★ 36–834 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–258 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008 

JULY 24, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Ms. DELAURO, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3161] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2008. 

INTRODUCTION 

INVESTING IN RURAL AMERICA

RURAL HOUSING

The Committee held a special hearing to discuss economic conditions in rural America with USDA’s Economic Research Service 

(ERS). A recent ERS report found that 302 of the America’s nonmetro counties are ‘‘housing stressed.’’ ERS said: 

In these counties, at least 30 percent of households 

failed to meet widely used standards for minimum basic 

amenities in 2000. This categorization of household-level 

housing stress requires that one or more of the following 

conditions be met: (1) housing expense/income threshold— 

expenses exceed 30 percent of income, (2) crowding—more 

household members than rooms, (3) incomplete plumbmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

2 

ing—home lacked necessary bathroom facilities, and (4) incomplete kitchen—home lacked essential kitchen facilities. 

These are shocking findings. To begin addressing these needs, 

the bill makes significant investments in rural housing. The bill includes $212 million to provide $5.1 billion in affordable direct and 

guaranteed home loans for low- and moderate-income families in 

rural areas, with no increase in fees. The President’s budget eliminated direct loans and shifted funding to guaranteed loans with a 

one percent increase in fees, making these loans more expensive 

and not as accessible for low-income families. The bill restores the 

multi-family rental housing program and provides four times the 

level of funding for mutual and self-help housing grants, which 

allow low-income families in rural areas to build their own houses. 

The bill substantially increases funding for the farm labor housing 

programs, supporting $75 million in affordable loans and grants for 

farmworker housing. 

CLEAN WATER IN RURAL AMERICA

According to government estimates, rural communities face tens 

of billions of dollars in costs for safe drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. USDA water and waste funding is only 

available to communities that cannot fund the projects themselves 

or that cannot get financing commercially at reasonable rates. 

USDA programs also give priority to smaller communities, those 

with serious health needs and lower incomes. Yet, these programs 

are already over-subscribed. As of September 30, 2006 there were 

985 applications seeking $2.3 billion in assistance that could not be 

funded. 

To begin addressing these needs, the bill provides $500 million 

for rural water and waste disposal grants and $1 billion for water 

and waste direct loans. Importantly, the bill reverses the administration’s proposed cut to the grant program and provides a 14 percent ($62 million) increase over 2007 levels. 

SUPPORTING RURAL COMMUNITIES

Federal investment is critical to facilitate growth in rural areas, 

and to soften the impact of population loss. The bill provides a 37 

percent increase in grants to rural areas for critical community facilities, such as health care, educational, public safety and day care 

facilities and also provides increases in the community facility loan 

programs. Rural areas often confront a tremendous gap when it 

comes to educational and medical resources and this bill helps close 

that gap, providing $10 million more than the administration requested for distance learning and telemedicine grants. It also restores funding to twice the level provided in 2007 for the 

broadband grant program that the budget eliminated. 

PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH

FOOD SAFETY

As many recent recalls have shown—from spinach and seafood to 

peanut butter and pet-food—our food safety system today is dangerously inadequate. Consumers have reason to worry that the system they count on to protect them is no longer working, and the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

3 

food they feed their families is not as safe as it should be. That 

must change. We must transform the way we meet our obligation 

to protect the public health. 

This bill fully funds the request for the Food Safety and Inspection Service at USDA. To maximize the funds’ positive impact on 

safety, the bill shifts additional funds within the account to address 

vacancies in federal meat inspector positions. The Committee also 

provides an increase of $28 million over the budget request for food 

safety at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for what it 

hopes will be the first step in a fundamental transformation in the 

regulation of food safety at FDA. The Committee directs FDA to 

submit a plan to begin changing its approach to food safety when 

it submits the fiscal year 2009 budget, giving the Committee time 

to review the plan before the funds to implement it become available on July 1, 2008. In addition to these funds, the bill provides 

more than $131 million for food safety research at USDA 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Committee fully funds the request for the FDA and provides 

targeted increases of $55 million. As noted above, the Committee 

provides an increase for food safety activities following submission 

of a comprehensive plan by the administration. It also ensures that 

funding levels for FDA’s field operations are not reduced and provides additional funding for key activities, such as speeding up generic drug application reviews, post-market drug safety reviews 

and review of direct to consumer drug ads. 

IMPROVING NUTRITION FOR MORE AMERICANS

NUTRITION

The bill provides critical resources to address our nation’s obesity 

crisis, teaching our children better eating habits and helping them 

avoid conditions such as diabetes which afflict so many children 

today. The bill provides a nearly eight percent increase over 2007 

funding, including a record level of funding for the Expanded Food 

and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) at $68.5 million. 

FEEDING THOSE IN NEED

The bill provides record funding for two fundamental food security programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program (CSFP). These programs serve our country’s most vulnerable populations. Nearly 30 percent of the total discretionary funding in this bill goes to the WIC program. To meet increased program costs due to rising food prices, the Committee has provided 

an increase of $416 million over the 2007 level and $233 million 

over the request. The bill also provides $150 million for the CSFP 

program, which the President’s budget eliminated. This level will 

both increase caseloads in current states and allow additional 

states to participate in the program. The bill also includes language that will ease administrative burdens on states that wish to 

participate in the summer food program, which the Committee believes will allow many more children to be reached by this program. Working poor households should not have to choose between 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

4 

securing adequate food for their kids and other basics they need 

just to get by. 

TRANSFORMING OUR ENERGY FUTURE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Energy independence means investing in our communities and 

plugging their resources and workforce into vibrant, expanding 

markets. To promote renewable energy and move us further down 

the path to energy independence, the bill provides nearly twice as 

much funding than was provided last year and more than 20 percent more than requested. The bill provides resources for research, 

assistance to farmers and ranchers, and loans to businesses. It 

makes investments across the spectrum in order to grow our economy, create new jobs, lower energy prices, and begin to address 

global warming. 

SUPPORTING CONSERVATION

The stewardship of our lands affects us all everyday and will affect our children for years to come. But existing conservation programs are under-funded. This bill restores many of the programs 

slated for major reductions in the president’s request, including the 

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Resource Conservation and 

Development, and the watershed programs which are funded $75 

million—more than double last year’s levels. 

INVESTING IN RESEARCH

As we all know, research is at the core of maintaining U.S. agriculture’s place in the forefront of scientific discovery and development. And these efforts are critical to maintaining our edge in 

areas such as crop development, nutrition research, food safety and 

immediate responsiveness to incoming threats. For research at our 

nation’s universities and other important activities under CSREES, 

the mark provides an increase of $179 million over the President’s 

request for CSREES, including $109 million for research and education. For federally funded research, the bill provides an increase 

of $54.8 million over the President’s budget. 

ENHANCED OVERSIGHT

The Committee shares concerns about waste, fraud and abuse in 

key farm programs such as those run by the Farm Service Agency 

and the Risk Management Agency. The Committee has included 

language requested by the administration to allow the Risk Management Agency to use up to $11,166,000 in mandatory crop insurance funds to strengthen its ability to oversee the program by 

maintaining and upgrading IT systems and other methods of detecting dubious claims. Continuing work on an information management system will assist RMA and the Farm Service Agency in 

spotting potential problems in programs under both agencies. The 

Committee has also included an increase of $2 million for the Office of Inspector General for high priority work on waste, fraud and 

abuse, as part of a long term effort to rebuild the office’s resources. 

Finally, the Committee makes note throughout this report of 

agencies that are delinquent in responding to OIG or Government 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

5 

Accountability Office reports and calls for plans from such agencies 

for how they will respond to such reports promptly. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(7) 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,097,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 18,355,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,505,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +408,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥12,850,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $5,505,000, an increase of $408,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $12,850,000 

below the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes a total of $1,611,000 

for cross-cutting trade negotiations and biotechnology resources. 

The Committee does not include funding for provisional reconstruction team as requested. 

Explanatory Notes.—The Committee appreciates receiving the detailed information provided in the Explanatory Notes prepared by 

the Department and relies heavily on this information when considering budget proposals. These materials have traditionally been 

prepared for the sole use of the Appropriations Committee in a format consistent with the organization and operation of the programs 

and the structure of the Appropriations Act. At the direction of the 

Office of Management and Budget, the Department has changed 

the format and content of these materials to focus on broader goals 

and objectives rather than the major program structure followed in 

the Act and in the actual conduct of the programs. For fiscal year 

2009 and future years, the Department is directed to present Explanatory Notes in a format consistent with the presentation used 

for the fiscal year 2002 Budget. Any deviations from that format 

are to be approved in advance by the Committee. 

State Office Collocation.—The Committee continues to direct that 

any reallocation of resources related to the collocation of state offices scheduled for 2008 and subsequent years is subject to the 

Committee’s reprogramming procedures. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees on Appropriations in writing of the status 

of all reports requested of the Department in this bill, at the time 

of submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget and quarterly thereafter. 

The Committee reminds the Secretary that all correspondence related to the directives in this bill must be addressed to the Committee on Appropriations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

8 

High-Risk List.—The Committee directs USDA and FDA to work 

with GAO on a plan whose implementation would result in food 

safety being removed from GAO’s High-Risk List and to submit a 

report on that plan to the Committee by October 1, 2007. 

Minors in Agriculture.—The Committee is concerned with the 

number of injuries and deaths of minors in agriculture. Current 

child labor law permits children as young as 12 years of age to 

work in the fields under very specific limitations, such as non-hazardous work that occurs beyond school hours. However, according 

to a 1998 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, workplace 

hazards, including pesticides, heat stress, heavy machinery, and 

sharp tools, combine to injure more than 100,000 children on farms 

every year. Between 1992 and 2000, more than 40 percent of all 

work-related deaths of minors in the U.S. occurred in agriculture. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of USDA, in collaboration 

with the Secretary of Labor, to develop a plan to address injuries 

and deaths of minors in agriculture and to submit the plan to the 

Committee by March 1, 2008. 

The Committee is concerned that the USDA’s RUS Broadband 

Loan Program has not made sufficient corrective actions in response to the critical September 2005 report by the USDA Office 

of the Inspector General. In particular, the Committee is concerned 

that instead of focusing on un-served rural areas that have no 

broadband service, the RUS continues to grant loans to areas 

where broadband service is already being offered by private providers. Such practices penalize private providers that have already 

built broadband systems in these areas. Such practices also do 

nothing to further the goal of bringing broadband to un-served 

areas with no broadband while also putting at risk taxpayer dollars 

by funding projects where private sector competition already exists. 

The Committee directs the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General 

to reexamine the RUS Broadband Loan Program and issue a comprehensive follow-up report, which also details in particular: • How many un-served households were included in approved 

RUS Broadband Loan Program applications. 

• How many applications were granted to applicants proposing 

to serve areas where one or more private broadband providers already offered service. 

• How many approved loans (and their total amount) have defaulted since the program’s inception. 

• How many applicants who have been approved for loans have 

subsequently withdrawn from the program due to the eventually 

discovered infeasibility of the approved project. 

Apple Moth.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize 

all funds necessary from the Commodity Credit Corporation to 

carry out the recommendation of the USDA science advisory panel 

to eradicate in California the light brown apple moth. 

With two thirds of the USDA budget devoted to nutrition programs, the Committee urges the Department of Agriculture to thoroughly examine ways of linking local agriculture to nutrition program procurement. To the extent possible, the committee encourages the Department to identify funding sources to link local agriculture directly with nutrition programs serving seniors, school 

breakfast and lunch programs. The Committee notes growing intermstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

9 

est in local procurement among school food service systems across 

the country. Local procurement can help farmers develop consistent 

markets for fresh food produced locally. The Committee encourages 

the Department to work with school lunch administrators, food 

banks and local food advocates to identify opportunities for growth 

in local procurement, and directs FNS to study ways to enhance 

local procurement in school food service and report back to the 

Committee within 120 days of enactment of this act. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

CHIEF ECONOMIST

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $10,487,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 11,347,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,847,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +360,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Chief Economist, the Committee provides an appropriation of $10,847,000, an increase of $360,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $500,000 below the 

budget request. 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $14,466,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 15,056,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 15,056,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +590,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $15,056,000, an increase of $590,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,270,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,035,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,622,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +352,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥413,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $8,622,000, an increase of $352,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of 

$413,000 below the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

10 

HOMELAND SECURITY STAFF

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $931,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,412,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 2,252,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,321,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥160,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Homeland Security Staff, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $2,252,000, an increase of $1,321,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $160,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$1,274,000 for additional staff years transferred to the Homeland 

Security Staff from the Office of Inspector General. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $16,361,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 17,024,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 16,723,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +362,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥301,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $16,723,000, an increase of $362,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of 

$301,000 below the budget request. 

E-gov assessments.—The Committee is deeply troubled by the escalating costs of electronic government (‘‘e-gov’’) initiatives. Between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the amount USDA agencies paid 

for e-gov initiatives rose by 45 percent—from $33,837,000 to 

$49,086,000. Within these totals, the amount for presidential e-gov 

initiatives increased over two and a half times—from $8,609,000 in 

2005 to $22,953,000 in 2006. Since these costs are borne by the 

agencies and Congress did not provide increases to the agencies for 

these costs, in most circumstances the agencies must absorb the 

rising costs of e-gov initiatives by cutting back on program funding. 

The Committee supports efforts to make government more efficient and user-friendly, but not at the expense of core programs. 

The Committee directs the Office of the Chief Information Officer 

to scrutinize the need for each e-gov initiative, both presidential 

and departmental; to consider its benefit to the mission of each 

agency; and to limit 2007 and 2008 spending to the 2005 level 

wherever possible. A report should be submitted to the Committee 

by January 15, 2008, outlining the OCIO’s findings and the funding 

levels for both years. In addition, the Department’s fiscal year 2009 

budget should include a justification for funding each initiative, a 

description of how increases would be funded, and the impact on 

agency programs of the funding increases. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

11 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list was one audit report for OCIO, with several open 

recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts to 

reach agreement within 180 days and directs OCIO to send the 

Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching 

management decision on the outstanding issues. 

COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $107,971,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥107,971,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

not recommend, an appropriation for the Common Computing Environment. The Committee recommendation includes funding for 

the Common Computing Environment activities in the appropriate 

agency accounts. 

Since fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated over $711,134,000 for the modernization and integration of information 

systems in USDA’s county field offices. The Committee has fully 

supported this effort, but will expect to see reduced or level funding 

levels for this account in future budget submissions as a result of 

anticipated efficiencies and economies of scale. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue reporting to 

the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the implementation of the Common Computing Environment. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,850,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 30,863,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,076,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +226,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥24,787,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,076,000, an increase of $226,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of 

$24,787,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee includes authority in section 703 of the general 

provisions that allows for unobligated discretionary balances transferred to the Working Capital Fund to be used for the acquisition 

of plant and capital equipment for the delivery of the Financial 

Management Modernization Initiative. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a report concurrent with the Department’s annual budget submission for the 

following fiscal year, updating the Committee on its contracting out 

policies, including agency budgets for contracting out, for fiscal 

year 2007. The Committee is continuing bill language requiring the 

submission of the report on contracting out policies and agency 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

12 

budgets, prior to use of any funds appropriated to the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer for FAIR Act or Circular A–76 activities. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to continue providing quarterly reports on the status of continuity of operations of the National Finance Center, remote mirror imaging, the reestablishment 

of payroll and cross-servicing operations and function in New Orleans, selection for a new alternate worksite, and plans for the new 

primary computing facility. 

Assessments.—As with charges for electronic government initiatives, the assessments that the Department charges its agencies for 

other government- and department-wide activities have risen steeply. Between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, these assessments increased by almost 30 percent—from $10.8 million to $13.8 million. 

Since these assessments are borne by the agencies, and Congress 

did not specifically provide increases to the agencies for these costs, 

most of the funding for the increase has come at the expense of 

programs. 

The Committee directs the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

to scrutinize the need for each activity, excluding electronic government initiatives; to consider its benefit to the mission of each agency; and to limit 2007 and 2008 spending to the 2005 level wherever 

possible. A report should be submitted to the Committee by January 15, 2008, outlining OCFO’s findings and funding levels for both 

years. In addition, the Department’s fiscal year 2009 budget should 

include a justification for funding each activity, how increases 

would be funded, and the impact on funding the increases on agency programs. The Department should also include an exhibit showing assessments by agency in addition to the exhibit submitted in 

the FY 2008 budget. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $818,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 897,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 897,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +79,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $897,000, an increase of 

$79,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the 

same amount as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $20,020,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 23,147,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,147,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +3,127,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee recommends an ap- propriation of $23,147,000, an increase of $3,127,000 above the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

13 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the same amount as the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $2,441,000, as requested, for the Civil Rights Enterprise System and compliance 

monitoring activities. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $673,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 739,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 709,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +36,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥30,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $709,000, an increase of 

$36,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $30,000 below the budget request. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $185,919,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 216,837,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 196,616,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +10,697,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥20,221,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $196,616,000, an increase of $10,697,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and a decrease of $20,221,000 below the budget request. Included in this amount is $156,590,000 for payments to GSA for 

rent and the Department of Homeland Security for building security. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account: 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

[In thousands of dollars] 

2007 estimate 2008 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Rental Payments ..................................... $146,257 $156,590 $156,590 

Building Operations ................................ 39,662 60,247 40,026 

Total .............................................. 185,919 216,837 196,616 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $11,887,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 12,200,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 12,200,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +313,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

14 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $12,200,000, an increase of $313,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $23,144,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 24,608,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,913,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +769,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥695,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $23,913,000, an increase of $769,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $695,000 

below the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,795,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,099,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,936,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +141,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥163,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,936,000, an 

increase of $141,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and a decrease of $163,000 below the budget request. 

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. 

The Committee notes that when pay costs are requested in the 

President’s budget request, the pay cost estimate includes an increase for all FTE’s funded through the Congressional Relations account. The Committee expects that when the pay costs are provided 

in an appropriations bill, the pay increase be distributed to the 

agencies to cover pay costs. 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,338,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,720,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 9,720,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +382,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

15 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $9,720,000, an increase of $382,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the same amount as the 

budget request. 

The Committee directs the Office of Communications to continue 

to provide them with copies of open source news material made 

available to USDA officials through the use of appropriated funds. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $80,052,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 83,998,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 85,998,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,946,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $85,998,000, an increase of $5,946,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007, and an increase of 

$2,000,000 above the the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$2,000,000 for additional high priority work on waste, fraud and 

abuse, public health, and program integrity. Of this amount, 

$1,000,000 is for continued work on waste, fraud and abuse issues 

related to crop insurance and farm payments. The Committee provides this increase as part of a long-term effort to rebuild the resources of the Office of Inspector General (OIG). 

The Committee notes that the transfer of personnel, but not the 

funds, to the Homeland Security Office provides additional resources for the OIG to carry out its audit and investigative functions. 

The Committee greatly values the OIG staff and relies on their 

work extensively. OIG serves as the eyes and ears of the public. 

While the exact methodology of the calculation may be subject to 

dispute, there is no question that OIG’s work has saved the taxpayers millions of dollars and improved the integrity and operation 

of numerous programs within USDA. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee appreciates receiving for the record 

OIG’s list of audit reports where management decisions have not 

been achieved within 180 days. The Committee supports OIG in its 

efforts to reach agreement within 180 days and will note its displeasure with those agencies that have failed to meet this deadline 

elsewhere in this report. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $39,227,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 41,721,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 40,964,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,737,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥757,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

16 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $40,964,000, an increase of $1,737,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of 

$757,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes an increase of $200,000 for additional staff to support high priority work. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND

ECONOMICS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $596,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 654,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 626,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +30,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥28,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$626,000, an increase of $30,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $28,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the equine industry 

to the state of Tennessee and that it is one of the fastest growing 

sectors of the state’s economy. According to a 2004 USDA survey, 

assets on equine operations in Tennessee totaled approximately $6 

billion, an increase of 24 percent since 1999. This growth has been 

accompanied by unparalleled demand for trained professionals and 

research scientists to work in the various sectors associated with 

the equine industry. The Committee urges CSREES to work with 

public educational institutions in the state to form partnerships 

that could address the research, educational and outreach needs of 

the industry in the state. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $75,193,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 82,544,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 79,282,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,089,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,262,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $79,282,000, an increase of $4,089,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $3,262,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$1,000,000, as requested, to strengthen research and modeling capacity in bio-energy and the market impacts associated with bioenergy development. 

In addition the Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 

to strengthen and enhance the ERS market analysis and outlook 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

17 

program and analysis of global and differentiated product markets. 

The impact of agriculture production in this rapidly changing economic environment on rural economic development is of great interest and concern to the Committee. 

The Committee recommendation also includes an increase of 

$250,000 to research deployment of broadband service to households with no or limited broadband access. The Committee held a 

hearing with the Economic Research Service on the current state 

of rural development and on the sources of rural community 

growth. The importance of communities having broadband access 

was stressed repeatedly during the hearing. The Committee expects ERS to study the economic impact of not having broadband 

service on rural communities and their growth, community facilities, access to healthcare, and well being. 

