industry received a rebate of $1,000,000 from FDA in fiscal year 2002. However, the Committee is concerned that the industry must pay for

space and security costs above necessary levels. The Committee is

also concerned about the apparent lack of consultation with the industry as this office move was contemplated. The Committee directs FDA to provide a report on the steps that will be taken to

ensure that there will not be any future excessive fluctuations in

the cost of this program.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $7,948,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 11,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,948,000

In addition to Washington, DC, area laboratories which are in six

separate locations, FDA has 16 laboratories at other locations

around the country, including regular field laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements and construction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to

preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing

program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For continued repairs and improvements of FDA buildings and

facilities, the Committee recommends $7,948,000. This amount is

the same as the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
159

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $85,426,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 88,435,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,435,000

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).

The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7

U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage trading in gold

and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading industry. It established a

comprehensive regulatory structure to oversee the volatile futures

trading complex.

The purpose of the Commission is to protect and further the economic utility of futures and commodity options markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring their integrity, and protecting participants against manipulation, abusive trade practices, fraud, and

deceit. The objective is to enable the markets to better serve their

designated functions of providing a price discovery mechanism and

providing price risk insurance. In properly serving these functions,

the futures and commodity options markets contribute toward better production and financial planning, more efficient distribution

and consumption, and more economical marketing.

Programs in support of the overall mission include market surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and contract

markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal counsel;

agency direction; and administrative support services. CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC; two regional offices located

in Chicago and New York; and smaller offices in Kansas City, Los

Angeles, and Minneapolis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee

recommends $90,435,000. This amount is $5,009,000 more than the

fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2003 ..................................................................................... $38,400,000

Budget estimate, 2004 1 ......................................................................... 40,900,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,900,000

1 Includes an increase of $2,500,000 pursuant to the May 9, 2003, budget amendment.

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the

examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other

institutions of the Farm Credit System.

Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System institu-
160

tions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain actions of the institutions.

The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction

now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of

1971, Public Law 92–181, effective December 10, 1971. Public Law

99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave

the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers.

The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to

make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers

and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associations and other entities upon which farming operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and

future rural credit needs.

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the formation of

the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation [FAMC] to operate

a secondary market for agricultural and rural housing mortgages.

The Farm Credit Administration, under section 8.11 of the Farm

Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is assigned the responsibility of

regulating this entity and assuring its safe and sound operation.

Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions and by

assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $40,900,000 on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA].

This amount is $2,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 limitation.
(161)

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The majority of the general provisions are essentially the same

as those included in the fiscal year 2003 and previous years’ appropriations acts. In addition, the Committee recommends the following provisions:

Section 744 to limit the use of funds under section 2301 of Public

Law 107–171.

Section 745 to limit use of funds under section 2502 of Public

Law 107–171.

Section 746 to limit the use of funds under section 2503 of Public

Law 107–171.

Section 747 to carry out section 6028 of Public Law 107–171.

Section 748 to limit the use of funds under section 6029 of Public

Law 107–171.

Section 749 to limit the use of funds under section 6193 of Public

Law 107–171.

Section 750 to limit the use of funds under section 9006 of Public

Law 107–171.

Section 751 to authorize the payment of costs association with

the preparation of discrimination complaints.

Section 752 to set the maximum level for single family housing

assistance in high cost remote areas of Alaska.

Section 753 to rescind any unobligated balances in the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving

Fund.

Section 754 to provide funds to the Denali Commission.

Section 755 to provide community eligibility for rural housing

programs.

Section 756 to provide community eligibility for the Rural Community Advancement Program.

Section 757 regarding loan or grant programs.

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2004, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act

of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides

the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture,

Rural Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The term

‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the most specific level

of budget items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the

conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement of

the managers of the committee of conference.
162

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage

reduction required for fiscal year 2004 pursuant to the provisions

of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified

in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2004

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies,

as modified by congressional action, and in addition:

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes

and lines of research specifically identified in the reports of the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed

projects as summarized in the notes.

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.