The Committee provides $500,000, the same as the fiscal year 

2007 level, for the continuation of the organic data surveys, the 

compilation of non-survey data on organic production and marketing, the merger and reconciliation with any new survey information, analysis that reveals patterns, similarities and differences 

from comparisons among organic, other differentiated markets, and 

bulk or homogeneous product markets, and the development of policy relevant findings from a full portfolio of data and information. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $147,253,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 167,699,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 166,099,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +18,846,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,600,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $166,099,000, an increase of 

$18,846,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a 

decrease of $1,600,000 below the budget request. 

Included in this amount is $52,725,000 for the Census of Agriculture, an increase of $16,476,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $1,600,000 below the budget request. The Census of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data on all aspects of the agricultural economy. Also included 

in this amount is $113,374,000 for the Agricultural Estimates, an 

increase of $2,370,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee notes the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) has developed additional organic data surveys based on the 

2002 Census of Agriculture and is expanding organic data collection in the 2007 Census of Agriculture. The Committee encourages 

the NASS to conduct in fiscal year 2009 an organic follow-on survey to the 2007 Census of Agriculture in order to collect more indepth information on acreage, yield/production, inventory, production practices, sales and expenses, marketing channels and demographics. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

18 

The Committee directs NASS to provide a report by February 28, 

2008, on implementation of Section 7407 of the 2002 Farm Bill and 

a summary of funds requested in the fiscal year 2009 President’s 

request to implement Section 7407 and to conduct an organic follow-on survey. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,128,944,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,021,517,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,076,340,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥52,604,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +54,823,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,076,340,000, a decrease of $52,604,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and an increase of $54,823,000 above the budget request. 

In addition to pay costs, the Committee provides an increase of $10,000,000 for renewable energy resources research; $1,750,000 

for specialty crop genetic resources research; $400,000 for organic 

production systems research; $3,000,000 for food safety research; 

$3,000,000 for food allergen research; $2,000,000 for support of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service mission with respect 

to animal disease; $1,000,000 for support of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service mission with respect to plant disease; 

$6,500,000 for obesity research; and $5,000,000 for high priority research as determined by the Administrator. 

The devastating phenomenon that has affected bees, referred to 

as colony collapse disorder (CCD), is seriously affecting the ability 

of U.S. beekeepers to maintain adequate bee supplies that are essential for the production of honey and for pollination. Pollination 

is responsible for an estimated $15 billion in added crop value, particularly for specialty crops such as almonds and other nuts, berries, fruits, and vegetables. The Committee understands that the 

ARS is conducting federal research to attempt to identify the cause 

or causes of CCD. The Committee notes that ARS is spending approximately $7,674,600 on bee research in fiscal year 2007, and 

strongly encourages the agency to maintain this funding level for 

this vital program in fiscal year 2008. 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center.—The Committee directs 

that none of the funds appropriated to the Agricultural Research 

Service for the Advanced Animal Vaccine Project at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center may be directed for any other use by 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

Nutrition research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of 

plant genetic and nutrition research as it relates to finding solutions for America’s obesity concerns. The North Carolina Research 

Campus in Kannapolis, North Carolina, will co-locate two important groups of scientists from the University of North Carolina 

(UNC) School System that would combine expertise in agricultural 

genetics and production with nutrition scientists. The Committee 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

19 

encourages the USDA/ARS to work with the UNC system to establish a public/private partnership at the Kannapolis research campus and to look for new ways to address current and future health 

concerns. 

Continuing Programs.—The Committee recognizes the importance of ongoing research projects in addressing problems faced by 

the Nation’s food and fiber producers. In this regard, the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund 

the following areas of research at the fiscal year 2007 funding levels: Aerial Application Research, College Station, TX, $584,089; 

Animal Health Consortium, Peoria, IL, $879,430; Animal Vaccines, 

Greenport, NY, $1,627,698; Appalachian Horticulture Research (U 

of TN/TN State), Poplarville, MS, $784,244; Aquaculture Fisheries 

Center, Pine Bluff, AR, $72,552; Aquaculture Initiatives for MidAtlantic Highlands, Leetown, WV, $543,639; Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, AR, 

$1,713,477; Aquaculture Research, Aberdeen, ID; $628,843; 

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (Rodale Inst.), Wyndmoor, PA, 

$45,176; Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, Little Rock, AR, 

$584,911; Avian Pneumovirus/Asian Bird Influenza, Athens, GA, 

$291,926; Barley Health Food Benefits, Beltsville, MD, $477,009; 

Bee Research, Weslaco, TX, $244,077; Biomass Crop Production, 

Brookings, SD, $1,213,174; Biomedical Materials in Plants, Biotech 

Foundation, Beltsville, MD, $1,821,298; Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematode, Beltsville, MD, $390,101; Bioremediation Research, Beltsville, MD, $118,800; Biotechnology Research Development Corporation, Peoria, IL, $2,684,737; Bovine 

Genetics, Beltsville, MD, $1,913,866; Broomweed Biological Controls, Albany, CA, $444,820; Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL, 

$878,046; Center for Agroforestry, Booneville, AR, $707,706; Central Great Plains Research Station, Akron, CO, $534,073; Cereal 

Crops Research, Madison, WI, $902,338; Cereal Disease, St. Paul, 

MN, $310,971; Chronic Diseases of Children, Houston, TX, 

$496,677; Citrus Waste Utilization, Winter Haven, FL, $392,832; 

Coffee and Cocoa, Beltsville, MD, $852,966; Corn Germplasm, 

Ames, IA, $851,946; Corn Rootworm, Ames, IA, $490,354; Cotton 

Pathology, Shafter, CA, $361,805; Crop Production and Food Processing, Peoria, IL, $843,393; Cropping Systems Research, Stoneville, MS, $848,761; Dairy Genetics, Beltsville, MD, $929,945; Dale 

Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, AR, 

$1,935,612; Delta Nutrition Initiative, Little Rock, AR, $4,222,502; 

Diet and Immune Function, Little Rock, AR, $234,910; Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research (Pennington), New Orleans, LA, 

$668,570; Dryland Production, Akron, CO, $234,910; Endophyte 

Research, Booneville, AR, $1,066,411; Floriculture and Nursery 

Crops, Beltsville, MD, $2,476,226; Food Fermentation Research, 

Raleigh, NC, $361,805; Food Safety for Listeria and E Coli, College 

Station, TX, $81,356; Food Safety for Listeria, E coli, and other 

Food Pathogens, Beltsville, MD, $134,339; Food Safety for Meat 

and Produce, Beltsville, MD, $260,487; Formosan Subterranean 

Termite, New Orleans, LA, $3,743,014; Foundry Sand By-Products 

Utilization, Beltsville, MD, $685,412; Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Laboratory, Grand Forks, ND, $579,739; Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY, $628,843; Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

20 

$573,689; Grassland Soil and Water Research, Temple, TX, 

$219,665; Greenhouse and Hydroponics Research, Wooster, OH, 

$1,555,357; Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm, Salinas, CA, 

$223,573; Harry K. Dupree National Aquaculture Research Center, 

Stuttgart, AR, $438,598; Hops Research, Corvallis, OR, $464,258; 

Human Nutrition (Equipment), Boston, MA, $98,208; Human Nutrition (Obesity), Boston, MA, $730,401; Improved Crop Production 

Practices, Auburn, AL, $1,387,021; Invasive Aquatic Weeds, Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL, $526,755; Invasive Ludwigia Research, Davis, CA, 

$99,000; Johne’s Disease, Beltsville, MD, $323,313; Karnal bunt, 

Manhattan, KS, $545,010; Lyme Disease 4 Poster Project, Beltsville, MD (National Program), $751,205; Medicinal and Bioactive 

Crops, Washington, DC, $118,800; Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation, 

Columbia, MO, $692,377; Minor-Use Pesticides (IR–4), Beltsville, 

MD, $73,038; Mosquito Trapping Research/West Nile Virus, 

Gainesville, FL, $1,238,482; National Center for Agricultural Law, 

MD, $701,034; National Germplasm Resources Program, Beltsville, 

MD, $145,491; National Germplasm Resources System, Beltsville, 

MD, $121,242; National Germplasm Resources, College Station, 

TX, $242,486; National Nutrition Monitoring System, Beltsville, 

MD, $484,969; National Plant Germplasm Program, Aberdeen, ID, 

$96,994; National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL, 

$1,110,911; Natural Products for Human Health, Beltsville, MD, 

$237,600; Nematology Research, Tifton, GA, $248,376; Northern 

Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, $62,076; Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, Corvallis, OR, $645,962; 

Oat Virus, West Lafayette, IN, $232,786; Obesity Interventions 

(Nutricore), Beltsville, MD (National Program), $90,684; Ogallala 

Aquifer, Bushland, TX, $3,758,197; Olive Fruit Fly, Montpelier, 

France, $213,386; Olive Fruit Fly, Parlier, CA, $301,252; Organic 

Minor Crop, Salinas, CA, $159,036; Peanut Production, Dawson, 

GA, $74,250; Peanut Research, Dawson, GA, $131,799; Peanut Variety, Stillwater, OK, $178,200; Pecan Scab Research, Byron, GA, 

$603,409; Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA, $1,529,821; 

Pierce’s Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Parlier and Davis, 

CA, $3,354,863; Pierce’s Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Ft. 

Pierce, FL, $465,631; Pineapple Nematode Research, Hilo, HI, 

$283,707; Plant Stress and Water Conservation Lab, Lubbock, TX, 

$1,560,554; Potato Breeding, Prosser, WA, $135,907; Potato Diseases, Beltsville, MD, $65,490; Potato Research Enhancement, 

Prosser, WA, $288,057; Poult Enteritis-Mortality Syndrome, Athens, GA, $145,903; Poultry Diseases, Athens, GA, $892,344; Poultry 

Diseases, Beltsville, MD, $438,066; Precision Agriculture Research, 

Mandan, ND, $484,969; Quantify basin water budget components 

in the Southwest, Tucson, AZ, $633,265; Rainbow Trout, Aberdeen, 

ID, $1,093,728; Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center— 

Canada Thistle Research, Fargo, ND, $263,597; Red River Valley 

Agricultural Research Center—Cereal Crops and Sunflower Research, Fargo, ND, $1,725,189; Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center—National Sclerotinia Initiative, Fargo, ND, 

$1,723,112; Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center—National Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, Fargo, ND, $96,994; Red 

River Valley Agricultural Research Center—Regional Molecular 

Genotyping, Fargo, ND, $175,731; Red River Valley Agricultural 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

21 

Research Center—Wheat Quality Research, Fargo, ND, $193,989; 

Regional Grains Genotyping, Raleigh, NC, $692,645; Regional Molecular Genotyping, Pullman, WA, $251,020; Residue Management 

in Sugarcane (Sugarcane Research), Houma, LA, $1,193,413; Rice 

research, Stuttgart, AR, $270,790; Seasonal Grazing, Coshocton, 

OH, $99,000; Seismic and Acoustic—Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, MS, $355,546; Shellfish Genetics Research, 

Newport, OR, $774,966; Sorghum Cold Tolerance, Lubbock, TX, 

$263,597; Sorghum Ergot Research, College Station, TX, $71,500; 

Sorghum Research, Bushland, TX, $483,576; Sorghum Research, 

Little Rock, AR, $145,491; Sorghum Research, Lubbock, TX, 

$974,190; Sorghum Research, Stillwater, OK, $290,982; Source 

Water Protection Initiatives, Columbus, OH, $750,121; Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research, Byron, GA, $460,013; Southwest Pecan Research, College Station, TX, $232,786; Soybean and 

Nitrogen Fixation, Raleigh, NC, $408,589; Sudden Oak Disease, 

Davis, CA, $317,872; Sugarbeet Research, Kimberly, ID, $702,592; 

Sugarcane Variety Research, Canal Point, FL, $1,404,773; Sustainable Feeds, Aberdeen, ID, $99,000; Temperate Fruit Flies, Wapato, 

WA, $36,276; Termite Species in Hawaii, Gainesville, FL, $139,104; 

Tree Fruit Quality Research, Wenatchee, WA, $435,461; Tropical 

Aquaculture Feeds, Hilo, HI, $1,541,561; Turfgrass Research, 

Washington, DC, $476,911; U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI, $2,402,726; USNA Germplasm/Ornamental 

Horticulture, Washington, DC, $1,655,722; Vaccines and Microbe 

Control for Fish Health, Auburn, AL, $1,061,777; Vectorborne Diseases, Gainesville, FL, $219,665; Verticillium Wilt, Salinas, CA, 

$474,223; Viticulture, Corvallis, OR, $349,179; Water Management 

Research Laboratory, Brawley, CA, $339,789; Water Resources 

Management, Tifton, GA, $586,215; Water Use Management Technology, Tifton, GA, $340,828; Water Use Reduction, Dawson, GA, 

$704,635; Weed Management Research, Beltsville, MD, $263,597; 

Wheat Quality Research, Manhattan, KS, $420,028; Wheat Quality 

Research, Wooster, OH, $413,654; and Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN, 

$324,740. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. 0 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... $16,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 64,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +64,000,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +48,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $64,000,000, an increase of 

$64,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2007, and an 

increase of $48,000,000 above the budget request. 

Of the total provided, the Committee includes funding for the following: Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT, $2,690,000; Center for Advanced Viticulture and Tree Crop Research, Davis, CA, 

$2,690,000; Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY, $2,690,000; 

Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research, Storrs, CT, $2,690,000; 

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

22 

$2,690,000; Southeastern Poultry Research Laboratory, Athens, 

GA, $4,000,000; U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC, 

$1,000,000; University of Toledo Greenhouse and Hydroponic Research Complex, Toledo, OH, $2,690,000; US Agricultural Research 

Facility, Knipling-Bushland Laboratory, Kerrville, TX, $2,000,000; 

US Agricultural Research Service Laboratory, Canal Point, FL, 

$750,000; US Agricultural Research Service Laboratory, Pullman, 

WA, $2,690,000; US Agricultural Research Service Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, LA, $2,690,000; and US Agricultural 

Research Station, Salinas, CA, $2,690,000. 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

SERVICE

The budget request for the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) programs totals more than 

$1 billion. These programs give support to our universities and to 

rural communities and help address critical needs. However, the 

Committee believes that, given the growth in the number of authorized activities funded, there may be programs within CSREES 

that unnecessarily duplicate the work of other programs in 

CSREES and that there must be measures of the effectiveness of 

each program in achieving its goals. While CSREES does have a 

strategic plan, it does not specify how each program funded contributes to the agency’s goals. The Committee requests that the 

Secretary provide a report by October 1, 2007, describing in clear, 

concrete terms, what has been achieved in the past and what 

would be achieved in the future for each activity for which the administration sought funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget. 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $671,419,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 562,518,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 671,419,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +108,901,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $671,419,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $108,901,000 above the 

budget request. 

For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $195,817,000, a decrease of $126,780,000 below 

the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$31,387,000 above the budget request. 

For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides an appropriation of $23,318,000, a decrease of $6,690,000 below the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $2,831,000 

above the budget request. 

For the Evans-Allen Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $42,000,000, an increase of $1,320,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $3,669,000 

above the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

23 

For the National Research Initiative, the Committee provides an appropriation of $190,229,000, the same amount as available in fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $66,271,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide the requested increase for bioenergy and biobased fuels research within 

the funds provided. 

For Hispanic Education Partnership Grants, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $6,237,000, an increase of $297,000 above 

the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$649,000 above the budget request. 

For the Veterinary Medical Services Act, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,000,000, an increase of $505,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $1,000,000 

above the budget request. 

Food safety.—The Committee recognizes the contributions that 

the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) has made 

toward ensuring the security of the nation’s food supply. The Committee is concerned that, although USDA is fully aware of the public reliance on the database and its importance in maintaining food 

safety, it has continued to rely on Congress to earmark funds for 

the initiative, neither requesting funding in its annual budget submission nor providing another source for this information, which 

relates directly to the department’s core mission. The Committee 

directs USDA to report to the Committees on Appropriations in the 

House and Senate within 45 days of enactment on its long-term 

plans to maintain the critical function that FARAD has provided 

in protecting the U.S. livestock industry from accidental or deliberate contamination. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

24 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here HR258.001
25 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here HR258.002
26 

The Committee recommendation includes funding for other Special Research Grants as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

27 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 HR258.003
28 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 HR258.004
29 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 HR258.005
30 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 HR258.006
31 

The Committee recommendation includes funding for other Federal Administration grants as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

32 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 HR258.007
33 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 11,880,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 11,880,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥120,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $11,880,000, a decrease of $120,000 below the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget 

request. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $450,346,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 431,125,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 463,886,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +13,540,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +32,761,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $463,886,000, an increase of $13,540,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $32,761,000 above 

the budget request. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

34 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 34233A.007
35 

The Committee recommendation includes funding for other Federal Administration grants as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

36 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 HR258.008
37 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $55,234,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,120,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 57,244,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,010,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +37,124,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropria- tion of $57,244,000, an increase of $2,010,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $37,124,000 above 

the budget request. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

38 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 here 34233A.009
39 

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,940,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,930,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,930,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +990,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 

Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$6,930,000, an increase of $990,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and the same amount as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $721,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 792,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 759,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +38,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥33,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$759,000, an increase of $38,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and $33,000 below the budget request. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $846,230,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 945,550,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 874,643,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +28,413,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥70,907,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 

$874,643,000, an increase of $28,413,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2007, and a decrease of $70,907,000 below the 

budget request. 

The Committee is aware of the proposal for user fees in the 

President’s budget, but does not recommend establishing such fees 

in annual appropriations acts and will consider such fees should 

they achieve authorization. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list were four audit reports for APHIS, with a number of open recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

40 

efforts to reach agreement within 180 days and directs APHIS to 

send the Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for 

reaching management decision on all outstanding issues. 

International Activities.—The Committee recommendation does 

not include additional funding for international activities. According to APHIS budget documents, in fiscal year 2006, the agency 

had 143 staff years and spent almost $67,000,000 in over 23 overseas locations. For fiscal year 2008, APHIS has requested an additional 48 staff years and an increase of $8,775,000 for three different programs to establish new overseas offices or add to current 

offices. This would bring the budget for international activities to 

almost $76,000,000. 

While the Committee appreciates APHIS’ work in helping resolve 

unfair trade barriers, it is not clear what is being accomplished by 

the various APHIS programs with this significant amount of 

money. Along with the budget submission for fiscal year 2009, 

APHIS should submit to the Committee a comprehensive strategic 

plan for its international activities. The plan should include details 

of current activities, locations of where they are conducted, number 

of people, amount of money, and results being achieved. In addition, the plan should include long-term goals, strategies on how to 

reach these goals, justifications for each program, location, and resource requirement (both short-term and long-term). 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

41 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 34233A.011
42 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 34233A.012
43 

To maintain agency functions the Committee provides the requested amount for cost of living requirements. 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—The Committee includes an 

appropriation of $27,531,000 for this program, including $1,000,000 

for interline activities in Hawaii. 

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.—The Committee 

recommendation includes an increase of $5,600,000 for APHIS for 

activities related to Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia. The recommendation continues funding for surveillance activities for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. 

The Committee directs that within the amount provided, $1,980,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium. This project supports 

the national plan to establish an animal and livestock 48-hour 

traceback system. The Committee also provides $594,000 for the 

Farm Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) program. Both the 

Wisconsin consortium and the FAIR project should also be eligible 

to apply for cooperative agreement funding for animal identification, which is funded within the NAIS total. In addition, the Committee provides $297,000 for a database of North Carolina’s agriculture industry for rapid response capabilities and $542,000 for 

the New Mexico Syndromic Validation Program to support early 

detection of pathogens in animals and prevent their spread. The 

Committee provides $371,000 for Iowa State University’s work regarding risk assessments of genetically modified agricultural products. 

Animal Identification.—Through fiscal year 2007, a total of about $117,800,000 has been provided for a National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As of June 30, 2007, APHIS had spent 

$94,400,000 to register about 28 percent of all premises; develop 

and maintain information technology; conduct outreach and education initiatives; and pay staff for developing and managing NAIS. 

Of the amount spent, $6,000,000 was made available to nonprofit 

livestock and poultry industry organizations to advance the development of NAIS through outreach and promotional efforts. In addition, $500,000 was spent on a third party study to clarify the costs 

and benefits of animal identification. 

Until August 2005, the Department had stated that program 

data would be held centrally; however, the Secretary announced in 

August that data would be held by private entities that meet certain requirements. In addition, after some signals from the Secretary that participation would be mandatory, the program is now 

voluntary. The NAIS implementation plan released in the spring of 

2006 included a timeline that called for the NAIS to be operational 

by 2007 and fully implemented by 2009. However, in November 

2006, APHIS released a Draft User Guide for NAIS, which states 

that the goal of premises registration is ‘‘to establish a complete 

record of all locations, or premises, in the United States that manage or hold livestock and/or poultry’’. According to USDA, because 

the program is voluntary and the goal can only be reached if producers choose to participate, a date is not specified as to when the 

goal is expected to be achieved. In addition, it is not clear if the 

program’s original goal of 48-hour animal trace-back is still part of 

the plan. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

44 

The Committee requests a complete and detailed strategic plan 

for the program, including tangible outcomes, measurable goals, 

specific milestones, and necessary resources for the entire program. 

Until the Committee receives this plan, the Committee has no justification to continue funding for this program and therefore, the 

Committee recommendation includes no new funding. 

Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement.—In addition 

to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase 

of $2,042,000 as requested for additional field investigators to ensure compliance with border and animal care regulations. 

Emergency Management Systems.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $2,000,000, of 

which $1,000,000 is for animal care in emergencies and $1,000,000 

for the vaccine stockpile. 

High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).—In addition to pay 

costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$9,530,000 as requested for domestic and international surveillance, including live bird markets and wildlife. Since 2006, 

$118,700,000 has been provided to APHIS for HPAI work. The 

Committee requests a report by November 1, 2007, on how these 

funds have been spent. 

Pest Detection.—The Committee recommendation provides $26,967,000 for this program. Within that amount, the Committee 

provides $831,000 in funding to continue a cooperative agreement 

with the California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program. 

Select Agents.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee rec- ommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount 

available in fiscal year 2007 to continue addressing issues raised 

by the Office of Inspector General. 

Brucellosis.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$9,043,000 for this program. Within this amount, the Committee 

provides $900,000 for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone area. 

Chronic Wasting Disease.—The Committee recommendation includes $16,720,000 for this program. Within this amount, the Committee directs that $1,732,000 shall go to the State of Wisconsin. 

Cotton Pests.—The Committee recommendation includes the consolidation of the Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm line items into a 

new Cotton Pests program, as requested. The total provided is 

$36,269,000, to address boll weevil, pink bollworm, and other cotton pests or diseases. This amount is $20,171,000 above the budget 

request. 

Emerging Plant Pests.—The Committee expects the Secretary of 

Agriculture to continue to use the authority provided in this bill to 

transfer funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) for 

the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases 

that threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, the Committee is enhancing, but not replacing, the use of 

CCC funding for emergency outbreaks. 

For emerging plant pests, the Committee includes $131,245,000, 

an increase of $32,704,000 above the amount available in fiscal 

year 2007. The Committee provides the following increased 

amounts for eradication and control activities: $20,007,000 for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

45 

Asian Long-horned Beetle; $36,709,000 for citrus pests and diseases; $24,175,000 for Glassy-winged Sharpshooter/Pierce’s Disease; $6,750,000 for Potato Cyst Nematode; $30,657,000 for Emerald Ash Borer; $6,540,000 for Sudden Oak Death; $2,764,000 for 

Karnal Bunt; and $3,643,000 for other miscellaneous pests and diseases. 

The Committee is concerned about the spread of the Emerald 

Ash Borer. The Committee recommendation more than doubles the 

amount available in 2007 to help States with new outbreaks, such 

as Maryland, and States that are at risk, such as Wisconsin. While 

the Committee is encouraged that APHIS may have a new and less 

costly survey tool to use in 2008, the Committee requests that 

APHIS submits a plan by September 30, 2007, on how resources 

available in 2008 will be spent and where activities will be conducted. 

The Committee provides $495,000 for hydrilla eradication around 

Lake Gaston in Virginia, and expects APHIS to monitor the effectiveness of hydrilla eradication around Smith Mountain Lake in 

Virginia. The Committee also provides $312,000 for olive fruit fly 

activities in California. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to transfer funds from 

the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to ensure adequate funding is made available for the eradication of potato cyst nematode 

in Idaho. 

Gypsy Moth.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$4,887,000 for this program. The Committee encourages APHIS to 

help eradicate gypsy moth in New Jersey and Maryland. 

Johne’s Disease.—The Committee recommendation provides a total of $7,706,000, an increase of $4,440,000 above the budget request to maintain the current Federal share of total program costs. 

Low Pathogen Avian Influenza.—The Committee recommendation provides a total of $16,800,000 as requested in the budget. 

This is an increase of $3,079,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2007. Funds are provided for work with the live bird marketing system, the commercial industry and National Poultry Improvement Plan, and the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. 

Within the total, the Committee provides $1,000,000 to the State 

of Connecticut for purposes related to indemnification and education for AI vaccinations. The Committee recognizes that the traditional response to a low pathogen avian influenza (LPAI) outbreak on a poultry farm is the depopulation of the affected livestock, and that the USDA provides financial assistance through an 

emergency indemnification program to cover the cost of depopulation. The Committee is concerned that this approach is costly and 

ineffective and encourages the state to use the funds to study the 

costs and benefits of alternative methods for responding to an outbreak on poultry farms, including vaccinations. 

In addition, $12,000,000 for indemnities, which was provided in 

fiscal year 2005, remains available to the program. 

Noxious Weeds.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,446,000 for this program. Within this amount, the Committee 

provides $250,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center and 

$296,000 for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

46 

Tuberculosis.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee rec- ommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount 

available in fiscal year 2007 for work at major slaughter plants. 

Wildlife Services Operations.—The Committee recommendation 

provides a total of $76,950,000 as requested in the budget. The 

Committee rejects APHIS’s proposal to redirect funds within this 

line item. 

The recommendation assumes the continuation of current cost 

share levels for cooperators. The Committee directs that, other 

than funding for the specific items noted in this report, the funds 

provided in the Wildlife Services Operations line item are available 

for general operations needs. 

The Committee continues the fiscal year 2007 funding level for 

aviation safety. Within the Aviation Safety activities, the Committee encourages APHIS to expand research work into what can 

be done to deter birds from the increasing number of wind turbine 

generators around the nation. The Committee continues to provide $1,039,000 for wolf predation management in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. 

The Committee provides funding for the following projects: $297,000 for Beaver management in North Carolina; $296,500 for 

crop and aquaculture losses in southeast Missouri; $200,000 for 

predation wildlife services in Virginia; $134,000 for blackbird control in Louisiana; $1,300,000 for predator control programs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming; $940,000 for brown tree snake management in Guam; $400,000 for Hawaii and Guam operations; 

$990,000 for cormorant control in New York; $200,000 for the Cooperative Livestock Protection Program in the State of Pennsylvania; $533,000 for beaver management control in Mississippi; and 

$1,818,000 for surveillance in North Dakota. 

The Committee expects APHIS to use program funding to appropriately address rabies in Broward County, Florida. The Committee 

expects APHIS to continue monitoring Ohio and Michigan for cormorant control. The Committee also expects APHIS to continue 

funding wildlife services in Arkansas at the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee encourages APHIS to help resolve the damage and 

disease issues caused by non-native patas and rhesus monkeys in 

Puerto Rico. 

Animal Welfare.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,170,000 above the amount 

available in fiscal year 2007 as requested. A total of $21,126,000 

is provided for additional inspectors to further improve Animal 

Welfare Act enforcement. This responds to Animal Care’s significantly increased workload as a result of rapid growth in the number of new licensees and registrants. 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS).—The Committee is concerned with the gaps in oversight by USDA in this area. In December 2005, a report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified numerous holes in APHIS’ regulatory efforts for geneticallyengineered crops. APHIS should proceed carefully to ensure the 

safe development and use of genetically-engineered organisms. The 

Committee understands that the Office of Inspector General is finalizing an audit on this program and expects APHIS to address 

all concerns before additional funding can be provided. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

47 

Plant Methods Development Labs.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2007 to support the development of detection and control tools to contain and eradicate 

the emerald ash borer. 

Veterinary Biologics.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,413,000 above the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007. Of this amount, $1,000,000 

is for meeting increased demands for veterinary biologics applications, and $413,000 is for addressing containment requirements 

and meeting standards related to the use of select agents and toxins. 

Veterinary Diagnostics.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 above the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 for highest priority needs. 

Within the total for Veterinary Diagnostics, funding is provided for the following projects: $371,000 is provided for the Agricultural 

Biosecurity Center at Kansas State University; $100,000 for Agricultural Compliance Laboratory equipment in Delaware; and 

$100,000 for aquaculture monitoring technology at Kentucky State 

University. 

Wildlife Services Methods Development.—In addition to pay costs, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,625,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2007 as requested for the 

avian influenza initiative to study the virus in swine. Within the total provided, $415,000 is included for the National 

Wildlife Research Station in Kingsville, Texas, to address emerging 

infectious disease issues associated with wildlife populations. The Committee also includes $231,000 to continue the cooperative agreement between the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center 

and the National Wildlife Research Center in Hilo. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,946,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,931,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,946,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,985,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and 

Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,946,000, 

the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $3,985,000 below the budget request. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $74,937,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 74,988,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 79,945,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,008,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +4,957,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

48 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $79,945,000, an increase of $5,008,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and an increase of $4,957,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,897,000 for pay 

costs as requested. The recommendation also includes an increase 

of $1,111,000 as requested for activities relating to Organic Standards for a total of $3,180,000. The Committee encourages the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to continue working with the 

Risk Management Agency to collect organic price data. 

Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL).—The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $2,000,000 for AMS to implement COOL requirements for all covered commodities. The Committee understands that AMS is finishing the rule for fish and 

shellfish and is drafting a rule for all other covered commodities. 

The Committee notes that AMS recently issued notices re-opening the comment period for 60 days for the proposed rule on all covered commodities, except fish and shellfish, and the interim final 

rule on fish and shellfish covered commodities. The Committee directs AMS to meet the following timeline: 

January 17, 2008: Publish re-proposed rule for covered commodities with a 60-day comment period. 

July 19, 2008: Publish final rule for all covered commodities. 

July 26, 2008: Initiate Congressional review for final rule for all 

covered commodities. 

September 30, 2008: Effective date for final rule for all covered 

commodities. 

A report should be sent to the Committee a week after each date 

outlining the status of each milestone, the reason the deadline was 

not met if appropriate, and a plan on how AMS will meet the September 30, 2008 deadline. 

Microbiological Data Program (MDP).—The Committee recommendation does not include the proposed termination of MDP. 

It is continued at $6,200,000. In its proposal to terminate the program, AMS argued that it was difficult to determine the usefulness 

of the data. The Committee would like to work with AMS to implement this program as originally intended. A report should be submitted to the Committee by November 1, 2007, outlining what 

AMS thinks are obstacles to meeting program goals and solutions 

to those obstacles. The report should also include recommendations 

on how this program can help the Food and Drug Administration 

in reducing foodborne illness incidences. 

Audit-Based Programs.—The Committee is very interested in 

AMS’ user-fee funded, voluntary programs that apply Good Manufacturing Practices, issued by the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), to the management of production and handling systems for 

fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. The Committee urges AMS to develop an aggressive marketing plan to increase participation in 

these programs. In addition, it is not clear if the audit results are 

used by FDA to complement their food safety activities. The Committee requests a report from AMS by January 15, 2008, outlining 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

49 

a marketing campaign to enhance participation in these auditbased programs and a plan to provide useful information to FDA. 

National Organic Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,180,000 as requested for the National Organic Program. 

This represents an increase of almost 60 percent over the amount 

available in 2007. 

The Committee continues to provide $1,000,000 in this account 

for the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program to make grants to eligible entities for projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers’ markets. The Committee directs that no entity should receive 

more than $75,000 in funding from the program, and requests a report on the grants made, including the entity, purpose, and location, and the administrative costs of the program by March 31, 

2008. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2007 limitation .................................................................................... ($62,211,000) 

2008 budget limitation ....................................................................... (61,233,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (61,233,000) 

Comparison: 

2007 limitation ............................................................................ ¥978,000 

2008 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural 

Marketing Service, the Committee provides $61,233,000, a decrease 

of $978,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the 

same as the budget request. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS

2007 appropriation 1 ........................................................................... ($16,425,000) 

2008 budget estimate 1 ....................................................................... (16,798,000) 

Provided in the bill 1 ........................................................................... (16,798,000) 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ............................................................... +373,000 

2008 budget estimate ........................................................... – – – 1Does not include $20,000,000 in funding for commodity system replacement. 

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years 

2006 through 2008: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

50 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio fiMDBRfl80fiMDNMfl here fiMDBRflHR258.009fiMDNMfl
51 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of $16,798,000, an 

increase of $373,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and the same amount as the budget request. 

The Committee provides not less than $20,000,000 in funding for 

the Web-based Supply Chain Management System (WBSCM) in 

this account. 

The Committee reiterates its position that administrative expenses to support section 32 purposes are expressly allowed, and 

that purchase and maintenance of a computer system supporting 

commodity purchases is an authorized administrative expense. Development and maintenance of all previous computer systems to 

support commodity purchase, including the existing Processed 

Commodity Inventory Management System (PCIMS), have been 

funded through section 32. 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,334,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,334,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,334,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $1,334,000, the same as the amount available 

for fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget request. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $37,785,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 44,385,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 41,115,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +3,330,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,270,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the Committee provides $41,115,000, an increase of 

$3,330,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007, and a 

decrease of $3,270,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is aware of the proposal for user fees in the 

President’s budget, but does not recommend establishing such fees 

in annual appropriations acts and will consider such fees should 

they achieve authorization. The recommendation includes an increase of $2,000,000 for increased enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. GIPSA 

shall submit to the Committee no later than September 30, 2007 

a detailed spending plan for resources available for enforcement of 

the Packers and Stockyards Act, including the recommended increase. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

52 

The Committee is seriously concerned about GIPSA’s lack of 

oversight in the past on companies it is charged with regulating. 

The Packers and Stockyards (P&S) arm of GIPSA is charged with 

ensuring competitive, fair livestock, meat, and poultry markets. 

However, according to the agency, GIPSA has never conducted a financial audit of the large packers and has traditionally relied on 

the companies’ auditors to ensure reported information is in compliance with the law. In addition, following a review of the P&S 

program in 2005, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) found material weaknesses in the agency’s ability to define and track investigations, plan and conduct investigations, and make policy, areas 

that are essential to GIPSA’s ability to administer and enforce the 

P&S Act. 

The Committee notes that this latest OIG review cites similar 

concerns raised by a previous OIG review in 1997 and by the Government Accountability Office in 2000. The Committee urges 

GIPSA to use all resources available to the agency to conduct vigorous government oversight to ensure markets are fair and competitive, and businesses are in compliance with the law. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2007 limitation .................................................................................... ($42,463,000) 

2008 budget limitation ....................................................................... (42,463,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (42,463,000) 

Comparison: 

2007 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2008 budget limitation ................................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing 

services expenses of $42,463,000, the same as the amount available 

for fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget request. The bill 

includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Committees on 

Appropriations. This allows for flexibility if export activities require 

additional supervision and oversight or other uncontrollable factors 

occur. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $600,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 659,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 632,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +32,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥27,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides an appropriation of $632,000, an increase of 

$32,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $27,000 below the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

53 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $892,136,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 930,120,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 930,120,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +37,984,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $930,120,000, an increase of $37,984,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the same as 

the budget request. 

The Committee is aware of the proposal for user fees in the 

President’s budget, but does not recommend establishing such fees 

in annual appropriations acts and will consider such fees should 

they achieve authorization. 

The Committee provides the full amounts requested related to 

pay costs and employee benefits, a total increase of $28,277,000. 

The Committee provides an increase of $750,000, as requested, for 

data systems for the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN), 

and an increase of $2,500,000 for lab equipment, as requested. The 

Committee provides an increase of $6,457,000 for filling vacancies 

in federal inspector positions. The Committee does not approve the 

proposed reduction of $1,976,000 in funding for the public health 

data communication infrastructure (PHDCI). Within the base resources provided is at least $5,000,000 for Humane Methods of 

Slaughter enforcement and at least $3,000,000 for the related 

tracking system. 

The Committee does not approve the requested increase of 

$8,433,000 for seven additional FERN labs. While the Committee 

supports the goal of having adequate surge capacity for testing food 

in an emergency, it is troubled by the Department’s abrupt change 

this year from its prior insistence that 100 labs were needed. It 

now says 25 labs are needed. This sudden change causes the Committee to question the analytical basis of this program. The Committee maintains funding for PHCDI and adds funding for food 

safety inspector vacancies. These funds are needed to improve the 

ability of FSIS to address current food safety needs. 

Bonuses.—On September 29, 2006, the Under Secretary for Food 

Safety advised the Committee that FSIS might end that fiscal year 

with a balance of only several hundred thousand dollars and that 

it was continuing to cut spending and maintain a hiring freeze for 

non-frontline positions. In light of this, the Committee was very 

disturbed to learn that FSIS spent nearly half a million dollars on 

bonuses for senior FSIS officials for that year. At least 13 people 

received bonuses of $17,000 or more, which equates to about half 

of the top starting salary for a slaughter inspector. The Committee 

directs FSIS to use its appropriated funds for activities directly in 

support of the public health to the maximum available extent before using them for bonus awards for senior officials. The Committee requests a report by January 15, 2008 on any bonuses 

awarded to senior officials for fiscal year 2007. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

54 

Imported poultry products from China.—The Committee has included a general provision barring the use of funds in the bill to 

establish or implement any rule allowing poultry products from 

China into the U.S. This would apply to both the rule currently in 

effect that would allow poultry from the U.S. to be processed in 

China and shipped back and to a rule the Department is drafting 

that would allow China to export processed poultry products made 

from animals raised in China. 

Given the recent situation involving pet foods contaminated with 

melamine from China and the repeated, serious food contamination 

incidents within China, it is clear that we cannot rely on the Chinese government to ensure its plants adhere to U.S. standards in 

processing. Weak government controls in China, coupled with the 

high incidence of H5N1 in that country, provide no assurance that 

the returned product is actually from U.S. poultry or that poultry 

carrying the H5N1 virus is not used instead of U.S.-produced poultry. While FSIS has said the products would be safe because processing would kill any H5N1 viruses, U.S. inspectors will not be 

standing over the shoulders of Chinese workers; in fact, U.S. inspectors would visit the Chinese plants at most once a year. 

Risk-based inspection proposal.—The Committee has also included the same general provision that was enacted in P.L. 110– 

28 to bar FSIS from proceeding with the risk-based inspection program it announced on February 22, 2007, until the USDA Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) has provided its findings to the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate on the data used in 

support of the development and design of the riskbased inspection 

program and FSIS has addressed and resolved issues identified by 

OIG. 

OIG has done 26 audits of FSIS since June 2000 and has repeatedly found basic problems with how the agency conducts its operations. In just two of its most recent audits of FSIS, OIG found 

that: 

• From October 2003 through June 2005, FSIS had conducted 

only eight initial onsite reviews from a total of 28 State MPI programs. 

• A significant number of establishments were excluded from 

Salmonella testing due to ineffective processes for identifying establishments eligible for testing. 

Given the many problems found by OIG in the past and FSIS’ 

poor track record, the Committee believes the agency must not proceed even with a pilot program until there has been a thorough review of its proposal by OIG and until all issues raised by OIG have 

been addressed and resolved. The Committee includes this language to ensure that there is adequate time for OIG to complete 

its work and for FSIS to resolve any issues that are raised. 

The Committee intends FSIS to continue activities related to ensuring that the program, if it goes forward, is based on scientifically justified information. Those activities should include an emphasis on such activities as data collection and public meetings and 

less emphasis on activities such as the recent negotiations with the 

meat inspectors union. The Committee recognizes that moving forward with the risk-based inspection program without comprehenmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

55 

sive and accurate scientific data to rank product risk and an unbiased system for determining establishment risk would have the potential of jeopardizing public health. 

Salmonella Verification Testing Program.—The purpose of the 

Salmonella Verification Testing Program is to provide FSIS with 

information about whether plants are controlling the level of Salmonella in their establishments. With this critical information, 

FSIS can then make informed regulatory decisions to further reduce pathogen contamination in meat and poultry products and improve food safety. After FSIS personnel collect, label and culture 

the Salmonella samples, an APHIS laboratory serotypes the positive Salmonella isolates, and then FSIS sends the isolates from raw 

meat and poultry products to an Agricultural Research Service 

Laboratory. After the ARS laboratory analyzes the samples further, 

it stores the information in databases. We understand the existing 

memorandum of understanding has lapsed and the agencies have 

been working on a replacement. The Committee directs the Food 

Safety and Inspection Service and the Agricultural Research Service to submit a report to the Committee by September 15, 2007 on 

the status of any memorandum of understanding between the two 

agencies regarding the access to the information housed in an ARS 

database on the salmonella isolates that were collected as a result 

of regulatory sampling by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list were four audit reports for FSIS, with multiple 

open recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts 

to reach agreement within 180 days and directs FSIS to send the 

Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching 

management decision on the outstanding issues. 

FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $632,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 695,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 666,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +34,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥29,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$666,000, an increase of $34,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $29,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the budget request did not include estimates for implementing a new 2007 Farm Bill. Testimony given 

by the Under Secretary during the hearing on the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service budget stated that ‘‘Once the parameters 

and details of the new bill are known, we will need to evaluate the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

56 

necessary administrative resource requirements to implement the 

legislative programs and policies.’’ The Committee expects the Department to work with the Committee on Agriculture to provide estimates of the implementation costs for inclusion in the 2007 Farm 

Bill. The Committee directs the Department to submit reports to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate, and the agriculture authorizing committees of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate, within 30 days of passage of the House and Senate 2007 Farm Bills, that detail the necessary administrative resource requirements to implement the 

bills, including information technology expenses. 

The Committee notes that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) computer system that is responsible for processing payments for all 

Farm Bill programs administered by the Farm Service Agency has 

been experiencing periodic shutdowns due to capacity overloads, 

causing the efficiency of thousands of Farm Service Agency county 

office employees to decrease dramatically. The Committee is aware 

that a plan to upgrade this system is being developed by USDA. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

and the agriculture authorizing committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report that has been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget and reviewed by the Government Accountability Office. The report shall include: (1) An enterprise architecture; (2) an Information Technology Human Capital 

Plan; (3) a capital investment plan for implementing the enterprise 

architecture; (4) a description of the information technology capital 

planning and investment control process; and (5) a spending plan. 

The spending plan shall include each specific project funded, key 

milestones, all funding sources for each project, details of annual 

and lifecycle costs, and projected savings or cost avoidance to be 

achieved by the project. 

The Committee is extremely disappointed with the Department’s 

efforts to date to upgrade the technological capabilities of the FSA’s 

Field Office hardware and software infrastructure, including digital 

mapping and crop planning analysis. Although Congress has approved significant funding for these activities, structural and technological issues continue to persist and plague the Agency’s operations both at the headquarters and field level, and have had a direct impact on the quality of service provided to FSA customers. 

Without an appropriate level of upgraded technological support, 

fully executing the planned system-wide reorganization of field offices would be premature until the Agency submits the requested 

report on the spending plan. 

The Committee includes statutory language to delay the development and implementation of plans to close any local or county office of the Farm Service Agency. The Committee held a hearing on 

the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services budget and the message from the Committee was quite clear, Farm Service offices 

should not be closed until the technological issues are resolved or 

at least a plan in place. Also, a new Farm Bill will be passed and 

the impact on the Farm Service Agency structure is unknown at 

this time. The Committee directs the Department to take no further action on closure of FSA offices until at least six months after 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

57 

the next Farm Bill is passed or expiration of the fiscal year 2008 

appropriations bill. 

The Committee is very concerned about the continued decline in 

the number of small minority owned and operated farms nationwide. According to an Economic Research Service (ERS) report the 

percentage of non-white farms owned has dropped from 15% to 2%. 

The number of such farms has declined from 845,300 in 1920 to 

43,500 by 1992. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department 

to develop a plan of action to stabilize and expand the number of 

small minority owned and operated farms, including a detailed 

strategy on how the Department plans to expand opportunities for 

these farmers to fully participate in all USDA’s farm programs, as 

well as proactive measures to reach out to this important resource 

and report its findings to the Committee by March 15, 2008. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list were two audit reports for FSA, with multiple 

open recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts 

to reach agreement within 180 days and directs FSA to send the 

Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching 

management decision on the outstanding issues. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Transfer from 

program accts. Total, FSA, S&E 

2007 appropriation .......... $1,030,193,000 ($306,859,000) ($1,337,052,000) 

2008 budget estimate ..... 1,228,662,000 (319,517,000) (1,548,179,000) 

Provided in the bill ......... 1,127,409,000 (313,332,000) (1,440,741,000) 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .. +97,216,000 +6,473,000 +103,689,000 

2008 budget estimate ...................... ¥101,253,000 ¥6,185,000 ¥107,438,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,127,409,000 and 

transfers from other accounts of $313,332,000, for a total program 

level of $1,440,741,000. This is an increase of $103,689,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of 

$107,438,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an additional 

$29,489,000 for pay costs, $64,200,000 for activities previously 

funded through the Department’s CCE account, and $10,000,000 

for operating expenses. 

The Committee provides to the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, $24,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2006 level, for 

the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP). This amount is 

in addition to any provided by cooperating funds from any other 

federal, state, or local government funding for NAIP. 

The Committee is concerned by the large increases requested for 

FSA salaries and expenses. The FSA salaries and expense request 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

58 

represented over eight percent of the total budget request. FSA has 

received about a thirty percent increase in the salaries and expense 

account since fiscal year 2000. Included in the requested increase 

was $77,500,000 to restore funding for activities that were funded 

by balances carried over from fiscal year 2006 into fiscal year 2007. 

Any funds that are unspent from prior years and carried forward 

should not be considered as part of the base budget. Agencies were 

expected to manage within the funds provided within the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007. 

The Committee is also concerned by the amount FSA spends on 

IT operations. In fiscal year 2007, FSA is estimated to spend over 

$312,000,000 for the costs of maintaining and operating FSA IT 

systems and the budget request includes an additional $28,000,000 

in fiscal year 2008. Beginning last autumn, FSA began experiencing outages of service for some of its web-based applications 

that support certain farm programs. The supplemental included an 

additional $37,500,000 for network and database/application stabilization to address immediate needs identified by the Department 

to address the outage issues. The Committee directs the Secretary 

to provide a monthly update to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the progress of 

this project, including usage of funds. In addition, the Committee 

has been hearing for several years that FSA needs to modernize its 

IT system but a modernization plan has yet to be submitted. The 

budget request does not include reference to the FSA modernization issues but it is estimated the lifecycle cost is in the range of 

$450,000,000 to $600,000,000 over a 10 year time period. The Committee plans to have rigorous oversight of the current and projected 

IT spending within FSA. 

The Committee notes that FSA is also using over $20,000,000 of 

the funds provided for NAIP for stabilization of the computer network. The Committee is concerned that additional resources above 

the amount identified by the Department for stabilization have 

been diverted from NAIP for this project. 

The Committee expects FSA to improve communication with the 

Risk Management Agency to prevent duplicative payments. The 

Committee directs FSA to use all possible means to avoid duplicative payments, including data mining. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,208,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥208,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,000,000, a decrease of $208,000 below the amount 

available in fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

59 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,713,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,713,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,713,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,713,000, the same as the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $3,713,000 

above the budget request. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $100,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 100,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 100,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $100,000, the same as the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget request. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2007 loan level .................................................................................... $3,749,528,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,366,812,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,407,412,000 

Comparison: 

2007 loan level ............................................................................. ¥342,116,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +40,600,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for fiscal 

year 2008 for the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Programs 

are: $1,423,857,000 for farm ownership loans, of which 

$223,857,000 is for direct loans and $1,200,000,000 is for guaranteed loans; $1,879,595,000 for farm operating loans, of which 

$629,595,000 is for direct loans, $250,000,000 is for guaranteed 

subsidized loans, and $1,000,000,000 is for guaranteed unsubsidized loans; $3,960,000 for Indian tribe land acquisition loans; 

and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Agricultural 

Credit Insurance Fund program account: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

60 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2007 

level 

FY 2008 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan programs: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct .................................................................................................. $207,642 $223,857 $223,857 

Guaranteed ......................................................................................... 1,386,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Farm operating: 

Direct .................................................................................................. 643,500 629,595 629,595

Unsubsidized guaranteed .................................................................. 1,138,500 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Subsidized guaranteed ...................................................................... 271,886 250,000 250,000 

Indian tribe land acquisition ...................................................................... 2,000 3,960 3,960 

Boll Weevil Eradication ............................................................................... 100,000 59,400 100,000 

Total, farm loans ........................................................................... $3,749,528 $3,366,812 $3,407,412 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan 

subsidy 

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 

Administrative expenses 

2007 appropriation .................... $86,248,000 $63,539,000 $311,229,000 

2008 budget estimate ............... 89,983,000 62,350,000 319,657,000 

Provided in the bill ................... 89,983,000 62,350,000 318,150,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ............ +3,735,000 ¥1,189,000 +6,921,000 

2008 budget estimate ........ – – – – – – ¥1,507,000 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2007 

estimate 

FY 2008 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ...................................................................................... $8,700 $9,962 $9,962 

Guaranteed ............................................................................. 8,039 4,800 4,800 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 16,739 14,762 14,762 

Farm operating: 

Direct ...................................................................................... 75,225 79,896 79,896 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ...................................................... 28,121 24,200 24,200 

Guaranteed subsidized .......................................................... 27,379 33,350 33,350 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 130,725 137,446 137,446 

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................... 423 125 125 

Boll weevil eradication loans ......................................................... 1,900 0 0 

Total, Farm loan subsidies .................................................... $149,787 $152,333 $152,333 

ACIF expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................... 303,309 311,737 310,230 

Administrative expenses ............................................................. 7,920 7,920 7,920 

Total, ACIF expenses .............................................................. $311,229 $319,657 $318,150 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

61 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $76,658,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 79,062,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 78,833,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,175,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥229,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $78,833,000, an increase of $2,175,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $229,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee has serious concerns about the ability of the Risk 

Management Agency (RMA) to prevent abuses in the crop insurance program. Therefore, the Committee has included a general 

provision to allow the use of up to $11,166,000 in mandatory funds 

to improve the Department’s ability to police the program for 

waste, fraud and abuse. The funding made available would be used 

for maintaining and upgrading data-mining and supporting business applications and hardware used to detect and deter suspect 

claims and for the continuation of development of the Comprehensive Information and Management System (CIMS). CIMS is a joint 

information management system for RMA and the Farm Service 

Agency that will assist in identification of discrepancies between 

reports on participation in both programs to detect potential waste 

fraud and abuse. 

In addition, the Committee has provided an increase of 

$1,000,000 for the USDA Office of Inspector General for continued 

work on waste, fraud and abuse issues related to crop insurance 

and farm payments. 

The Committee believes that the administration must come forward with a plan—and the budgetary resources needed—to address 

aggressively the problems of waste, fraud and abuse in the crop insurance program that have been identified by OIG and the Government Accountability Office. The Committee directs the Secretary to 

submit such a plan to the Committee by February 1, 2008. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list were three audit reports for RMA, with a number 

of open recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts to reach agreement within 180 days and directs RMA to send 

the Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching 

management decision on the outstanding issues. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

62 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2007 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $4,379,256,000 

2008 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 4,818,099,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 4,818,099,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .......................................................... +438,843,000 

2008 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 

1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 

(estimated to be $4,818,099,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2008 

budget request), an increase of $438,843,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget request. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

2007 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $23,098,328,000 

2008 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 12,983,053,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 12,983,053,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .......................................................... ¥10,115,275,000 

2008 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 

1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but not 

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $12,983,053,000 in the 

President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request), a decrease of 

$10,115,275,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and 

the same as the budget request. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list was one audit report for CCC, with one open recommendation. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts to reach 

agreement within 180 days and directs CCC to send the Committee 

a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching management 

decision on the outstanding issue. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

2007 limitation ........................................................................ $5,000,000 

2008 budget estimate ............................................................. 5,000,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 limitation ................................................................ – – – 

2008 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

63 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For CCC Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000, the same as the amount available 

for fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is interested in the status of this program and 

requests a report by January 15, 2008. The report should include 

a history of funding and accomplishments to date, future plans, 

and resources needed. The report should also address how this program coordinates and complements the Departmental Hazardous 

Materials Management activities. 

FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2007 appropriation ................................................................. 0 

2008 budget estimate ............................................................. $4,660,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .......................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate ...................................................... ¥4,660,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommendation does not include $4,660,000 for 

the Farm Storage Facility Loans program as proposed in the President’s budget. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(64) 

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $742,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 822,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 781,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +39,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥41,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$781,000, an increase of $39,000 above the amount available for 

fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $41,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee encourages the Under Secretary to give consideration to the following projects requesting financial and/or technical 

assistance under the Natural Resources and Environment mission 

area: White Tanks FRS #3 (AZ); Northeast Colorado Surface 

Water/Groundwater Conservation (CO); Gunnison Basin Sagegrouse Habitat Preservation (CO); Gunnison Sage-grouse Habitat 

Improvement (CO); Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation 

project as it contributes to Everglades restoration (FL); Watershed 

Dam Hazard Mitigation (GA); Grass Lake Restoration in Kandiyohi 

County (MN); Great Plains Riparian Initiative (MN); Callicoon 

Creek Watershed (NY); Esopus Creek Watershed (NY); Four Farm 

Conservation Project (NY); Moab Area Tamarisk/Russian Olive 

Control Project (UT); Virginia Nutrient Trading Program (VA); 

Wetlands Restoration (VA); Pioneers in Conservation (WA); Columbia Basin Ground Water Management (WA); Snoqualmie Watershed Integrated Plan (WA); and Bad River Tribe rehabilitation of 

Wild Rice Beds (WI). 

The Committee expects these projects to only be approved when 

such applications are judged to be meritorious when subject to established review procedures. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $763,360,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 801,825,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 851,910,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +88,550,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +50,085,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

65 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $851,910,000, an increase of $88,550,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$50,085,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for Common Computing Environment activities, as requested. 

The Committee recommendation includes not more than 

$110,639,700 for National Headquarters salaries and expenses, as 

requested. 

The Committee provides $27,225,000 for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative and does not include the reduction proposed in 

the request. The Committee recommendation includes $10,840,000 

for the Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting program, 

$10,779,000 for Plant Materials Centers, and $90,713,000 for the 

Soil Surveys Program. For Conservation Technical Assistance, 

$712,353,000 is provided. The recommendation for each program 

includes pay costs, as requested. The amount recommended for 

Conservation Technical Assistance also includes $11,090,000 as requested for the development and application of new comprehensive 

nutrient management plans for livestock operations. The Committee recommendation includes funding for one American Heritage navigator position on the Hudson River. 

State funding allocations.—The Committee is concerned that 

funding allocations to the States are being reduced in proportion to 

Congressional projects funded in the Conservation Operations account. The Committee directs the Chief of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), in making the fiscal year 2008 Conservation Operations funding allocations to the States, to treat 

Congressional projects as additions to the States’ funding allocation. The Committee directs the NRCS to provide a report to the 

Committee on Appropriations, not later than 45 days after the enactment of this Act, including the following: fiscal year 2007 Conservation Operations allocation by State, fiscal year 2008 Conservation Operations allocation by State, the fiscal year 2008 Congressional projects by State, and the total Conservation Operations allocation by State. In addition, the Chief of the NRCS is directed to 

inform the Committee immediately about any changes to the formula or process by which the base state allocations are made. 

Conservation Technical Assistance Projects.—Funding for fiscal 

year 2007 projects is not continued in fiscal year 2008 unless specifically mentioned in this report. The following funds are directed 

to be used in cooperative agreements, continued with the same cooperator entities as in the fiscal year 2007 agreements, except as 

noted: National Water Management Center (AR)—$2,722,500; Mojave Water Agency (CA) non-native plant removal—$990,000; Monterey Bay Sanctuary (CA)—$594,000; Municipal Water District of 

Orange County for efficient irrigation (CA)—$198,000; Cooperative 

Agreement with Tufts University to improve conservation practices 

(CT)—$495,000; Suwannee, Dixie, and Lafayette Counties dairy 

and poultry waste treatment (FL)—$990,000; Cooperative agreement with the Green Institute (FL)—$396,000; Georgia Soil and 

Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement (GA)— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

66 

$3,600,000; Community Nutrient Management Facilities for the 

Lagoon Waste Management Demonstration program (GA)— 

$346,500; Altamaha River Basin water quality project (GA)— 

$99,000; Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation 

(HI)—$891,000; Idaho One Plan (ID)—$198,000; The Illinois Buffer 

Initiative (IL)—$99,000; Illinois River Basin (IL)—$600,000 

through EQIP; Hungry Canyons Project (IA)—$1,188,000; The Iowa 

Buffer Initiative (IA)—$99,000; CEMSA with Iowa Soybean Association (IA)—$427,680; On-farm Management System Evaluation 

Network (IA)—$247,500; Tallgrass Prairie Center—Native Seed 

Testing Lab (IA)—$441,540; Technical assistance to providing 

grants to Soil Conservation Districts in Kentucky (KY)—$990,000; 

Best Management Practices and Master Farmer Special Research 

grant with Louisiana State University (LA)—$396,000; Bayou Sere 

Drainage Improvements/False River (LA)—$198,000; Union-Lincoln 

Regional Water Supply Initiative (LA)—$123,750; Chesapeake Bay 

activities—$5,940,000; Weed It Now on the Berkshire Taconic 

Landscape (MA)—$66,000; Conservation Planning (MA/WI)— 

$594,000; Choctaw County feasibility study for surface impoundment (MS)—$247,500; Upper White River Basin Water Quality 

Project (MO)—$426,690; Carson City Waterfall Fire Restoration 

(NV)—$371,250; Pastureland Management/Rotational Grazing 

(NY)—$594,000; Skaneateles and Owasco Lake Watersheds (NY)— 

$321,750; Non-point pollution in Onondaga and Oneida Lake Watersheds (NY)—$495,000; Long Island Sound watershed initiative 

(NY)—$198,000; Pace University Land Use Law center (NY)— 

$198,000; Erosion control and stabilization for Hudson River shoreline at Village of Tarrytown (NY)—$247,500; Watershed Agricultural Council (NY)—$712,800; Technical assistance to livestock/ 

poultry industry (NC)—$445,500; Town of Cary Swift Creek Watershed Protection and Stream Bank Restoration (NC)—$295,020; 

Maumee Watershed Hydrological Study and Flood Mitigation Plan 

(OH)—$990,000; Range revegetation for Fort Hood (TX)—$495,000; 

Water quality for Tarrant County (TX)—$500,000; Water Protection Plan for Hood County (TX)—$100,000; Washington Fields 

(UT)—$2,970,000; Natural stream restoration (WV)—$792,000; 

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (WI)—$940,500; Cooperative 

agreement with Sand County Foundation (WI)—$1,188,000; Accelerated soil mapping survey (WY)—$297,000; Audubon at Home 

Pilot Program—$495,000; and Operation Oak Program to restore 

hardwoods—$396,000. 

Plant Materials Centers.—The Committee provides the fiscal year 

2007 level for the Hawaii Plant Materials Center. 

WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,056,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,556,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +500,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +6,556,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $6,556,000, an increase of $500,000 above the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

67 

amount available in fiscal year 2007, and $6,556,000 above the 

budget request. 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. 0 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +37,000,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +37,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $37,000,000, an increase of 

$37,000,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2007, and 

$37,000,000 above the budget request. Language is included which 

limits the amount spent on technical assistance to not more than 

$18,500,000. 

The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue and/ 

or to provide financial/technical assistance for the next phase for 

the following projects: Pine Barren Watershed Extension (AL); Big 

Slough Watershed (AR); Departee Creek Watershed (AR); Four 

pilot projects in North Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup 

efforts (FL); Wailuka-Alenaio Watershed (HI); Upcountry Maui Watershed (HI); Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed (HI); Soap Creek 

Watershed (IA); Little Sioux Watershed Project (IA); Doyle Creek 

Watershed (KS); Little Otter Creek Watershed Project (MO); Buck 

and Duck Creek Watershed Project (NE); Yadkin County Deep 

Creek Project (NC); Swan Quarter Dike (NC); South Fork of the 

Licking River Watershed Project (OH); McKenzie Canyon Irrigation 

Pipeline Project (OR); Neshaminy Creek Watershed Project, Bucks 

County (PA); Tulpehocken Creek Watershed (PA); Big Creek (TriCounty) Watershed Project (TX); Attoyac Bayou site 23–A (TX); 

and Buena Vista Watershed (VA). 

It the understanding of the Committee that the following projects 

will be completed in fiscal year 2007 and that no fiscal year 2008 

funds are required for: Pigeon Roost Creek, Jackson County, Kentucky; and Lower Elk River and Upper Walnut North Watersheds, 

Kansas. The Committee requires immediate notification if the 

projects will be delayed due to technical or funding issues. 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $31,309,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,807,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 31,586,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +277,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +25,779,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $31,586,000, an increase of $277,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2007, and an increase of 

$25,779,000 above the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

68 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $51,088,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 14,653,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 52,370,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,282,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +37,717,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of $52,370,000, an increase of $1,282,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2007, and an increase of 

$37,717,000 above the budget request. 

The recommendation includes funding for each of the 375 Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils to have a 

Federal coordinator. The budget request proposes to reduce the 375 

coordinators to about 50. This is a concern, considering that the coordinator plays an important role in leveraging Federal funding to 

meet local needs. 

The Committee encourages NRCS to continue to work with the 

Councils to develop appropriate measures of effectiveness for both 

conservation and economic development. Therefore future budget 

proposals can be based on the effectiveness and performance of the 

program. 