The Committee recommends funding for the following program

which currently lacks authorization for fiscal year 2004:

Compact of Free Association Act of 1985.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2003, the

Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1427, an original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2004; S. 1424, an original bill making

appropriations for Energy and Water Development for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1426, an original bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and

related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004;

each subject to amendment and each subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being present. The vote

was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman Stevens

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns
163

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

Mr. DeWine

Mr. Brownback

Mr. Byrd

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Ms. Landrieu

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is

printed in italics; and existing law in which no change is proposed

is shown in roman.

With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the Committee that

it is necessary to dispense with these requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
164

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

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution

for 2004: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:

Discretionary ........................................................................ 17,005 17,005 17,891 1 17,632

Mandatory ............................................................................ 55,536 60,488 39,472 1 39,142

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2004 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 48,164

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,599

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,017

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 644

2008 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 645

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2004 ......................................................................................... NA 22,381 NA 17,673

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
165

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary ............................................................................................................................................... 3,368 10,068 10,046 ∂6,678 ¥22Executive Operations:

Chief Economist ................................................................................................................................................ 8,510 12,264 8,707 ∂197 ¥3,557National Appeals Division ................................................................................................................................. 13,670 14,242 13,997 ∂327 ¥245Office of Budget and Program Analysis ........................................................................................................... 7,270 7,980 7,544 ∂274 ¥436Homeland Security staff .................................................................................................................................... ............................ 1,479 910 ∂910 ¥569Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. 14,993 31,334 15,710 ∂717 ¥15,624

Common computing environment ............................................................................................................ 132,289 177,714 119,289 ¥13,000 ¥58,425

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................ 5,496 7,902 5,496 ............................ ¥2,406Working capital fund ......................................................................................................................................... 11,922 ............................ ............................ ¥11,922 ............................

Total, Executive Operations .......................................................................................................................... 194,150 252,915 171,653 ¥22,497 ¥81,262

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ..................................................................................................... 397 808 794 ∂397 ¥14Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 15,445 ∂15,445 ∂15,445Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................................................................................ 656 793 673 ∂17 ¥120Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments ........................................................................................ (186,878) (199,332) (188,022) (∂1,144) (¥11,310)

Payments to GSA ............................................................................................................................................... 120,795 123,910 123,910 ∂3,115 ............................Building operations and maintenance .............................................................................................................. 32,327 41,445 32,559 ∂232 ¥8,886Repairs, renovations, and construction ............................................................................................................ 33,756 33,977 31,553 ¥2,203 ¥2,424

Hazardous materials management ............................................................................................................................ 15,583 15,713 15,611 ∂28 ¥102Departmental administration ..................................................................................................................................... 37,628 45,128 23,031 ¥14,597 ¥22,097Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ................................................................................. 3,781 4,186 3,825 ∂44 ¥361Office of Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 9,031 10,084 9,228 ∂197 ¥856Office of the Inspector General .................................................................................................................................. 73,416 81,895 75,781 ∂2,365 ¥6,114Office of the General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 34,700 37,328 35,343 ∂643 ¥1,985Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics ................................................................... 580 792 596 ∂16 ¥196Economic Research Service ........................................................................................................................................ 68,674 76,657 69,902 ∂1,228 ¥6,755
166

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

National Agricultural Statistics Service ..................................................................................................................... 138,448 136,182 128,922 ¥9,526 ¥7,260

Census of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................ (41,274) (25,279) (25,279) (¥15,995) ............................

Agricultural Research Service:

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,036,779 987,303 1,045,533 ∂8,754 ∂58,230Buildings and facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 118,703 24,000 46,000 ¥72,703 ∂22,000

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................ 110,000 ............................ ............................ ¥110,000 ............................