The Committee expects the NRCS to promptly fill RC&D coordinator vacancies, and to allocate funding equitably among the existing councils. 

The Committee has included bill language limiting the amount 

that can be spent at national headquarters from this account. 

HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $2,476,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,476,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,476,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,476,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, the Committee provides no funding, a decrease of $2,476,000 below the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(69) 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $632,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 695,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 666,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +34,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥29,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $666,000, an increase of 

$34,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $29,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned about the proposal to close local 

Rural Development (RD) offices. Some of these offices are located 

in counties identified by the Economic Research Service as persistent poverty counties. The Committee includes a general provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the 

cost effectiveness and enhancement of program delivery prior to 

closing or relocating any Rural Development offices. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report, not later than 

120 days before the date of the proposed closure or relocation, 

which describes in detail the justifications for such closures and relocation. 

While the Committee is providing a significant increase in both 

loans and grants for renewable energy projects it directs the Department to review the current project eligibility and financial criteria and revise them as appropriate to ensure that projects funded 

will in fact lead to a significant reduction in traditional sources of 

energy, especially fossil fuels, and will have sufficient economic return on the investment to repay loans and employ proven technologies that yield significant environmental benefits. To that end 

the Committee directs the Department to include specific, discrete, 

measurable performance measures in each grant or loan provided 

under this heading for a renewable energy project and to subsequently measure the results against those performance measures. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list were eleven audit reports for the RD mission 

area, with multiple open recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts to reach agreement within 180 days and directs RD to send the Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with 

a plan for reaching management decision on the outstanding 

issues. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

70 

The Committee encourages the Under Secretary to give consideration to the following projects or organizations requesting financial 

and/or technical assistance, and grants and/or loans made available 

under the Rural Development mission area: Marine Service Center 

in Wrangell (AK); Alaska Berry Growers (AK); City of Saint Paul 

Landfill (AK); City of Saint Paul wastewater site (AK); Southwest 

Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project (AK); Public Building 

Authority, City of Rainsville (AL); Multipurpose Complex, Marion 

County (AL); National Egg Processing Center, Auburn (AL); 

Rainsville Agri-Center (AL); Home in Hale, HERO Housing Resource Center (AL); Marengo County Economic Development Authority (AL); Eutaw Civic Center (AL); Osceola Port Improvements 

(AR); Batesville Wastewater Treatment Plant and Pumping (AR); 

Northeast Arkansas Public Water Authority (AR); Ozark Mountain 

Regional Public Water Authority (AR); SE Washington County 

water project (AR); renovation of existing sewer system for the 

Town of Garner (AR); City of Mayflower water system improvements (AR); Why Utilities Water Distribution Lines (AZ); 

Lukachukai Board of Education (AZ); Ganado Chapter Municipal 

Water Project (AZ); Klagetoh Landfill Clean Closure and Open 

Dump (AZ); Rock Point Irrigation Project (AZ); Stanley Memorial 

Hall (AZ); Cascade Shores wastewater treatment plant (CA); Colfax 

wastewater treatment plant (CA); Greenwood Lake water treatment plant (CA); Grizzly Flat Fire Station and Community Center 

(CA); Chester Storm Drain Improvements (CA); Renewable Energy 

Development, Imperial Valley (CA); Water and wastewater infrastructure, Imperial (CA); Brawley Colonia Water District (CA); Sustainable Watershed Treatment, Chula Vista (CA); Second Harvest 

Food Bank Facility Improvement (CA); Alpine County Communications Infrastructure (CA); Calaveras County Multi-Agency Emergency Communication (CA); Produce Safety and Track Initiative 

(CA); San Joaquin County Agricultural Service Center (CA); Renewable Energy and Dairy Waste Management (CA); International 

Agri-Center University Extension (CA); Lower Lake Historical Museum Structural Retrofit (CA); Clarksburg Fire Station (CA); CCVT 

Energy Conservation Education Program (CA); San Jacinto Agriculture Groundwater Exchange (CA); Colorado and western states 

Telemedicine upgrades (CO); Plachy Hall Renewable Energy Program (CO); Costilla County Biodiesel Pilot Project (CO); Norwood 

Water Treatment and Distribution System (CO); Salt storage shed 

(CT); Municipal drinking water supply (CT); National Resource 

Center on Rural After School Program (CT); Homes in Partnership, 

Inc. (FL); Florida Public Access Enhancement Project (FL); Old 

Hastings Civic Center Upgrade Project (FL); Agriculture Civic Center (FL); National Hispanic Rural Communications Initiative (FL); 

Flood Mitigation Plan for the Lake Okeechobee Regional Hospital 

(FL); County of Cusseta-Chattahoochee County well and water 

tank (GA); SW Georgia Rural Disaster Demonstration Project (GA); 

Zion City housing program (GA); Polk County wastewater improvements (GA); Chattooga County water system upgrade (GA); 

WellCare Model Project, Screven County (GA); Healthy and Natural Animals for Human Consumption (GA); Purchase and upgrade 

America’s Second Harvest Coastal Georgia, Savannah, Chatham 

County (GA); Idaho Foodbank Facility acquisition and expansion 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

71 

(ID); Southern lllinois Regional Social Services, Inc. (IL); Southern 

Illinois Healthcare Foundation (IL); Shawnee Health Services Center Dental Program (IL); SIU Belleville Agriculture Research and 

Education Center (IL); Midwest Emergency Department Services 

(IL); lllinois Broadband Map (IL); Miami County Commerce Development Initiative (IN); Bio-security computing and networking 

technology at KSU (KS); Chautauqua County Rural Water District 

No. 4 (KS); Clark County Recreational Center (KY); Hospice Care 

Plus Facility (KY); Fleming Country Health and Fitness Center 

(KY); Kentucky PRIDE Program (KY); Green County Agriculture 

Education, Marketing and Exposition Center, Greensburg (KY); 

West Baton Rouge Parish water well and tower (LA); East 

Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s office (LA); Lamar Dixon Agricultural 

Community Center (LA); E-Learning Mobile Training Center (LA); 

City of Baton Rouge Downtown Urban Forestry Project (LA); Center for Excellence in Organic Agriculture (LA); Westbank Hurricane Protection Pump Station (LA); City of Hammond Fire Protection (LA); City of Bogalusa, Repair and upgrade sewer system (LA); 

Town of Abita Springs Sewer Plant Expansion (LA); Oil City, 

Water System Capital Improvements (LA); Springhill water system 

improvement (LA); Claiborne Parish, Fire House (LA); Mansfield 

wastewater treatment plant (LA); Village of South Mansfield water 

tank (LA); Town Pump Station refurbishing (LA); Company Canal 

Pump Station (LA); Marvin Braud Pumping Station Upgrade (LA); 

Saltwater Control Structure (LA); Regional Electric Cooperative 

Cape Cod Islands (MA); Three County Fairgrounds (MA); Grants to 

Public Broadcasting Systems (ME); Canola Extrusion Processor 

(ME); Downtown Saginaw Farmer’s Market (MI); Wakefield Memorial Building restoration (MI); Arenac County Sherriff’s Office jail 

expansion (MI); Ironwood wastewater infrastructure (MI); City of 

Munising Fire and Police facility (MI); Northern Lakes Economic 

Alliance (MI); Rural to Urban Tourism Links (MO); Northwest Missouri Regional Water Projects (MO); LinBrook Business Park water 

well (MS); Ranking Centralized Sanitary Sewer System (MS); Canton Multipurpose and Equine Center (MS); Seminary water well 

(MS); Leake Fire Station (MS); Johnston Community College Arboretum (NC); Endor Iron Furnace Historic restoration (NC); 

Jonesville Administrative Building and Welcome Center (NC); 

Bladen County Agriculture Industrial Expo Center (NC); Swain 

County School System Expansion (NC); Lab and research equipment for the Zeis Science (NC); Yancey County Extension and Research Center (NC); Cherokee Center for Applied Technology (NC); 

Graham County Rural Housing Program (NC); Bridgeton High 

School Stadium Preservation (NJ); Food Bank Facility and equipment upgrades (NJ); San Miguel County Courthouse Renovations 

(NM); Taos County Administrative/Judicial Complex (NM); Greater 

Chimayo Mutual Domestic Water Association (NM); Westside Public Safety Building (NM); Elevator Construction, Cherry Valley 

Community Center (NY); Town of Guilford building project (NY); 

Fort Ann Village Emergency Center (NY); Columbia County 

Broadband Development Project (NY); Broadband Infrastructure 

network in Otsego (NY); Implementing Healthcare Information 

Technology (NY); Rural College Readiness Distance Education Program (NY); Fairgrounds Youth Recreation Complex (NY); 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

72 

Centerville Volunteer Fire Company (NY); Vassar Brothers Medical 

Center (NY); Port of Ogdensburg Bulk Handling Equipment (NY); 

Rural College Readiness Distance Education Program (NY); 

Lyndonville Waste Water Treatment Facility (NY); Parish Social 

Ministry food bank (NY); Kinskey Lane Improvements (OH); Mt. 

Victory Road Water Project (OH); Pomeroy Wastewater Collection 

System Expansion (OH); Phase IV Waterline Extension, Washington County (OH); Glenmoor/LaCroft sanitary sewer project 

(OH); Community Access Network, Marietta (OH); Rural Business 

Revitalization project (OK); Oaks Mission School Educational Center (OK); Seminole State College Foundation Call Center (OK); Oregon Burn Center Telephotography Project (OR); City of Coburg 

wastewater system (OR); Brookings Wastewater Infrastructure Replacement (OR); Philomath Wastewater System Improvement (OR); 

Eastern Oregon Center for Regional Economic Studies (OR); Happy 

Canyon Show Renovation (OR); Brewery Grade and Highway 30 

Intersection Project (OR); Deer Creek Center (OR); Smart Planning 

Fund for Water (OR); EMHS Building Design, Phase II (PA); 

EMTA Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Station capital (PA); Central 

Library Building, Pike County (PA); Pike County Senior Center 

(PA); The Dietrich Theater Expansion Project (PA); The Braddock 

Biofuels Initiative (PA); Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration 

Program (PA); Northern Columbia County Cultural Center (PA); 

Municipal maintenance and operational equipment (PA); Mercy 

Jeannette Hospital patient monitoring (PA); Conemaugh Valley 

Conservancy (PA); Cove Area Regional Digester (PA); Sanitary 

sewer system, Arturo Lluberas (PR); Sanitary sewer system for 

Ollas Hondas, Juana Diaz (PR); Las Delicias Water Improvement 

Project, Ciales (PR); Indiera Alta Water Treatment Plant Lares 

(PR); Aceituna’s Water Improvement Project, Villalba (PR); Water 

system improvements for Anderson County (SC); Awendaw water 

system (SC); Town of Hollywood water project (SC); Town of 

Elloree water project (SC); Voorhees College Rural and Small Town 

Development (SC); Berkeley County water project (SC); Lowcountry 

Food Bank (SC); Lake View water improvements (SC); Darlington/ 

Hartsville wastewater improvements (SC); Alligator Sewer Project 

in Chesterfield County (SC); East Grainger County regional wastewater system (TN); Roane County sewer system extension (TN); 

Modular On-dairy Gasification System (TX); Jim Hogg County 

Community Youth Center (TX); Starr County Community Youth 

Center (TX); Wilson County Community Youth Center (TX); Frio 

County Community Youth Center (TX); El Cenizo and Rio Bravo 

county vehicles (TX); Sabine County Water Project (TX); La Feria 

Technology, Training and Recreation Center (TX); Bio-Diesel Extruder Systems Purchase (TX); Cooperative Development Institution Pilot Program (TX); Emergency communication system for 

Weber County (UT); Water Line Upgrade Phase I Project, Corinne 

(UT); Water line upgrade, Phase I (UT); Woody Biomass Program 

(UT); Eastern Shore Broadband Build Out (VA); USVI wastewater 

repairs (VI); Water Reclamation Facility in Battle Ground (WA); 

Future Fields Project (WI); Rural Business Enhancement Center 

(WI); Gene Salem Senior Center (WV); Morgan County Courthouse 

(WV); Braxton-Gilmer Research Technology Institute (WV); 

Benwood Flood Protection Backup Power Supply (WV); Taylor 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

73 

County Transfer Tank (WV); McMechen Water Project (WV); 

Claywood Park PSD Red Hills Sewer Extension Project (WV); 

Wadesville Water Project (WV); Connected Technologies (WV); and 

The Thurgood Marshall College Fund. 

The Committee expects these projects to only be approved when 

such applications are judged to be meritorious when subject to established review procedures. 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $737,135,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 570,491,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 728,807,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥8,328,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +158,316,000 1The budget request included a proposal to fund the Rural Community Advancement Program in three 

separate accounts. For comparative purposes, the three accounts are being reflected in this account. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Advancement Program, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $728,807,000, a decrease of $8,328,000 

below the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$158,316,000 above the budget request. 

The budget request included a proposal to fund the three funding 

streams under the Rural Community Advancement Program 

(RCAP) (rural utilities programs, rural community programs, and 

rural business and cooperative development programs) in separate 

accounts, and eliminate the central RCAP account. While the Committee is intrigued by this proposal and believes it may have merit, 

enactment of the 2007 Farm Bill may impact these programs. 

Thus, the Committee intends to work with the Department to review the proposal carefully within the context of the enacted Farm 

Bill. For comparative purposes, the tables reflected within this account will show the three funding streams within RCAP. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM 

[in thousands of dollars] 

FY 2007 

level 

FY 2008 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Community facilities: 

Loan levels: 

Community facility direct loans ...................................... ($297,000) ($302,414) ($350,000) 

Community facility guaranteed loans ............................. (207,900) (210,000) (250,000) 

Subsidy and grants: 

Community facility direct loans ...................................... 19,038 16,784 19,425 

Community facility guaranteed loans ............................. 7,609 7,728 9,200 

Community facility grants ............................................... 16,830 0 23,117 

Other ................................................................................ 54,266 0 4,000 

Subtotal, Community facilities subsidy and 

grants ............................................................. 97,742 24,512 55,742 

Utilities: 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste direct loans ......................................... (990,000) (1,080,239) (1,000,000) 

Water and waste guaranteed loans ................................ (75,000) (75,000) (75,000) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

74 

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM—Continued 

[in thousands of dollars] 

FY 2007 

level 

FY 2008 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Subsidy and grants: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans .......................... 98,604 153,394 68,100 

Water and waste disposal grants ................................... 437,748 344,920 500,000 

Solid waste management grants .................................... 3,465 3,465 3,465 

Emergency community water assistance grants ............. 13,692 0 0 

Other ................................................................................ 1,485 1,000 1,500 

Subtotal, Utilities subsidy and grants ............... 554,994 502,779 573,065 

Business: 

Loan level: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ....................... (913,962) (1,000,000) (1,250,000) 

Subsidy and grants: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ....................... 39,849 43,200 54,000 

Rural business enterprise grants .................................... 39,600 0 40,000 

Rural business opportunity grants .................................. 2,970 0 3,000 

Delta regional authority ................................................... 1,980 0 3,000 

Subtotal, Business subsidy and grants ............. 84,399 43,200 100,000 

Total, program level .................................................................. ($3,055,898) ($3,017,039) ($3,503,082) 

Total, subsidy and grants ........................................................ $737,135 $570,491 $728,807 

The following programs are included in bill language for the Rural Community Advancement Program: $1,000,000 is for grants 

to nonprofit organizations to finance construction, refurbishing, and 

servicing of individually-owned household water well systems in 

rural areas; $500,000 is for revolving funds for financing water and 

wastewater projects; $24,000,000 for Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribes, of which $4,000,000 is for community facilities 

grants to tribal colleges, and of which $250,000 is for transportation technical assistance; $500,000 for rural transportation technical assistance; $3,000,000 is for grants to Mississippi Delta Region counties; $25,000,000 is for water and waste disposal systems 

in the Colonias; $18,250,000 is for technical assistance for rural 

water and waste systems, of which $5,600,000 is for a rural community assistance program; $14,000,000 is for a circuit rider program; and $22,800,000 is for empowerment zones and enterprise 

communities (EZ/EC) and communities designated by the Secretary 

of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, of which 

$1,100,000 is for rural community programs, of which $13,400,000 

is for rural utilities programs, and of which $8,300,000 is for the 

rural business and cooperative development programs. 

The Committee provides a program level of $1,250,000,000 for 

the guaranteed business and industry guaranteed loan program. 

This is an increase of $250,000,000 above the budget request and 

$336,038,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007. The 

budget requested $100,000,000 of this amount to fund biomass and 

renewable energy projects. The Committee provides the increased 

program level to provide $350,000,000 for biomass and renewable 

energy projects. 

The Committee is aware the Department has submitted a 2007 

Farm Bill Proposal to address the backlog of Rural Critical Access 

Hospital needs. The Committee supports providing rural communities with a strong healthcare infrastructure. The Committee 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

75 

notes that since fiscal year 2004, the USDA Community Facilities 

Programs have provided $260 million in loans and loan guarantees 

to support 53 rural critical access hospitals. The Committee requests the Department to provide a report, no later than January 

31, 2008, on the status of community facility programs in addressing rural healthcare issues and needs, including facilities located in 

communities impacted by weather related disasters. 

The Committee has included a general provision to require the 

water and waste direct loan subsidy rate to be calculated using the 

fiscal year 2007 borrower rates and the fiscal year 2008 President’s 

economic assumptions. The Committee considered the President’s 

budget proposal to lower the borrower interest rate for the direct 

water and waste loan program but the Committee needs additional 

information on the total cost of implementing this proposal. The 

change in the subsidy rate to incorporate the proposed borrower interest rate would cost an additional $80,000,000 in budget authority. During the Rural Development budget hearing, the Committee 

requested additional information on what the additional cost would 

be for allowing prior year loans to also disburse at the proposed 

borrower interest rate. From the data provided, it is estimated that 

the prior year cost of allowing the change in the borrower interest 

rate could cost over $200,000,000. This amount would be a modification and funded out of current year budget authority unless the 

proposal was restricted to loans obligated in fiscal year 2008. Considering this proposal could cost over $280,000,000 to implement 

and would reduce funding for water and waste grants in fiscal year 

2008, the Committee is not providing the authority to implement 

the proposed borrower interest rate. The Committee provides over $66,000,000 to restore funding for 

the Rural Business Enterprise, Rural Business Opportunity, and 

Community Facility Grant programs that were eliminated in the 

President’s budget request. These grant programs are critical 

sources of funding for the development of essential community facilities, small and emerging private business enterprises, and sustainable economic development in rural communities. Especially in 

remote and very poor areas, rural communities have few resources 

to attract new businesses, support local small borrowers, and provide health care, public safety, or public and community services. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

FY 2007 estimate FY 2008 estimate Committee provisions 

Appropriations .................... $161,298,000 $208,194,000 $175,382,000 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program 

Account ..................... 452,927,000 434,890,000 462,521,000 

Rural Development 

Loan Fund Program 

Account ..................... 4,774,000 4,576,000 4,861,000 

Rural Electrification 

and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ........... 38,623,000 37,009,000 39,405,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

76 

FY 2007 estimate FY 2008 estimate Committee provisions 

Total, RD Salaries 

and Expenses ........ $657,622,000 $684,669,000 $682,169,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $175,382,000 

and transfers from other accounts of $506,787,000, for a total program level of $682,169,000. This is an increase of $24,547,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of 

$2,500,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an additional 

$13,767,000 for pay costs, $6,700,000 for activities previously funded through the Department’s CCE account, and $4,080,000 for information technology. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative ex- penses 

2007 appropriation ................................................................... $5,027,750,000 $228,789,000 $452,927,000 

2008 budget estimate .............................................................. 5,087,919,000 35,854,000 434,890,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 5,100,000,000 212,163,000 462,521,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .......................................................... +72,250,000 ¥16,626,000 +9,594,000 

2008 budget estimate ..................................................... +12,081,000 +176,309,000 +27,631,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $5,100,000,000, an increase of 

$72,250,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an 

increase of $12,081,000 above the budget request. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2007 level FY 2008 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans 

Single family housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ....................................................................... $1,129,391 0 $1,129,391 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 3,644,224 $4,848,611 3,716,425 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 34,652 22,855 34,652 

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 99,000 0 99,000 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ............................... 99,000 200,000 99,000 

Housing site development (sec. 524) .............................. 5,000 5,045 5,046 

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 11,485 11,408 11,486 

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 4,998 0 5,000 

Total, Loan authorization ............................................ $5,027,750 $5,087,919 $5,100,000 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

77 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2007 level FY 2008 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan subsidies): 

Single family housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ....................................................................... $113,278 0 $105,824 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 42,641 $10,070 44,359 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 10,240 6,461 9,796 

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 45,213 0 42,184 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 7,663 18,800 9,306 

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 721 523 552 

Multi-family housing preservation ................................... 8,910 0 0 

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 123 0 142 

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................. $228,789 $35,854 $212,163 

RHIF expenses: 

Administrative expenses .................................................. $452,927 $434,890 $462,521 

The Committee provides an increase of over $176,000,000 to restore funding for the section 502 direct single family housing loan 

program, section 504 direct housing repair loan program, section 

515 direct rental housing loan program, self-help housing land development fund loan program, and to reject the Administration’s 

proposal to increase the guarantee fee in the section 502 guaranteed single family housing loan program. These critical housing 

loan programs were proposed for elimination or drastically cut in 

the President’s budget request. 