Total, Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................... 1,265,482 1,011,303 1,091,533 ¥173,949 ∂80,230

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:

Research and education activities ................................................................................................................... 616,792 514,228 617,575 ∂783 ∂103,347Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ................................................................................................ (7,054) (9,000) (9,000) (∂1,946) ............................Extension activities ........................................................................................................................................... 450,520 422,268 450,084 ¥436 ∂27,816Integrated activities .......................................................................................................................................... 46,439 62,865 46,711 ∂272 ¥16,154Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers .................................................................................................. 3,470 4,003 3,470 ............................ ¥533

Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ....................................................... 1,117,221 1,003,364 1,117,840 ∂619 ∂114,476

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................... 721 791 736 ∂15 ¥55Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 682,758 694,897 705,552 ∂22,794 ∂10,655Buildings and facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 9,924 4,996 4,996 ¥4,928 ............................

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..................................................................................... 692,682 699,893 710,548 ∂17,866 ∂10,655

Agricultural Marketing Service:

Marketing Services ............................................................................................................................................ 75,210 75,071 75,263 ∂53 ∂192

Standardization user fees ........................................................................................................................ (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ......................................................................... (61,619) (62,577) (62,577) (∂958) ............................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer from section 32) ........................................ 14,910 15,392 15,392 ∂482 ............................
167

Payments to states and possessions ............................................................................................................... 1,338 1,347 3,338 ∂2,000 ∂1,991

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................................................................... 91,458 91,810 93,993 ∂2,535 ∂2,183

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration:

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 39,690 41,688 35,638 ¥4,052 ¥6,050Limitation on inspection and weighing services .............................................................................................. (42,463) (42,463) (42,463) ............................ ............................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........................................................................................................... 595 792 611 ∂16 ¥181Food Safety and Inspection Service ........................................................................................................................... 754,821 797,149 783,761 ∂28,940 ¥13,388

Lab accreditation fees 1 .................................................................................................................................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ............................ ............................

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing .............................................................................................. 4,729,960 4,518,671 4,583,532 ¥146,428 ∂64,861

Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services .............................................................. 614 916 635 ∂21 ¥281Farm Service Agency:

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 970,389 1,016,836 988,768 ∂18,379 ¥28,068(Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (829) (985) (846) (∂17) (¥139)(Transfer from Public Law 480) ........................................................................................................................ (1,019) (2,975) (1,075) (∂56) (¥1,900)(Transfer from ACIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (277,361) (290,136) (283,020) (∂5,659) (¥7,116)

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (279,209) (294,096) (284,941) (∂5,732) (¥9,155)Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ (1,249,598) (1,310,932) (1,273,709) (∂24,111) (¥37,223)

State mediation grants ..................................................................................................................................... 3,974 4,000 3,974 ............................ ¥26Dairy indemnity program ................................................................................................................................... 100 100 100 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ..................................................................................................................... 974,463 1,020,936 992,842 ∂18,379 ¥28,094

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Farm ownership loans:

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (129,155) (140,149) (129,158) (∂3) (¥10,991)Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. (993,500) (1,000,000) (950,000) (¥43,500) (¥50,000)

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (1,122,655) (1,140,149) (1,079,158) (¥43,497) (¥60,991)

Farm operating loans:

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (601,068) (650,000) (601,068) ............................ (¥48,932)Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (1,688,950) (1,400,000) (1,200,000) (¥488,950) (¥200,000)
168

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... (397,400) (266,249) (266,249) (¥131,151) ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (2,687,418) (2,316,249) (2,067,317) (¥620,101) (¥248,932)

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ................................................................................................ (1,987) (2,000) (2,000) (∂13) ............................Boll weevil eradication loans .......................................................................................................... (100,000) (60,000) (100,000) ............................ (∂40,000)

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (3,912,060) (3,518,398) (3,248,475) (¥663,585) (¥269,923)

Loan subsidies:

Farm ownership loans:

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 14,995 30,945 28,518 ∂13,523 ¥2,427Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. 7,451 5,400 5,130 ¥2,321 ¥270

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 22,446 36,345 33,648 ∂11,202 ¥2,697

Farm operating loans:

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 103,744 93,730 86,674 ¥17,070 ¥7,056Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 53,540 46,620 39,960 ¥13,580 ¥6,660Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... 46,893 34,000 34,000 ¥12,893 ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 204,177 174,350 160,634 ¥43,543 ¥13,716

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................................................................... 178 ............................ ............................ ¥178 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 226,801 210,695 194,282 ¥32,519 ¥16,413

ACIF expenses:

Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA) .......................................................................................... 277,361 290,136 283,020 ∂5,659 ¥7,116Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................. 7,948 8,000 7,948 ............................ ¥52

Total, ACIF expenses ................................................................................................................... 285,309 298,136 290,968 ∂5,659 ¥7,168Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund .................................................................................. 512,110 508,831 485,250 ¥26,860 ¥23,581
169

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (3,912,060) (3,518,398) (3,248,475) (¥663,585) (¥269,923)

Total, Farm Service Agency ........................................................................................................ 1,486,573 1,529,767 1,478,092 ¥8,481 ¥51,675

Risk Management Agency .......................................................................................................................................... 70,248 78,488 71,422 ∂1,174 ¥7,066

Total, Farm Assistance Programs ................................................................................................................. 1,557,435 1,609,171 1,550,149 ¥7,286 ¥59,022

Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: Federal crop insurance corporation fund ....................................................... 2,886,000 3,368,000 3,368,000 ∂482,000 ............................Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:

Reimbursement for net realized losses ............................................................................................................ 16,285,000 17,275,000 17,275,000 ∂990,000 ............................Hazardous waste management (limitation on administrative expenses) ........................................................ (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) ............................ ............................

Total, Corporations ........................................................................................................................................ 19,171,000 20,643,000 20,643,000 ∂1,472,000 ............................Total, title I, Agricultural Programs ............................................................................................................. 25,458,395 26,770,842 26,776,681 ∂1,318,286 ∂5,839

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (279,209) (294,096) (284,941) (∂5,732) (¥9,155)(Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (3,912,060) (3,518,398) (3,248,475) (¥663,585) (¥269,923)(Limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (109,082) (110,040) (110,040) (∂958) ............................

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ................................................................... 740 918 761 ∂21 ¥157Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Conservation operations .................................................................................................................................... 819,641 703,605 826,635 ∂6,994 ∂123,030Watershed surveys and planning ...................................................................................................................... 11,124 5,000 10,000 ¥1,124 ∂5,000Watershed and flood prevention operations ..................................................................................................... 109,285 40,000 55,000 ¥54,285 ∂15,000Watershed rehabilitation program .................................................................................................................... 29,805 10,000 29,805 ............................ ∂19,805Resource conservation and development .......................................................................................................... 50,668 49,943 51,000 ∂332 ∂1,057Farm bill technical assistance ......................................................................................................................... ............................ 432,160 ............................ ............................ ¥432,160

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................................................................ 1,020,523 1,240,708 972,440 ¥48,083 ¥268,268Total, title II, Conservation Programs .......................................................................................................... 1,021,263 1,241,626 973,201 ¥48,062 ¥268,425

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ............................................................................................... 632 913 651 ∂19 ¥262
170

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Rural Development:

Rural community advancement program .......................................................................................................... 901,837 477,864 769,479 ¥132,358 ∂291,615

Tree assistance (sec. 747) ....................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................(Transfer out) ........................................................................................................................................... (¥29,805) ............................ (¥30,000) (¥195) (¥30,000)

Total, Rural community advancement program .................................................................................. 901,837 477,864 769,479 ¥132,358 ∂291,615

RD expenses:

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................. 144,789 147,520 140,922 ¥3,867 ¥6,598(Transfer from RHIF) ................................................................................................................................ (429,564) (482,787) (439,453) (∂9,889) (¥43,334)(Transfer from RDLFP) .............................................................................................................................. (4,163) (4,850) (4,283) (∂120) (¥567)(Transfer from RETLP) .............................................................................................................................. (37,587) (41,562) (37,920) (∂333) (¥3,642)(Transfer from RTB) ................................................................................................................................. (3,062) (3,462) (3,182) (∂120) (¥280)

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ....................................................................................... (474,376) (532,661) (484,838) (∂10,462) (¥47,823)Total, RD expenses .............................................................................................................................. (619,165) (680,181) (625,760) (∂6,595) (¥54,421)Total, Rural Development .................................................................................................................... 1,046,626 625,384 910,401 ¥136,225 ∂285,017

Rural Housing Service:

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Single family (sec. 502) .................................................................................................................. (1,037,866) (1,366,462) (1,359,417) (∂321,551) (¥7,045)

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (2,845,318) (2,725,172) (2,725,172) (¥120,146) ............................