The Committee does not include the general provision that was 

requested in the President’s budget, increasing the guarantee fee 

for the section 502 guaranteed single family housing loan program. 

The Committee provided funding for the multi-family housing 

preservation program in the Multifamily Housing Revitalization 

Program Account. 

At the time of the subcommittee markup, the Committee has not 

received the proposed legislation for subsidized guaranteed loans 

that the Department stated would replace the section 502 direct 

single family housing loan program. The Committee is unable to 

consider a hypothetical proposal to replace this critical program 

that provides housing opportunities to very-low income individuals 

and families. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $616,020,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 567,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 533,020,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥83,000,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥33,980,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a program level of $533,020,000, a decrease of $83,000,000 below the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $33,980,000 

below the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

78 

These funds will be used for renewal of expiring rental assistance 

contracts for a one-year term and provides funding for preservation 

incentives and new construction contracts. In addition, this funding 

level provides a two-month funding reserve to cover any unforeseen 

disruptions for renewing contracts. This one-year agreement term 

will minimize the cost fluctuations in this account. 

The Committee notes that the cost to provide renewal of expiring 

rental assistance contracts for a two-year term would be 

$905,700,000, an increase of $338,700,000 above the budget request 

and $297,600,000 over the amount available in fiscal year 2007. 

Since the budget request proposed eliminating many critical Rural 

Development loan and grant programs, the Committee was not 

able to provide the additional resources that would be required to 

maintain the rental assistance program for a two-year contract 

term. Also, the budget request assumed that funding for fiscal year 

2007 would be based on one-year contract renewals but the Revised 

Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provided funding for 

two-year contract renewals. This change in the fiscal year 2007 assumption decreases the funding necessary to provide for one-year 

contract renewals in fiscal year 2008. 

RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $15,840,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥15,840,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Voucher Program, the Committee does 

not propose funding as requested in the President’s budget. Funding for this program is provided in the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account. 

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. 0 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... $27,800,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 27,800,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +27,800,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $27,800,000, an increase of $27,800,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 

2007 and the same amount as the budget request. 

The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the rural housing 

voucher program; $3,000,000 for the preservation of the section 515 

multi-family housing portfolio; and $14,800,000 to continue a demonstration program for projects financed under the section 515 program. 

The Committee proposes to provide authority to the Rural Housing Service to administer out of this account the rural housing 

voucher program and the demonstration programs that were funded in fiscal year 2007 in the Rural Housing Insurance Fund and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

79 

the Rural Housing Assistance Grant accounts. The Committee also 

includes authority to allow the Secretary to use funds made available for the demonstration program to carry out a section 515 

multi-family rental housing loan restructuring program when it becomes authorized, with prior approval of the Committee. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $33,660,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 40,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,340,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +30,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $40,000,000, an increase of $6,340,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$30,500,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee provides over a 400 percent increase for this 

grant program from the President’s budget request, which proposed 

to dramatically decrease funding for this program. Mutual and selfhelp housing grants are made available to public and private nonprofit organizations, local governments and tribal organizations to 

provide technical assistance to low- and very-low income families to 

build their homes through the mutual self-help method. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $43,603,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 39,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 39,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,603,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $39,000,000, a decrease of 

$4,603,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and the 

same amount as the budget request. The appropriated amount includes $30,000,000 for very-low income housing repair grants and 

$9,000,000 for rural housing preservation grants. 

The Committee provided funding for the multi-family housing 

demonstration revolving fund in the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account. The Committee also did not provide funding in this account for the supervisory and technical assistance 

grant program and the compensation for construction defects programs since the programs are expected to have carryover balances 

that will be used to fund the programs. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

80 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Grants 

2007 appropriation ................................................ $38,117,000 $18,277,000 $13,860,000 

2008 budget estimate ........................................... 13,520,000 5,849,000 4,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................... 50,000,000 21,630,000 25,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ....................................... +11,883,000 +3,353,000 +11,140,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................. +36,480,000 +15,781,000 +21,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Farm Labor program account, the Committee provides a 

loan subsidy of $21,630,000, which supports a loan level of 

$50,000,000, an increase of $3,353,000 in loan subsidy and an increase of $11,883,000 in loan level above the amount available in 

fiscal year 2007, and an increase of $15,781,000 in loan subsidy 

and an increase of $36,480,000 in loan level above the amount in 

the budget request. 

The Committee also provides $25,000,000 in grants, an increase 

of $11,140,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and 

an increase of $21,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee provides over a 400 percent increase for the 

Farm Labor Housing loan and grant programs from the President’s 

budget request, which proposed to dramatically decrease funding 

for these programs. The Farm Labor Housing loan and grant programs provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for farm workers 

by providing loans to farmers for small, on-farm housing or loans 

and grants for off-farm multi-family developments. 

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2007 appropriation ..................................................................................... $33,870,000 $14,927,000 $4,774,000 

2008 budget estimate ................................................................................ 33,772,000 14,485,000 4,576,000 

Provided in the bill ..................................................................................... 33,772,000 14,485,000 4,861,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ............................................................................ ¥98,000 ¥442,000 +87,000 

2008 budget estimate ....................................................................... – – – – – – +285,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the 

Committee provides for a loan level of $33,772,000, a decrease of 

$98,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2007 and the 

same as the budget request. 

For the estimated loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation of $14,485,000, a decrease of $442,000 below the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and the same as the budget 

request. 

The Committee also provides $4,861,000 in administrative expenses, an increase of $87,000 above the amount available in fiscal 

year 2007 and an increase of $285,000 above the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

81 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level 

2007 appropriation .................................................................................................................. $24,752,000 1 $5,406,000 

2008 budget estimate ............................................................................................................. 0 0 

Provided in the bill .................................................................................................................. 0 0 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ......................................................................................................... ¥24,752,000 ¥5,406,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................................................... – – – – – –

1 Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The President’s budget proposes and the Committee recommends 

to fund this program from mandatory funds instead of discretionary funds. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $26,718,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 20,928,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 29,193,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,475,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +8,265,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $29,193,000, an increase of $2,475,000 

above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$8,265,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee provides a total of $29,193,000 for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant program, of which: $20,295,000 is for 

the value-added agricultural product market development grant 

program; $2,475,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for the 

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program through a cooperative agreement with the National Center 

for Appropriate Technology; $1,473,000 is for cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers; $4,455,000 is for cooperative development grants and $495,000 is for a cooperative research agreement with a qualified academic institution. 

RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $11,088,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 11,088,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +11,088,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 

Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $11,088,000, 

the same as the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $11,088,000 above the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

82 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM

Loan level Subsidy level Grants 

2007 appropriation ..................................................................................... $176,512,000 $11,456,000 $11,385,000 

2008 budget estimate ................................................................................ 195,470,000 18,941,000 15,000,000 

Provided in the bill ..................................................................................... 250,000,000 24,225,000 21,775,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ............................................................................ +73,488,000 +12,769,000 +10,390,000 

2008 budget estimate ....................................................................... +54,530,000 +5,284,000 +6,775,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Renewable Energy Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $46,000,000, an increase of $23,159,000 above the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$12,059,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation provides for a renewable energy loan level of $250,000,000, an increase of $73,488,000 above the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$54,530,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation provides for a renewable energy grant level of $21,775,000, an increase of $10,390,000 above the 

amount available in fiscal year 2007 and increase of $6,775,000 

above the budget request. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative expenses 

2007 appropriation ...................... $6,079,524,000 $4,304,000 $38,623,000 

2008 budget estimate ................. 4,790,000,000 3,740,000 37,009,000 

Provided in the bill ..................... 5,290,000,000 3,740,000 39,405,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .............. 789,524,000 ¥564,000 +782,000 

2008 budget estimate .......... +500,000,000 – – – +2,396,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2007 enacted FY 2008 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $99,000 $100,000 $100,000 

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 100,764 0 0 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 2,700,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 

Direct, Treasury Rate .................................................... 990,000 0 0 

Guaranteed underwriting .............................................. 1,500,000 0 0 

Subtotal ................................................................ 5,389,764 4,100,000 4,600,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 419,760 250,000 250,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

83 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2007 enacted FY 2008 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 125,000 295,000 295,000 

Subtotal ................................................................ 689,760 690,000 690,000 

Total, Loan authorizations ................................... $6,079,524 $4,790,000 $5,290,000 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2007 enacted FY 2008 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Loan subsidies: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $2,119 $120 $120 

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 1,522 0 0 

Subtotal ................................................................ 3,641 120 120 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 537 116 116 

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 126 1,675 1,675 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 0 1,829 1,829 

Subtotal ................................................................ 663 3,620 3,620 

Total, Loan subsidies ........................................... $4,304 $3,740 $3,740 

Electric and Telecommunications expenses: 

Administrative expenses ............................................... $38,623 $37,009 $39,405 

The Committee has become aware of interest in wind power generation and has included increased funding to provide additional 

resources to support this growing renewable energy industry. 

The Committee recommendation does not include a program 

level for the guaranteed underwriting loan program since the cap 

set in the authorizing legislation was reached in fiscal year 2007 

for this loan program. 

The Committee recommendation includes a general provision to 

limit RUS from drafting or implementing any regulation or rule insofar as it would require recertification of rural status for each 

electric and telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunication Loans program. The Committee is 

concerned by the Department’s proposal to change the long-standing practice of the ‘‘Once Rural, Always Rural’’ principle until the 

authorizing committee has the opportunity to address the population requirement in the 2007 Farm Bill. 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

Loan level Subsidy level Grants 

2007 appropriation ...................... $495,000,000 $10,643,000 $38,610,000 

2008 budget estimate ................. 300,000,000 6,450,000 24,750,000 

Provided in the bill ..................... 300,000,000 6,450,000 52,820,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .............. ¥195,000,000 ¥4,193,000 14,210,000 

2008 budget estimate .......... – – – – – – 28,070,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

84 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $59,270,000, an 

increase of $10,017,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 

2007 and an increase of $28,070,000 above the budget request, including: $35,000,000 for Distance Learning and Telemedicine 

Grants; $6,450,000 for Broadband Telecommunications loan subsidy, which supports a loan level of $300,000,000; and $17,820,000 

for Broadband Grants. 

The Committee is concerned by the Department’s administration 

of the broadband loan program. Since the inception of the loan program, the Department has failed to obligate available resources to 

fund viable broadband projects. In fiscal year 2007, $10,642,000 

was carried over from fiscal year 2006, providing a total of 

$21,285,000 in budget authority and a program level of 

$990,000,000. Historically, the Department does not obligate the 

current year appropriation for this program and it is estimated 

that the $10,643,000 provided in fiscal year 2007 will carry over 

into fiscal year 2008. This carry over will provide an additional program level of $495,000,000, for a total program level of 

$795,000,000 in fiscal year 2008. The Committee is aware that the 

Rural Utilities Service has published a proposed rule to address 

critical program issues. The Committee believes the appropriation 

for the broadband loan program is sufficient to meet expected demand in fiscal year 2008, with the expected carryover of prior year 

funds, and implementation of a new rule and the Farm Bill. 

The Committee notes the proposed rule proposes to place limitations on service to high density areas which are likely to have 

broadband service. The Committee expects the Department to 

prioritize deployment of Broadband Service to households with no 

or limited broadband access. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(85) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $597,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 655,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 628,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +31,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥27,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$628,000, an increase of $31,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $27,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is aware that the State of Indiana has recently 

entered into a contract to privatize certain operations of the Food 

Stamp Program. It is the Committee’s understanding that USDA 

approved the contract in December 2006 without a clear understanding of the details of the program, including its implementation, effect on state employees, daily operation of the program or 

even whether the program complied with federal law. In February 

2007, USDA sent a letter to the State of Indiana requesting additional details about the program, with only weeks to go before the 

initial transfer to private contractors of about 70 percent of state 

employees working on the Food Stamp Program; this had already 

been scheduled to occur on March 19, 2007. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to perform comprehensive oversight of 

the program. It further directs the Secretary to provide the Committee with quarterly reports beginning 30 days after passage of 

this bill on this contract, including the effects on enrollment, program access, error rates, and spending on administrative expenses. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to be prepared to take appropriate administrative action if performance standards as stated in 

the contract are not met. 

The Committee recognizes that the Food and Nutrition Service is 

promoting the Healthier U.S. School Challenge as part of the President’s Healthier U.S. Initiative, and the Committee commends the 

USDA for participating in this initiative. The Committee notes that 

there are school-based physical education programs, such as 

PE4Life, that are getting positive measurable outcomes in student 

fitness, as well as reduced disciplinary incidences. The Committee 

strongly encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to explore collaboration between nutrition programming and wellness, and such 

school-based physical education programs. 

The Committee believes that when a school food service authority contracts with a foodservice management company for the promstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

86 

vision of meals it is important to ensure the integrity of accounting 

functions. The Committee believes that when allowing a food service management company to control, either directly or indirectly, 

point-of-sale software as well as the editing or reformatting of 

transactional data used to support the federal reimbursement 

claim, school food service authorities must exercise sufficient oversight, as required in regulation to protect the integrity of the school 

meal program. The Committee requests the Government Accountability Office to provide a report, no later than February 28, 2008, 

on the nature and effectiveness of internal control procedures to 

ensure the accuracy of meal counting and claiming by Food Service 

Management companies under contract to provide meal service to 

School Districts participating in the National School Lunch Program. In particular, the Committee is interested in such procedures 

established by Food Service Management companies themselves as 

well as those procedures undertaken by School Districts in their 

oversight and monitoring of contractual performance. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list were three audit reports for FNS, with several 

open recommendations. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts 

to reach agreement within 180 days and directs FNS to send the 

Committee a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching 

management decision on the outstanding issues. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Direct appropriation Transfer from 

section 32 Total program level 

2007 appropriation ........ $7,614,523,000 $5,731,073,000 $13,345,596,000 

2008 budget estimate ... 7,592,797,000 6,304,475,000 13,897,272,000 

Provided in the bill ....... 7,668,156,000 6,235,057,000 13,903,213,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation +53,633,000 +503,984,000 +557,617,000 

2008 budget estimate .................... +75,359,000 ¥69,418,000 +5,941,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a 

total of $13,903,213,000, an increase of $557,617,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $5,941,000 

above the budget request. Of the total amount provided, 

$7,668,156,000 is by direct appropriation and $6,235,057,000 is by 

transfer from Section 32. 

The Committee includes a general provision to expand the Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Program to all States. The Committee provides 

up to $500,000 for each State, not currently authorized, to carry 

out a program to make free fresh fruits and vegetables available 

to elementary or secondary schools to make available to students 

throughout the school day. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

87 

The Committee also includes a general provision to expand the 

Simplified Summer Food Program to all States. 

The Committee notes the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 authorized a pilot study on eliminating the reduced price school meal program, subject to the availability of 

funds. Eliminating reduced price meals nationwide by increasing 

the limit for free meals to 185 percent of poverty, would cost 

$3,500,000,000 over five years. A pilot study for forecasting the impact of eliminating the reduced price school meal program would 

require a demonstration with comparison sites and an evaluation 

that looked at participation increases, rates and how ‘‘error demographics’’ and administrative challenges were different between the 

demonstration sites and the comparison sites. A pilot program 

would take three years, two years to collect the data and one year 

to evaluate the program. Since the Child Nutrition Programs will 

be reauthorized in 2009, there is not time to initiate a pilot program before the program is reauthorized. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the child nutrition programs: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Child Nutrition Programs: 

School lunch program ..................................................................... $8,180,933 

School breakfast program .............................................................. 2,389,988 

Child and adult care food program ............................................... 2,288,838 

Summer food service program ....................................................... 310,634 

Special milk program ..................................................................... 14,618 

State administrative expenses ....................................................... 175,636 

Commodity procurement ................................................................ 508,608 

Team nutrition ................................................................................ 15,000 

Food safety education ..................................................................... 2,000 

Coordinated review ......................................................................... 5,505 

Computer support and processing ................................................. 9,453 

CACFP training and technical assistance .................................... 2,000 

Total ................................................................................................. $13,903,213 

The Committee provides $15,000,000 for TEAM nutrition. Included in this amount is $6,000,000 for food service training grants 

to States; $3,000,000 for technical assistance materials; $800,000 

for National Food Service Management Institute cooperative agreements; $1,000,000 for print and electronic food service resource systems; $1,000,000 to assist USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion in development and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials in support of nutrition education for 

Child Nutrition programs participants and their families, and 

$3,200,000 for other activities. 

The Committee provides $2,000,000 for Food Safety Education 

and encourages FNS to develop materials to educate children and 

their families on food safety issues including anaphylaxis, to conduct further research into the causes of foodborne illness in schools 

using CDC data, support educational initiatives on the occurrence 

of foodborne norovirus outbreaks in schools and other food safety 

education activities. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

88 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,204,430,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,386,597,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,620,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +415,570,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +233,403,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,620,000,000, an increase of $415,570,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$233,403,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee notes that since the budget request was submitted last February, estimates for participation and food costs 

have increased for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, increasing 

the estimate for program needs in fiscal year 2008. 

USDA has reported large upward revisions to its dairy price forecasts, and WIC food costs for fiscal year 2007 are starting to reflect 

this increase. Since milk and cheese account for about 40 percent 

of WIC food costs, large fluctuations in dairy prices have a significant impact on WIC food costs. The increased WIC food costs in fiscal year 2007 reduce the projected carry-over into fiscal year 2008. 

Also, participation in fiscal year 2007 has been somewhat higher 

than originally estimated, which increases the estimated participation for fiscal year 2008. 

Also, it is currently estimated the WIC program will have an un- obligated balance in the contingency reserve of about $141,069,000, 

which is $16,069,000 above the original appropriation of 

$125,000,000 provided for the reserve. The Committee includes a 

general provision to rescind the $16,069,000 from the contingency 

fund and includes this amount in this record level WIC grant 

funds. 

The Committee does not include the requested increase of 

$75,000,000 in the contingency fund. The contingency fund is intended to support participation should cost or participation exceed 

budget estimates. The Committee instead includes an additional 

$270,570,000 for WIC grants to States to address the estimated increases in participation and food costs in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee does not include the provision as requested in 

the President’s budget, that caps the national average participant 

grant for nutrition services and administration (NSA) grants to 

States at $14.12 for fiscal year 2008, increasing the estimate for 

NSA funding by $145,000,000. 

Therefore, the recommended funding level, $233,403,000 above 

the budget request and $415,570,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2007, is currently estimated to be sufficient to meet program needs. However, the Committee is aware that dairy prices 

are continuing to rise and will continue to monitor WIC food costs, 

participation, and carry-over funds, and take additional action as 

necessary to ensure that funding provided in fiscal year 2008 is 

sufficient to serve all eligible applicants. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

89 

The recommended funding level includes $15,000,000 for continuation of the breastfeeding peer counselor program. 

The Committee provides $30,000,000 for investments in management information systems, if the Secretary determines that those 

funds are not needed to maintain caseload and will not require use 

of the contingency fund. 

The Committee does not include language requested by the Administration that provides guidance that funds under this heading 

shall not be used for WIC benefits for individuals who receive medical assistance or whose family member is a pregnant woman or infant who receives assistance, unless their family falls below 250 

percent of the applicable poverty guidelines. 

Electronic Benefit Transfer.—The Committee recommendation includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the authorized level of infrastructure funding at $14,000,000, which includes funding to develop EBT systems. 

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $38,161,534,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 39,838,223,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 39,816,223,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,654,689,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥22,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides 

$39,816,223,000, an increase of $1,654,689,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $22,000,000 below 

the budget request. The total amount includes $3,000,000,000 for 

a contingency reserve in fiscal year 2008 and $140,000,000 for the 

Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). 

The Committee does not include the provision, requested in the 

President’s budget, which provides funding as a monthly transitional benefit to Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) 

participants. The Committee does not provide the funding requested in the President’s budget for the CSFP transitional benefit 

or CSFP outreach grants. The Committee provided an appropriation for the CSFP in the Commodity Assistance Program. 