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... (3,883,184) (4,091,634) (4,084,589) (∂201,405) (¥7,045)

Housing repair (sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... (34,772) (35,003) (35,004) (∂232) (∂1)Rental housing (sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. (115,053) (70,830) (115,052) (¥1) (∂44,222)Site loans (sec. 524) ....................................................................................................................... (5,013) (5,046) (5,045) (∂32) (¥1)
171

Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) .................................................................................. (99,350) (100,000) (100,000) (∂650) ............................Multi-family housing credit sales ................................................................................................... (1,988) (1,500) (1,500) (¥488) ............................Single family housing credit sales ................................................................................................. (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ............................ ............................Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523) ................................................................................... (4,979) (5,000) (1,623) (¥3,356) (¥3,377)

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (4,154,339) (4,319,013) (4,352,813) (∂198,474) (∂33,800)

Loan subsidies:

Single family (sec. 502) .................................................................................................................. 201,035 126,018 126,018 ¥75,017 ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 32,388 39,903 39,903 ∂7,515 ............................

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... 233,423 165,921 165,921 ¥67,502 ............................

Housing repair (sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... 10,786 9,612 9,612 ¥1,174 ............................Rental housing (sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. 53,649 30,464 49,484 ¥4,165 ∂19,020Site loans (sec. 524) ....................................................................................................................... 55 ............................ ............................ ¥55 ............................Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) .................................................................................. 4,471 5,950 5,950 ∂1,479 ............................Multi-family housing credit sales ................................................................................................... 928 663 663 ¥265 ............................Single family housing credit sales ................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523) ................................................................................... 220 154 50 ¥170 ¥104

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 303,532 212,764 231,680 ¥71,852 ∂18,916

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ....................................................................................... 429,564 482,787 439,453 ∂9,889 ¥43,334Rental assistance program:

(Sec. 521) ........................................................................................................................................ 715,419 734,100 715,381 ¥38 ¥18,719(Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)) .......................................................................................................................... 5,862 5,900 5,900 ∂38 ............................

Total, Rental assistance program .............................................................................................. 721,281 740,000 721,281 ............................ ¥18,719Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund ......................................................................................... 1,454,377 1,435,551 1,392,414 ¥61,963 ¥43,137

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (4,154,339) (4,319,013) (4,352,813) (∂198,474) (∂33,800)

Mutual and self-help housing grants ............................................................................................................... 34,772 34,000 34,000 ¥772 ............................Rural housing assistance grants ...................................................................................................................... 42,222 41,500 46,222 ∂4,000 ∂4,722Farm labor program account ............................................................................................................................ 36,071 35,018 33,015 ¥3,056 ¥2,003

Subtotal, grants and payments .................................................................................................................... 113,065 110,518 113,237 ∂172 ∂2,719Total, Rural Housing Service ........................................................................................................................ 1,567,442 1,546,069 1,505,651 ¥61,791 ¥40,418
172

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

(Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (4,154,339) (4,319,013) (4,352,813) (∂198,474) (∂33,800)

Rural Business-Cooperative Service:

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (39,740) (40,000) (40,000) (∂260) ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 19,179 17,308 17,308 ¥1,871 ............................Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ................................................................................................ 4,163 4,850 4,283 ∂120 ¥567

Total, Rural Development Loan Fund .................................................................................................. 23,342 22,158 21,591 ¥1,751 ¥567

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (14,870) (15,002) (15,002) (∂132) ............................Direct subsidy ........................................................................................................................................... 3,176 2,792 2,792 ¥384 ............................