The Committee includes statutory language to exclude special 

pay for military personnel deployed to designated combat areas 

when determining food stamp eligibility. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the food stamp program: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Food Stamp Program Account: 

Benefits ............................................................................................ $31,902,007 

Contingency Reserve ...................................................................... 3,000,000 

State Administrative Cost ............................................................. 2,662,000 

Employment & Training ................................................................ 319,570 

Other Program Costs ...................................................................... 67,327 

Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico .............................................. 1,614,765 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) .... 84,650 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) ................... 140,000 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

90 

Associated Activities ....................................................................... 25,904 

Total ................................................................................................. $39,816,223 

Included in the recommended level for other program costs are $2,000,000 to conduct Food Stamp Program modernization and innovation projects and $1,000,000 to assist USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in the development and maintenance 

of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials in support of nutrition education for the food stamp eligible population. Included in the recommended level for FDPIR is $34,206,000 to 

support additional administration funding in the program to address current inequities among tribes in the allocation of funds and 

to address pressing needs to improve warehousing and other administrative costs associated with commodity distribution. 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $177,572,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 70,370,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 221,070,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +43,498,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. +150,700,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $221,070,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program, an increase of $43,498,000 above 

the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of 

$150,700,000 above the budget request. 

The recommended funding level for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is $150,000,000, an increase of 

$42,798,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and an 

increase of $150,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee provides a large increase for the CSFP with the 

expectation that the fiscal year 2007 caseload will be maintained. 

Of this increase, the Committee provides at least $3,900,000 to 

begin funding the five states with USDA approved plans. Within 

the remaining available funds, the Committee directs the Department to provide additional caseload in the states with existing programs and documented additional needs. In assigning additional 

caseload, the Committee directs the Department to give priority to 

those states which received supplemental caseload in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the 

Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006, and continue 

to have demand for supplemental caseload. 

The Committee is aware that of the funding made available for 

CSFP and TEFAP under Division B of P.L. 109–148, Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Pandemic Influenza, 2006, a small amount of resources 

remain available. These resources are in the form of both cash balances and commodity inventories. Given that disaster-related program operations have ceased, the Committee has included a general provision to allow these remaining resources, and any subsequent recoveries and collections, to be used to support the normal 

on-going operations of CSFP and TEFAP. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

91 

The Committee has included $50,000,000 for administration of 

TEFAP, an increase of $500,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $500,000 above the budget request. These funds may be used for administration purposes or for 

food costs at the discretion of the States. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes language that allows the Secretary to transfer up to $10,000,000 of TEFAP commodity funding 

to processing, storage, and distribution costs. 

For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $1,070,000 for Pacific Island Assistance, the same as 

the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the same as the 

budget request. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, an increase of $200,000 above the amount available 

for fiscal year 2007 and an increase of $200,000 above the budget 

request. 

Seniors Farmers’ Market Program.—Public Law 107–171, Section 

4402, directs mandatory funding for this program from funds available to the Commodity Credit Corporation through fiscal year 2007. 

This program is scheduled for reauthorization in fiscal year 2008. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $140,252,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 148,926,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 146,926,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +6,674,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee has provided $146,926,000, an increase of $6,674,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $2,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$2,000,000 to fund initiatives by the Center for Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion to continue development of an evidence-based system for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and enhancements to MyPyramid interactive applications and information technology services. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(92) 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

[Dollars in thousands] 

Appropriation Transfer from loan accounts Total, FAS 

2007 appropriation ...................... $156,220 ($5,084) ($161,304) 

2008 budget estimate ................. 168,209 (4,985) (173,194) 

Provided in the bill ..................... 159,136 (4,985) (164,121) 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .............. +2,916 ¥99 +2,817 

2008 budget estimate .......... ¥9,073 – – – ¥9,073 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $159,136,000 and transfers of $4,985,000, for a 

total salaries and expenses level of $164,121,000, an increase of 

$2,817,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a 

decrease of $9,073,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes $2,817,000 for pay 

costs as requested. Unlike many other agencies, the Foreign Agricultural Service received an increase in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007. The Committee believes that there 

are sufficient resources in base funding for overseas operations and 

reimbursements to the Department of State. 

Audit recommendations not achieving management decision within 180 days.—The Committee has received from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the record a list of audit reports where 

management decisions have not been achieved within 180 days. Included on the list was one audit report for FAS, with one open recommendation. The Committee supports OIG in its efforts to reach 

agreement within 180 days and directs FAS to send the Committee 

a report by October 1, 2007 with a plan for reaching management 

decision on the outstanding issue. 

The Committee recommendation includes the fiscal year 2006 

funding level for technical assistance for the promotion of specialty 

crop experts. 

PUBLIC LAW 480 

PROGRAM AND GRANT ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy levels, and 

administrative costs for all Public Law 480 programs: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

93 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2007 enacted FY 2008 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Public Law 480 Program Account: 

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad: 

Program level ................................................................ ($1,214,711) ($1,219,400) ($1,219,400) 

Appropriation ................................................................. 1,214,711 1,219,400 1,219,400 

Salaries and expenses: 

FAS ................................................................................ 166 – – – – – – 

FSA ................................................................................ 3,207 2,761 2,749 

Total, P.L. 480–S&E ................................................. 3,373 2,761 2,749 

The budget does not request funds for the Public Law 480 Title 

I program. The Committee understands that the Department estimates that it will have at least $20,000,000 in carryover funds 

available in fiscal year 2008 in the Ocean Freight Differential 

(OFD) account. The Committee has included language to permit 

these carryover funds to be transferred to the Title I account if 

needed. The Committee will continue to monitor the availability of 

carryover and OFD funds and requests the Department to advise 

it immediately if the United States Government enters into any 

agreements under Title I. 

Administration proposal.—The administration proposed language 

under the Public Law 480 Title II account that would allow the 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to 

use up to 25 percent of the funds appropriated ‘‘for local or regional 

purchase of food to assist people threatened by a food security crisis.’’ The Committee has not included this language in this bill, but 

the Committee will consider this proposal as part of an overall examination of food aid programs. The Committee will hold a hearing 

this year to examine food aid issues and will invite the USAID administrator and the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural 

Service to testify, as well as representatives from international organizations and humanitarian groups. 

CCC EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,261,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,344,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,338,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +77,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥6,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $5,338,000, an increase of $77,000 above the 

amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $6,000 

below the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

94 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $99,000,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 100,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,000,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program Grants, as authorized by Section 3107 of P.L. 

107–171 (7 U.S.C. 1736o–1), the Committee provides an appropriation of $100,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount 

available for fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(95) 

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation 

Drug, device and 

animal drug user 

fees 

Total, FDA, S&E 

2007 appropriation ................................................................... $1,569,244,000 $407,530,000 $1,976,774,000

2008 budget estimate .............................................................. 1,635,709,000 416,092,000 2,051,801,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 1,697,709,000 13,696,000 1,711,405,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation .......................................................... +128,465,000 ¥393,834,000 ¥265,369,000 

2008 budget estimate ..................................................... +62,000,000 ¥402,396,000 ¥340,396,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $1,697,709,000 in 

budget authority, an increase of $128,465,000 above the amount 

available in fiscal year 2007, and an increase of $62,000,000 above 

the budget request. In addition, the Committee makes available 

$13,696,000 in animal drug user fees for total Salaries and Expenses of $1,711,405,000. 

The Committee provides budget authority as follows: 

$466,726,000 for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 

(CFSAN) and related field activities of the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA); $324,438,000 for the Center for Drug Evaluation and 

Research (CDER) and related field activities of ORA; $155,073,000 

for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and 

related field activities of ORA; $94,809,000 for the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and related field activities of ORA; 

$240,122,000 for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health 

(CDRH) and related field activities of ORA; $36,455,000 for the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR); $88,577,000 for 

headquarters and the Office of the Commissioner; $131,533,000 for 

GSA rental payments; $59,168,000 for other rent and rent-related 

activities; and $38,808,000 for White Oak consolidation expenses. 

In addition, the Committee also provides increases of $5,000,000 

for the Office of Generic Drugs, $6,250,000 for the Division of Drug 

Marketing, Advertising and Communication, $12,750,000 for the 

Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, $2,000,000 for the Office 

of Cosmetics and Colors, and $35,000,000 for CFSAN. In addition, 

the Committee provides a total of $5,000,000 for the Office of Women’s Health. 

The Committee notes that this bill, if enacted, would be the second straight large increase in funding provided for FDA. If this bill 

were enacted, FDA would receive an increase of almost 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

96 

$231,000,000 in discretionary budget authority compared to the 

2006 enacted bill. 

The Committee does not make available prescription drug and 

medical device user fees, as the reauthorizations for those fees for 

fiscal year 2008 have not yet been enacted. However, if those fees 

are reauthorized at the levels estimated in the budget, total resources for FDA will exceed $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2008. 

Pending further review, the Committee does not provide any 

funds for closure of FDA laboratory facilities. 

The Committee does not approve the proposed reduction in the 

Food Contact Notification Program. The Committee provides funding as requested for the National Center for Food Safety and Technology and for New Mexico State University. The Committee does 

not provide funding for the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission, the Warehousing Education and Research Council, the Natural Products Center, or the Critical Path Institute. 

Bill structure.—Although the budget requested a statutory 

‘‘blank check’’ that would remove the specified levels of funding for 

each center and other activities in the bill, the Committee believes 

the agency needs more budget controls, not fewer. Therefore, it has 

maintained the usual bill language structure. 

Food safety.—The Committee believes that FDA is failing to do 

what is needed to ensure the safety of our food supply. 

The Committee believes that additional budgetary resources 

must be tied to a sound management plan that represents a systemic approach to addressing the shortfalls of the inspection of our 

domestic and imported foods and that has the support of the Administration. 

There have been mixed signs as to whether FDA is going to 

produce such a plan. To ensure that it does, the Committee directs 

FDA to develop a performance plan that establishes measurable 

benchmarks for concrete improvements in the performance of its 

food safety mission. 

The plan must set forth clear, definitive goals over a multiyear 

period to comprehensively overhaul FDA’s food safety operations, 

covering both domestic and imported foods. The plan must include 

a detailed description of any organizational, managerial, statutory 

and regulatory changes necessary to achieve them, as well as an 

assessment of the budgetary resources needed. If statutory changes 

are proposed, the plan must include the statutory language. The 

plan must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget. 

The Committee suggests that enforceable standards for food safety, HAACP-like systems, and a process for reviewing the food safety systems in countries that export food to the United States 

should be considered as key parts of the building blocks of a stronger food safety system. These are proposals that are not dissimilar 

to measures FDA has proposed in the past or may be considering 

currently. 

The Committee provides $28,000,000 to be available on July 1, 

2008 for implementation of the plan. In order to have sufficient 

time to evaluate the plan, the Committee directs that it be transmitted concurrently with the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

While there are clearly shortfalls in FDA’s approach to the safety 

of the other products it regulates, the Committee believes that it 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

97 

is appropriate to begin the process of overhauling FDA with the 

foods program, since the pending reauthorizations for the drug and 

medical device programs may make fundamental changes in those 

areas. 

The Committee provides an additional $7,000,000 for increased 

activities to protect the safety of imported foods. 

Field activities.—The Committee believes that it must hold FDA 

accountable for its performance of its field operations, which are 

the most basic activities FDA performs to protect the public health. 

Therefore, within the sums provided in this bill, the Committee 

provides $527,567,000 in budget authority for ORA for field activities by center as follows: CFSAN, $319,138,000; CDER, 

$81,488,000; CBER, $29,310,000; CVM, $35,774,000; and CDRH, 

$61,857,000. The Committee directs FDA to maintain at least these 

levels for field activities and to notify the Committee if it proposes 

to reduce any of them. 

Direct to consumer advertising user fees.—In its recommendations 

for reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Administration has proposed that FDA be permitted to charge drug 

companies a user fee for advisory reviews of their prescription drug 

direct-to-consumer (DTC) television ads. FDA’s justification was, in 

part, that ‘‘these television advertisements are highly visible and if 

done well, will reflect positively on the [drug] industry as a 

whole...’’ 

Positive impacts on an industry should not be any part of FDA’s 

considerations. DTC ads are designed to affect consumers and 

FDA’s reviews of them should protect their interests. Having drug 

companies pay for the review of such ads—and having reviewers’ 

salaries dependent on drug company fees—will further undermine 

the public’s confidence in FDA. 

The Committee believes the Administration’s proposal to establish a user fee for review of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising 

is ill-conceived. The Committee provides an increase of $6,250,000 

for review of direct to consumer advertisements, the amount that 

FDA estimates would be raised by the proposed user fee. Should 

the DTC user fee proposal be authorized, the Committee will not 

approve an appropriation to make the funds collected available. 

Postmarketing studies.—In June 2006, the Office of Inspector 

General of the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) 

issued a report entitled ‘‘FDA’s Monitoring of Postmarketing Study 

Commitments.’’ OIG looked at FDA’s database of postmarketing 

study commitments (PMCs) for drugs approved between 1990 and 

2004 and concluded that ‘‘FDA cannot readily identify whether or 

how timely PMCs are progressing toward completion’’ because 

many reports were missing or incomplete or contained information 

that was of little use to FDA. Many reports included none of the 

milestones towards completion required by the agency’s regulations 

or only partial information. 

The Committee is very concerned that FDA rejected OIG’s recommendation that it tell companies to provide additional useful information in the annual status reports they submit to FDA, such 

as milestones to monitor progress in completing studies, merely because FDA would be required to change its regulations to do so. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

98 

The Committee cannot accept FDA’s reason for not implementing 

this recommendation and directs FDA to submit a report by November 1, 2007 explaining why it believes it should not comply 

with this recommendation. 

Office of Women’s Health.—The Committee believes that the 

work of the Office of Women’s Health at FDA is critical to ensuring 

that the wide ranging policies and actions at the agency reflect the 

health needs of women, and include research, outreach, and analyses of data by demographic variables, including race and ethnicity. 

The Committee provides $5,000,000 for the Office of Women’s 

Health. The Committee requests quarterly reports on the expenditures and staffing levels of the Office to ensure that the resources 

provided are used exclusively for that Office. 

Ketek.—The Committee is very concerned about criticisms of 

FDA’s handling of clinical safety issues involving the drug Ketek. 

FDA told the Committee that it ‘‘will use the knowledge we have 

learned from the Ketek investigation to look at future studies and 

sites that we target for data audits.’’ 

The Committee requests a report from the agency by October 1, 

2007, describing what FDA learned from the Ketek investigation. 

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.—The Committee remains 

concerned over the prolonged delay in the issuance of a new, upgraded rule regarding the prohibition of additional specified risk 

materials from ruminant and non-ruminant animal feed. Within 60 

days of enactment of this Act, FDA is directed to submit a report 

to the Committee detailing the obstacles to the completion of this 

report, as well as any legislative activity that would assist in the 

resolution of this issue. 

Diacetyl.—The Committee is concerned about potential health 

hazards posed by exposure to the chemical diacetyl, a butter flavoring agent used in microwave popcorns and other foods. Although, FDA codified diacetyl as ‘‘generally regarded as safe’’ 

(GRAS) in 1983, several recent investigations by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found diacetyl to 

have caused a rare and fatal lung disease (bronchiolitis obliterans). 

The Committee believes that the more recent safety information by 

NIOSH comprises compelling scientific evidence that diacetyl may 

not only pose a real threat to exposed workers, but also raises the 

possibility of harm to consumers of microwave popcorn. The Committee believes that this matter warrants reconsideration by the 

FDA of the GRAS status of diacetyl, but at minimum, the FDA 

should conduct further studies to examine the safety of diacetyl 

and the relationship between exposure to the chemical and consumption of food products containing the butter flavoring. The 

Committee directs that FDA submit a report on its plan to research 

this issue further to the House Committee on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment. 

Microbial Resistance.—In 2003, FDA released guidance for industry that outlines a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to preventing antimicrobial resistance in humans that may result from 

the use of antimicrobial drugs in animals. However, the Committee 

is concerned that the guidance document does not assign enough 

weight to the impact of microbial resistance to drugs that are highly important to human medicine but are not used to treat 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

99 

foodborne illnesses. Transferred resistance from antimicrobials 

used in animals produced for food can also render critically important human antibiotics ineffective, including those used to treat 

foodborne illnesses. The Committee is concerned that simply satisfying the requirements of the guidance document is not adequate 

to protect human health. Therefore, the Committee directs FDA to 

reevaluate the basis on which it makes such decisions and to provide a report to the Committee by November 1, 2007. 

FDA enforcement.—FDA recently issued an import alert about 

certain types of farm-raised fish from China. The Committee is dismayed that it took the agency so long to act. FDA’s own time-line 

on this issue indicates that concerns about this problem go back 

more than five years. The Committee expects FDA to act promptly 

to address violations of law and will monitor FDA’s actions accordingly. The Committee will be examining this issue further this 

year. 

The Committee is aware that the FDA issued a monograph for 

sunscreen products in 2002, and the monograph was stayed shortly 

thereafter so that FDA could address the issue of measuring protection against UVA rays, which cause skin cancer. The Committee 

is disappointed that FDA has taken no further action, although 

skin cancer rates continue to rise, especially among young people 

and women. The Committee believes that a comprehensive monograph is essential to helping consumers make informed choices 

about protecting themselves against sun exposure. Therefore, the 

Committee directs FDA to issue a comprehensive monograph for 

over-the-counter sunscreen products, including UVA and UVB labeling requirements, within three months of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee is deeply concerned about the dangers of Salmonella, especially in highly susceptible populations like young 

children, pregnant women, individuals over 55, post operative patients, or individuals with compromised immune systems. The 

Committee recommends that the FDA encourage any facility that 

serves highly susceptible populations, including schools, hospitals, 

nursing homes, acute care facilities, day care centers, and hospice 

facilities to consider using eggs that have been pasteurized to destroy all viable salmonellae. 

The Committee is concerned that the FDA has still not finished 

its review of the safety for people of the subtherapeutic use of penicillin in animal feed and, accordingly, directs FDA to finish this review and make the review public by June 30, 2008. 

The conference report for fiscal year 2006 suggested that FDA review the implementation of new operating procedures in the Los 

Angeles district with regard to importers of ethnic foods. Last year, 

in response to questions from the Committee, FDA indicated that 

they have implemented several actions to improve the processing 

of food import entries. The Committee encourages FDA to consider 

establishing a formal process for tracking status inquiries. 

The Committee requests FDA to submit a report to the Committee on the implementation of the Combat Methamphetamine 

Epidemic Act of 2005 within 90 days of the date of enactment. 

Responsiveness to Inspector General recommendations.—The 

Committee directs the agency to submit a report by October 1, 

2007 on the status of all open audits and recommendations by OIG. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

100 

The report must also include a plan for getting to resolution on all 

these open issues. 

Responsiveness to GAO recommendations.—The Government Accountability Office (GAO) maintains on its website a list of open 

recommendations from its review work. Currently, the GAO lists 

numerous reports with open recommendations involving FDA. The 

Committee directs FDA to report to the Committee by October 1, 

2007 on the status of all open GAO recommendations and on its 

plan to reach closure on each of them. 

High-Risk List.—In addition, the Committee directs FDA and 

USDA to work with GAO on a plan whose implementation would 

result in food safety being removed from GAO’s High-Risk List and 

to submit a report on that plan to the Committee by October 1, 

2007. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,950,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,950,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,950,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides $4,950,000, the same as the amount 

available in fiscal year 2007 and the budget request. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2007 appropriation ............................................................................. $97,981,000 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... 116,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 102,550,000 

Comparison: 

2007 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,569,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥13,450,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $102,550,000, an increase of 

$4,569,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a 

decrease of $13,450,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee does not adopt the President’s request to impose 

fees on futures transactions, totaling $86,000,000. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,463,000 for pay 

costs as requested. The recommendation also includes $3,106,000 

for highest priority needs, including additional staff, technology improvements, and program funding for enforcement. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

101 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2007 limitation .................................................................................... ($44,250,000) 

2008 budget estimate ......................................................................... (46,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (46,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2007 limitation ............................................................................ +1,750,000 

2008 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administra- tion, the Committee provides $46,000,000, an increase of 

$1,750,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and the 

same as the budget request. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(102) 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2008 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

Section 716: Language is included that allows funds to be used 

to carry out a competitive grants program. 

Section 718: Language is included that allows for reimbursement 

of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 

Section 721: Language is included related to final rulemaking on 

cost-sharing for APHIS animal and plant health emergency programs. 

Section 722: Language is included to allow the disbursement of 

certain prior year obligations. 

Section 723: Language is included regarding the recertification of 

rural status. 

Section 724: Language is included that relates to government 

sponsored news stories. 

Section 725: The Committee includes $10,000,000 for a specialty 

crops competitiveness program. 

Section 726: Language is included that relates to importation of 

drugs. 

Section 727: Language is included related to competitive sourcing 

related to rural development and farm loan programs. 

Section 729: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

funds for certain FDA activities. 

Section 730: Language is included regarding funding allocations 

for the expanded food nutrition and education program. 

Section 731: Language is included that limits implementation of 

a rule concerning countries eligible to export poultry products to 

the United States. 

Section 733: Language is included regarding meat inspection. 

Section 735: Language is included in regards to the water and 

waste direct loan program. 

Section 736: Language is included that provides for a national 

Simplified Summer Food Program. 