Rural cooperative development grants ............................................................................................................. 8,941 11,000 8,967 ∂26 ¥2,033Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants ...................................................................... 14,870 ............................ 14,370 ¥500 ∂14,370Renewable energy program ............................................................................................................................... ............................ 3,000 23,000 ∂23,000 ∂20,000

Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service ................................................................................................... 50,329 38,950 70,720 ∂20,391 ∂31,770

(Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (54,610) (55,002) (55,002) (∂392) ............................

Rural Utilities Service:

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account:

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (120,316) (240,000) (240,000) (∂119,684) ............................Direct, Municipal rate ............................................................................................................ (99,350) (100,000) (1,000,000) (∂900,650) (∂900,000)Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (2,599,350) (1,500,000) (2,000,000) (¥599,350) (∂500,000)Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... (1,150,000) (700,000) (750,000) (¥400,000) (∂50,000)Guaranteed electric ................................................................................................................ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ............................ ............................Guaranteed underwriting ........................................................................................................ (1,000,000) ............................ (1,000,000) ............................ (∂1,000,000)
173

Subtotal, Electric ............................................................................................................... (5,069,016) (2,640,000) (5,090,000) (∂20,984) (∂2,450,000)

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (74,542) (145,042) (145,000) (∂70,458) (¥42)Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... (298,050) (250,000) (250,000) (¥48,050) ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (120,000) (100,000) (120,000) ............................ (∂20,000)

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... (492,592) (495,042) (515,000) (∂22,408) (∂19,958)Total, Loan authorizations ................................................................................................. (5,561,608) (3,135,042) (5,605,000) (∂43,392) (∂2,469,958)

Loan subsidies:

Electric:

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... 6,870 ............................ ............................ ¥6,870 ............................Direct, Municipal rate ............................................................................................................ 4,004 ............................ ............................ ¥4,004 ............................Guaranteed electric ................................................................................................................ 79 60 60 ¥19 ............................

Subtotal, Electric ............................................................................................................... 10,953 60 60 ¥10,893 ............................

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... 1,275 ............................ ............................ ¥1,275 ............................Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... 149 125 125 ¥24 ............................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... 1,424 125 125 ¥1,299 ............................Total, Loan subsidies ......................................................................................................... 12,377 185 185 ¥12,192 ............................

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................................................... 37,587 41,562 37,920 ∂333 ¥3,642

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ......................... 49,964 41,747 38,105 ¥11,859 ¥3,642

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (5,561,608) (3,135,042) (5,605,000) (∂43,392) (∂2,469,958)

Rural Telephone Bank Program Account:

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (173,503) ............................ (173,503) ............................ (∂173,503)Direct loan subsidy .................................................................................................................................. 2,394 ............................ ............................ ¥2,394 ............................RTB administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ........................................................................................ 3,062 3,462 3,182 ∂120 ¥280

Total, Rural Telephone Bank Program Account ................................................................................... 5,456 3,462 3,182 ¥2,274 ¥280

High energy costs grants (by transfer) ............................................................................................................ (29,805) ............................ (30,000) (∂195) (∂30,000)Distance learning, telemedicine and broadband program:

Loan authorizations:

Distance learning and telemedicine ............................................................................................... (300,000) (50,000) (300,000) ............................ (∂250,000)
174

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Broadband telecommunications ...................................................................................................... ............................ (335,963) (335,963) (∂335,963) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (300,000) (385,963) (635,963) (∂335,963) (∂250,000)

Loan subsidies:

Distance learning and telemedicine: Grants .................................................................................. 46,636 25,000 40,000 ¥6,636 ∂15,000Broadband telecommunications:

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ 9,116 9,116 ∂9,116 ............................Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 9,935 2,000 10,000 ∂65 ∂8,000

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ..................................................................................... 56,571 36,116 59,116 ∂2,545 ∂23,000Total, Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................................. 111,991 81,325 100,403 ¥11,588 ∂19,078

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................. (6,035,111) (3,521,005) (6,414,466) (∂379,355) (∂2,893,461)

Total, title III, Rural Economic and Community Development Programs ......................... 2,777,020 2,292,641 2,587,826 ¥189,194 ∂295,185

(By transfer) .............................................................................................................. (504,181) (532,661) (514,838) (∂10,657) (¥17,823)(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................. (10,244,060) (7,895,020) (10,822,281) (∂578,221) (∂2,927,261)

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services .............................................................. 595 786 611 ∂16 ¥175Food and Nutrition Service:

Child nutrition programs ................................................................................................................................... 5,830,506 6,718,780 6,718,780 ∂888,274 ............................

Transfer from section 32 ......................................................................................................................... 4,745,663 4,699,661 4,699,661 ¥46,002 ............................Discretionary spending ............................................................................................................................. 3,974 ............................ ............................ ¥3,974 ............................

Total, Child nutrition programs ........................................................................................................... 10,580,143 11,418,441 11,418,441 ∂838,298 ............................

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ......................................... 4,696,000 4,769,232 4,639,232 ¥56,768 ¥130,000

Contingency fund ..................................................................................................................................... (125,000) (25,000) ............................ (¥125,000) (¥25,000)
175

Food stamp program:

Expenses ................................................................................................................................................... 22,772,692 24,203,176 24,203,176 ∂1,430,484 ............................Reserve ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 ............................ ............................Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa .................................................................................... 1,401,000 1,402,805 1,402,805 ∂1,805 ............................The emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................ 140,000 140,000 140,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Food stamp program ................................................................................................................. 26,313,692 27,745,981 27,745,981 ∂1,432,289 ............................

Commodity assistance program ........................................................................................................................ 163,431 166,072 145,740 ¥17,691 ¥20,332Food donations programs: Needy family program ............................................................................................ 1,074 ............................ ............................ ¥1,074 ............................Nutrition programs administration ................................................................................................................... 135,672 144,849 138,304 ∂2,632 ¥6,545

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ................................................................................................................. 41,890,012 44,244,575 44,087,698 ∂2,197,686 ¥156,877Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs ....................................................................................................... 41,890,607 44,245,361 44,088,309 ∂2,197,702 ¥157,052

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service:

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation .................................................................................................... 129,103 140,798 131,648 ∂2,545 ¥9,150(Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (3,203) (3,327) (3,306) (∂103) (¥21)(Transfer from Public Law 480) ........................................................................................................................ (1,026) (1,066) (1,059) (∂33) (¥7)

Total, Salaries and expenses program level ................................................................................................ (133,332) (145,191) (136,013) (∂2,681) (¥9,178)

Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:

Program account:

Loan authorization, direct ........................................................................................................................ (153,662) (131,676) (131,670) (¥21,992) (¥6)Loan subsidies ......................................................................................................................................... 115,416 103,887 103,887 ¥11,529 ............................Ocean freight differential grants ............................................................................................................. 24,995 28,000 28,000 ∂3,005 ............................

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad:

Program level ........................................................................................................................................... (1,192,200) (1,185,000) (1,192,000) (¥200) (∂7,000)Appropriation ............................................................................................................................................ 1,192,200 1,185,000 1,192,000 ¥200 ∂7,000Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................ 369,000 ............................ ............................ ¥369,000 ............................

Salaries and expenses:

Foreign Agricultural Service (transfer to FAS) ......................................................................................... 1,026 1,066 1,059 ∂33 ¥7Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 1,019 2,975 1,075 ∂56 ¥1,900

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................ 2,045 4,041 2,134 ∂89 ¥1,907
176

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Total, Public Law 480:

Program level .............................................................................................................................. (1,192,200) (1,185,000) (1,192,000) (¥200) (∂7,000)Appropriation ............................................................................................................................... 1,703,656 1,320,928 1,326,021 ¥377,635 ∂5,093

CCC Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses):

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):

General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS) ................................................................................................ 3,203 3,327 3,306 ∂103 ¥21Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 829 985 846 ∂17 ¥139

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ......................................................................................... 4,032 4,312 4,152 ∂120 ¥160

McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition program grants ............................................. ............................ 50,000 25,000 ∂25,000 ¥25,000

Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................................................ 1,836,791 1,516,038 1,486,821 ¥349,970 ¥29,217

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (4,229) (4,393) (4,365) (∂136) (¥28)

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ............................................................................................................. 1,373,131 1,394,617 1,384,213 ∂11,082 ¥10,404

Prescription Drug User Fee Act ......................................................................................................................... (222,900) (249,825) (249,825) (∂26,925) ............................Medical Device User Fee Act ............................................................................................................................. (25,125) (29,190) (29,190) (∂4,065) ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,621,156) (1,673,632) (1,663,228) (∂42,072) (¥10,404)

Mammography clinics user fee (outlay savings) .............................................................................................. (16,112) (16,576) (16,576) (∂464) ............................Export and color certification ............................................................................................................................ (6,378) (6,649) (6,649) (∂271) ............................Payments to GSA ............................................................................................................................................... (108,269) (120,045) (119,152) (∂10,883) (¥893)
177

Buildings and facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 7,948 11,500 7,948 ............................ ¥3,552

Total, Food and Drug Administration ........................................................................................................... 1,381,079 1,406,117 1,392,161 ∂11,082 ¥13,956

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission .................................................................................................................. 85,426 88,435 90,435 ∂5,009 ∂2,000Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................... (38,400) (40,900) (40,900) (∂2,500) ............................

Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................................................... 1,466,505 1,494,552 1,482,596 ∂16,091 ¥11,956

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hunger fellowships ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,981 ............................ 2,981 ............................ ∂2,981National Sheep Industry Improvement Center revolving fund ................................................................................... 496 ............................ 499 ∂3 ∂499Child and adult care feeding program ...................................................................................................................... 21,857 ............................ ............................ ¥21,857 ............................Public Law 480 Title II ............................................................................................................................................... 248,375 ............................ ............................ ¥248,375 ............................Tree assistance (sec. 747) ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 3,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000Denali Commission ..................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000

Total, title VII, General provisions ................................................................................................................ 273,709 ............................ 8,480 ¥265,229 ∂8,480Grand total:

New budget (obligational) authority .................................................................................................... 74,724,290 77,561,060 77,403,914 ∂2,679,624 ¥157,146

Appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (74,724,290) (77,561,060) (77,403,914) (∂2,679,624) (¥157,146)

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (787,619) (831,150) (804,144) (∂16,525) (¥27,006)(Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (14,309,782) (11,545,094) (14,202,426) (¥107,356) (∂2,657,332)(Limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (147,482) (150,940) (150,940) (∂3,458) ............................

RECAPITULATION

Title I—Agricultural programs ................................................................................................................................... 25,458,395 26,770,842 26,776,681 ∂1,318,286 ∂5,839

Mandatory .......................................................................................................................................................... (19,186,010) (20,658,492) (20,658,492) (∂1,472,482) ............................Discretionary ...................................................................................................................................................... (6,272,385) (6,112,350) (6,118,189) (¥154,196) (∂5,839)

Title II—Conservation programs (discretionary) ....................................................................................................... 1,021,263 1,241,626 973,201 ¥48,062 ¥268,425Title III—Rural economic and community development programs (discretionary) .................................................. 2,777,020 2,292,641 2,587,826 ¥189,194 ∂295,185Title IV—Domestic food programs (discretionary) .................................................................................................... 41,890,607 44,245,361 44,088,309 ∂2,197,702 ¥157,052

Mandatory .......................................................................................................................................................... (36,889,861) (39,164,422) (39,164,422) (∂2,274,561) ............................Discretionary ...................................................................................................................................................... (5,000,746) (5,080,939) (4,923,887) (¥76,859) (¥157,052)

Title V—Foreign assistance and related programs (discretionary) .......................................................................... 1,836,791 1,516,038 1,486,821 ¥349,970 ¥29,217
178

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Title VI—Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration (discretionary) ...................................................... 1,466,505 1,494,552 1,482,596 ∂16,091 ¥11,956Title VII—General provisions (discretionary) ............................................................................................................. 273,709 ............................ 8,480 ¥265,229 ∂8,480

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................................................................... 74,724,290 77,561,060 77,403,914 ∂2,679,624 ¥157,146

1 In addition to appropriation.

Æ