Section 737: Language is included that provides funding for a 

Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program. 

Section 738: Language is included regarding the Federal Meat 

Inspection and other acts. 

Section 739: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 740: Language is included to provide $2,475,000 for a 

hunger fellowship program. 

Section 741: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 742: Language is included that repeals section 9012 of 

Public Law 110–28. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

103 

Section 743: Language is included that amends the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act. 

Section 744: Language is included regarding certain unexpended 

funds. 

Section 745: Language is included to provide that certain locations shall be considered eligible for certain rural development programs. 

Section 746: Language is included to prohibit funding certain activities. 

Section 747: Language is included to prohibit funding certain 

contracts. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of article 

I of the U.S. Constitution which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . . 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the transfers of funds 

included in the accompanying bill. 

1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— The bill allows funds to be transferred to cover the costs of new or 

replacement space. 

2. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds 

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required. 

3. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.— 

The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies. 

5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other 

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be 

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of 

animals, plants, and poultry. 

6. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill limits the transfer of 

section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill. 

7. Farm Service Agency.—The bill provides that funds provided 

to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the salaries 

and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency. 

8. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of 

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference. 

9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.—The bill provides that 

funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm Service 

Agency salaries and expenses account, and that funds may be 

transferred among lending programs. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

104 

10. Commodity Credit Corporation.—The bill includes language 

allowing certain funds transferred to the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource management activities. 

11. Rural Community Advancement Program.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances for high cost energy grants shall be transferred to and merged with the High Energy Costs Grants Account. 

12. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred 

to and merged with this account. 

13. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account; Rural Development Loan Fund program account; and Rural Electrification 

and Telecommunications Loans program account.—The bill provides that administrative funds shall be transferred to the Rural 

Development Salaries and Expenses Account. 

14. Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account and Rural 

Housing Assistance Grants account.—The bill provides that balances for demonstration programs shall be transferred to and 

merged with the Rural Housing Service, Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account. 

15. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

16. Foreign Agricultural Service.—The bill allows for the transfer 

of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account and from the Public Law 480 Program Account. 

17. Public Law 480 Title I Program Account.—The bill allows 

funds to be transferred to the Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 

Expenses accounts. The bill also provides that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight 

differential may be used interchangeably. 

18. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The 

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform. 

19. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law: 

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses, 

as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— 

Language is included that allows for the reconfiguration and release of space back into the General Services Administration inventory in order to reduce space rental cost for space not needed for 

USDA programs. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

105 

3. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of 

hearings. 

4. Agricultural Research Service.—Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 

Beltsville, MD agricultural research center. 

5. Agricultural Research Service.—The bill includes language 

that prohibits funds from being used to carry out research related 

to the production, processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco 

products. 

6. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.—The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being 

used to carry out research related to the production, processing or 

marketing of tobacco or tobacco products. 

7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for Agricultural emergencies. 

8. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill includes language 

that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS activity related to preparation of standards. 

9. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

10. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

11. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

12. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

13. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.—Language is included 

to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also 

included to allow certain funds transferred from the Commodity 

Credit Corporation to be used for information resource management. In addition, language is included which limits the amount of 

funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of 

CCC hazardous waste sites. 

14. Natural Resources Conservation Service-Conservation Operations.—Language which has been included in the bill since 1938 

prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the govmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

106 

ernment, although construction on land owned by states and counties is authorized by basic law. 

15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.—Language 

which was included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 (P.L. 98– 

8) and all bills since 1984 provides that funds may be used for rehabilitation of existing works. 

16. Rural Housing Service—Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year be funded for a one-year period. 

17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan program 

account.—Language is included to allow borrowers’ interest rates 

for loans to exceed seven percent. 

18. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to: provide funds for a 

breastfeeding support initiative; pay administrative expenses of 

clinics except those that have an announced policy prohibiting 

smoking within the space used to carry out the program; purchase 

infant formula except in accordance with law; or pay for activities 

that are not fully reimbursed by other departments or agencies unless authorized by law. 

19. Food Stamp Program.—Language is included to exclude special pay for military personnel deployed to designated combat 

areas. 

20. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979 

enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving international development and technical cooperation. Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

21. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

22. General Provisions.— Section 702: This provision, carried since 1976, is again included 

which provides that certain appropriations in this Act shall remain 

available until expended where the programs or projects involved 

are continuing in nature under the provisions of authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation may not specifically provide 

for extended availability. This authority tends to result in savings 

by preventing the wasteful practice often found in government of 

rushing to commit funds at the end of the fiscal year without due 

regard to the value of the purpose for which the funds are used. 

Such extended availability is also essential in view of the long lead 

time frequently required to negotiate agreements or contracts 

which normally extend over a period of more than one year. Under 

these conditions such authority is commonly provided in Appropriations Acts where omitted from basic law. These provisions have 

been carried through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient and 

effective program execution and to assure maximum savings. They 

involve the following items: Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, information technology infrastructure, the fruit fly program, emerging 

plant pests, the cotton pests program, avian influenza programs, up 

to $4,505,000 in the Pest and Disease Management program to conmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

107 

trol grasshoppers and Mormon crickets, up to $1,500,000 in the 

scrapie program for indemnities, up to $3,000,000 in the emergency 

management systems program for the vaccine bank, up to 

$1,000,000 for wildlife services methods development, up to 

$1,000,000 of the wildlife services operations program for aviation 

safety, and up to 25 percent of the screwworm program; Food Safety and Inspection Service, Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System; Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 

450i(b)), funds for the Research, Education, and Economics Information System, and funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds 

made available to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, 

middle-income country training program, and up to $2,000,000 of 

the Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation for foreign currency 

fluctuations. 

Section 706: This provision provides that none of the funds in 

this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 

against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension 

grants awarded by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service in excess of 20 percent of total direct costs, except for grants available under the Small Business Innovation and 

Development Act. 

Section 707: This provision allows funds made available in the 

current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund program 

account; the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

program account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program 

account to remain available until expended to disburse obligations. 

The Credit Reform Act requires that the lifetime costs of loans be 

appropriated. Current law requires that funds unexpended after 

five years expire. The life of some loans extends well beyond the 

five-year period and this provision allows funds appropriated to remain available until the loans are closed out. 

Section 708: Provides that of the funds made available, not more 

than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover expenses of activities related 

to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of 

the Department of Agriculture except for panels used to comply 

with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants. 

Section 709: Provides that none of the funds may be used to 

carry out certain provisions of meat and poultry inspection acts. 

Section 710: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any other 

agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless 

the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by 

the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 711: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to any non-Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration employee 

questions or responses to questions that are a result of information 

requested for the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 712: Language is included that requires approval of the 

Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Inmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

108 

formation Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of 

new information technology systems or significant upgrades, and 

that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. 

Section 713: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations Acts. 

Section 714: Language is included that prohibits funds from 

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user fee 

proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions 

which should occur if the user fees are not enacted. 

Section 715: Language is included that provides that no funds 

may be used to close or relocate a Rural Development office unless 

or until cost effectiveness and enhancement of program delivery 

have been determined. The bill also requires notification and a report to the Committees on Appropriation prior to the proposed closure or relocation. 

Section 716: This provision provides that of the funds made 

available for competitive research grants, the Secretary of Agriculture may use up to 22 percent of the amount provided to carry 

out a competitive grants program under the same terms and conditions as those provided for the Initiative for Future Food and Agriculture Systems. 

Section 717: Language is included that limits the environmental 

quality incentives program. 

Section 718: Language is included that allows for reimbursement 

of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 

Section 719: Language is included that limits the dam rehabilitation program. 

Section 720: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 721: Language is included related to final rulemaking on 

costsharing for APHIS animal and plant health emergency programs. 

Section 722: Language is included regarding the availability of 

funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 723: Language is included regarding recertification of 

rural status. 

Section 724: Language is included that relates to government 

sponsored news stories. 

Section 725: Language is included to provide funds for a specialty 

crops competitiveness program. 

Section 726: Language is included regarding the importation of 

drugs. 

Section 727: Language is included related to competitive sourcing 

with respect to rural development or farm loan programs. 

Section 728: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 729: Language is included regarding the Food and Drug 

Administration advisory committees. 

Section 730: Language is included regarding funding allocations 

for the expanded food nutrition and education program. 

Section 731: Language is included prohibiting the establishment 

or implementation of a rule regarding importation of poultry products. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

109 

Section 732: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 733: Language is included regarding the use of funds to 

implement the risk-based inspection program. 

Section 734: Language is included related to funds made available under section 522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. 

Section 735: Language is included regarding the Water and 

Waste Systems Direct Loan Program. 

Section 736: Language is included amending the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. 

Section 737: Language is included that provides funding for a 

Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program. 

Section 738: Language is included regarding the Federal Meat 

Inspection and other acts. 

Section 739: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 740: Language is included to provide $2,475,000 for a 

hunger fellowship program. 

Section 741: Language is included that rescinds certain funds. 

Section 742: Language is included that repeals section 9012 of 

Public Law 110–28. 

Section 743: Language is included that amends the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act. 

Section 744: Language is included regarding certain unexpended 

funds. 

Section 745: Language is included to provide that certain locations shall be considered eligible for certain rural development programs. 

Section 746: Language is included to prohibit funding certain activities. 

Section 747: Language is included to prohibit funding certain 

contracts. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT 

SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN

SEC. 13. (a) * * * 

(b) SERVICE INSTITUTIONS.— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

110 

(1) PAYMENTS.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this 

paragraph, payments to service institutions shall equal the 

full cost of food service operations (which cost shall include 

the costs of obtaining, preparing, and serving food, but 

shall not include administrative costs).¿ 

ø(B) MAXIMUM AMOUNTS.—Subject to subparagraph (C), 

payments to any institution under subparagraph (A) shall 

not exceed¿ 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B) and in 

addition to amounts made available under paragraph (3), 

payments to service institutions shall be— (i) $1.97 for each lunch and supper served; 

(ii) $1.13 for each breakfast served; and 

(iii) 46 cents for each meal supplement served. 

ø(C)¿ (B) ADJUSTMENTS.—Amounts specified in subparagraph ø(B)¿ (A) shall be adjusted on January 1, 1997, and 

each January 1 thereafter, to the nearest lower cent increment to reflect changes for the 12-month period ending the 

preceding November 30 in the series for food away from 

home of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 

Department of Labor. Each adjustment shall be based on 

the unrounded adjustment for the prior 12-month period. 

ø(D)¿ (C) SEAMLESS SUMMER REIMBURSEMENTS.—A service institution described in subsection (a)(8) shall be reimbursed for meals and meal supplements in accordance with 

the applicable provisions under this Act (other than subparagraphs ø(A), (B), and (C)¿ (A) and (B) of this paragraph and paragraph (4)) and the Child Nutrition Act of 

1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), as determined by the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Every service institution, when applying for participation in 

the program, shall submit a complete budget for administrative 

costs related to the program, which shall be subject to approval by 

the State. Payment to service institutions for administrative costs 

shall equal the øfull amount of State approved administrative costs 

incurred, except that such payment to service institutions may not 

exceed the maximum allowable¿ levels determined by the Secretary 

pursuant to the study prescribed in paragraph (4) of this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 17. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(r) PROGRAM FOR AT-RISK SCHOOL CHILDREN.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall limit reimbursement 

under this subsection for meals served under a program to inmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

111 

stitutions located in øseven¿ eight States, of which øfive¿ six 

States shall be West Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, 

Delaware, and Michigan and two States shall be approved by 

the Secretary through a competitive application process. 

* * * * * * * 

PILOT PROJECTS

SEC. 18. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f) SIMPLIFIED SUMMER FOOD PROGRAMS.— 

ø(1) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE STATE.—In this subsection, the 

term ‘‘eligible State’’ means— 

ø(A) a State participating in the program under this subsection as of May 1, 2004; and 

ø(B) a State in which (based on data available in June 

2005)— 

ø(i) the percentage obtained by dividing— 

ø(I) the sum of— 

ø(aa) the average daily number of children 

attending the summer food service program in 

the State in July 2003; and 

ø(bb) the average daily number of children 

receiving free or reduced price meals under 

the school lunch program in the State in July 

2003; by 

ø(II) the average daily number of children receiving free or reduced price meals under the 

school lunch program in the State in March 2003; 

is less than 

ø(ii) 75 percent of the percentage obtained by dividing— 

ø(I) the sum of— 

ø(aa) the average daily number of children 

attending the summer food service program in 

all States in July 2003; and 

ø(bb) the average daily number of children 

receiving free or reduced price meals under 

the school lunch program in all States in July 

2003; by 

ø(II) the average daily number of children receiving free or reduced price meals under the 

school lunch program in all States in March 2003. 

ø(2) PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall carry out a summer 

food program in each eligible State to increase the number of 

children participating in the summer food service program in 

the State. 

ø(3) SUPPORT LEVELS FOR SERVICE INSTITUTIONS.— ø(A) FOOD SERVICE.—Under the program, a service institution in an eligible State shall receive the maximum 

amounts for food service under section 13(b)(1) without regard to the requirement under section 13(b)(1)(A) that payments shall equal the full cost of food service operations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

112 

ø(B) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Under the program, a 

service institution in an eligible State shall receive the 

maximum amounts for administrative costs determined by 

the Secretary under section 13(b)(4) without regard to the 

requirement under section 13(b)(3) that payments to service institutions shall equal the full amount of State-approved administrative costs incurred. 

ø(C) COMPLIANCE.—A service institution that receives 

assistance under this subsection shall comply with all provisions of section 13 other than subsections (b)(1)(A) and 

(b)(3) of section 13. 

ø(4) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—Expenditures of funds from 

State and local sources for maintenance of a summer food service program shall not be diminished as a result of assistance 

from the Secretary received under this subsection. 

ø(5) EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the 

Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, shall conduct an evaluation of the program. 

ø(B) CONTENT.—An evaluation under this paragraph 

shall describe— 

ø(i) any effect on participation by children and service institutions in the summer food service program in 

the eligible State in which the program is carried out; 

ø(ii) any effect of the program on the quality of the 

meals and supplements served in the eligible State in 

which the program is carried out; and 

ø(iii) any effect of the program on program integrity. 

ø(6) REPORT.—Not later than April 30, 2007, the Secretary 

shall submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that includes— 

ø(A) the evaluations completed by the Secretary under 

paragraph (5); and 

ø(B) any recommendations of the Secretary concerning 

the programs.¿ 

ø(g)¿ (f) FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(h)¿ (g) SUMMER FOOD SERVICE RESIDENTIAL CAMP ELIGIBILITY.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(i)¿ (h) ACCESS TO LOCAL FOODS AND SCHOOL GARDENS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(j)¿ (i) YEAR-ROUND SERVICES FOR ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(k)¿ (j) FREE LUNCH AND BREAKFAST ELIGIBILITY.— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

113 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 9012 OF U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS’ 

CARE, KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 

(Public Law 110–28) 

øSEC. 9012. CONTRACT WAIVER. 

øIn carrying out crop disaster and livestock assistance in this 

title, the Secretary shall require forage producers to have participated in a crop insurance pilot program or the Non-Insured Crop 

Disaster Assistance Program during the crop year for which compensation is received.¿ 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law for 

the period concerned: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

114 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 here HR258.010
115 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 here HR258.011
116 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the rescissions in the 

accompanying bill: 

The bill proposes rescissions of $34,000,000 of funds derived from 

interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year 2008 under 

the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, which is 

an annual technical adjustment contained in the budget estimates; 

$25,740,000 from the High Energy Cost grants account; 

$16,069,000 from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children account; and $210,361,000 from Section 32 funds. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

[In millions of dollars] 

Full committee data 

302 (b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Comparison with Budget Resolution: 

Discretionary ......................................................................................... $18,817 $20,027 $18,817 1 $19,872 

Mandatory ............................................................................................. 32,905 21,115 32,905 21,115 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Outlays: 

2008 .............................................................................................. $67,361 

2009 .............................................................................................. 3,313 

2010 .............................................................................................. 1,122 

2011 .............................................................................................. 281 

2012 .............................................................................................. 227 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amounts of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................ $26,148 

Fiscal Year 2008 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 25,627 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

117 

EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains the following congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 

as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

118 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here HR258.012
119 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here HR258.013
120 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here HR258.014
121 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here HR258.015
122 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here HR258.016
123 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here HR258.017
124 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here HR258.018
125 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here HR258.019
126 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here HR258.020
127 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here HR258.021
128 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here HR258.022
129 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here HR258.023
130 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here HR258.024
131 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here HR258.025
132 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here HR258.026
133 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here HR258.027
134 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here HR258.028
135 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here HR258.029
136 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here HR258.030
137 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here HR258.031
138 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here HR258.032
139 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here HR258.033
140 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here HR258.034
141 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here HR258.035
142 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here HR258.036
143 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here HR258.037
144 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here HR258.038
145 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here HR258.039
146 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here HR258.040
147 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here HR258.041
148 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here HR258.042
149 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here HR258.043
150 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here HR258.044
151 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here HR258.045
152 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here HR258.046
153 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here HR258.047
154 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here HR258.048
155 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here HR258.049
156 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here HR258.050
157 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here HR258.051
(158) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY LEWIS AND 

REPRESENTATIVE JACK KINGSTON 

The fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural 

Development, the Food and Drug Administration and Related 

Agencies funds critical agricultural research; farm and conservation programs; trade, marketing and regulatory programs; rural 

housing, electric, and economic development; nutrition assistance 

and international food aid; and food and drug safety. As a result, 

this bill directly and indirectly reaches every American, and millions of others around the world, everyday. 

Chairwoman DeLauro has held numerous hearings this year. We 

have participated in those hearings and are appreciative of the fact 

that all subcommittee members have been given ample time and 

opportunity to question witnesses. We will support the Chairwoman in this process; our subcommittee hearings continue to embrace a spirit of bipartisanship as they have in the past. 

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee is $18.817 billion. This 

is an increase of $1.043 billion, or 5.9 percent, above the FY ’07 enacted level and an increase of $982 million, or 5.6 percent, above 

the President’s request. When the impact of funding limitations on 

mandatory programs is figured in, the fiscal year 2008 allocation 

represents a 3.6 percent increase above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Mr. Kingston offered an amendment in full committee 

to reduce the spending in this bill by 3.6 percent. That amendment 

was defeated by voice vote. The President has made clear that he 

will veto spending bills that exceed his overall top-line request for 

discretionary spending, and this bill does that. 

While we support the Committee’s efforts in writing this bill and 

report, there are several accounts in the bill in which special accommodations were made and the Democrat majority, in our view, 

provides excessive funding increases while failing to recognize the 

substantial investments made by this Subcommittee on a bipartisan basis in recent years. 

FLOOR CONSIDERATION

It is striking that the Agriculture Appropriations bill, one of the 

most widely supported and least controversial of our spending 

measures, is being scheduled for consideration so late in the legislative cycle. Traditionally, this bill has been one of the first annual 

spending bills approved by the House. The fiscal year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations bill was passed out of the House on May 23, 

2006 and the fiscal year 2006 bill was passed on June 8, 2005. We 

would urge Chairman Obey to consider restoring the tradition of 

moving this bill earlier in the legislative process. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

159 

We would also strongly encourage the House and Senate Appropriations leadership to agree to move all appropriations bills by the 

Summer adjournment date in order to prevent a legislation train 

wreck at the end of the year. House Members have worked round 

the clock to pass bills off the floor while the Senate remains unable 

to move its spending bills beyond full committee. 

Lastly, we are concerned by the fact that the Democrat majority 

imposed at least 45 reporting requirements upon the USDA and 

FDA at various intervals throughout fiscal year 2007 and fiscal 

year 2008. While necessary in some instances, an excessive number 

of reports place an undue burden upon these agencies, and in many 

instances, takes away from time better spent performing agencycritical functions. 

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BILL

There were several issues that the Subcommittee Ranking Member brought to the attention of the Chairwoman, requesting that 

these issues be addressed in the managers’ amendment at full committee. We appreciate the following improvements made to the bill: 

• Funding to increase capacity of the Economic Research 

Service to meet the demand for farm bill and rural economic 

analysis; 

• Clarification of resources that are available to the Inspector General as a result of a transfer of personnel to the Homeland Security Staff; 

• Report on renewable energy loans and grants to ensure 

that these projects have measurable results; and, 

• Inspector General audit of the rural broadband program to 

ensure that the government is not competing with the private 

sector. 

LABORATORY CAPACITY

Unfortunately, many of our concerns were not fully addressed or 

addressed at all. For instance, we remain concerned about the fact 

that the bill does not include funds the President requested for laboratory capacity. A recent GAO study on avian influenza preparedness conveyed concern that government investigators are worried 

about incomplete information, the ability of laboratories to handle 

a surge in testing, disposal of carcasses, and uncertainty as to the 

amount of antiviral medication needed for workers depopulating 

diseased animals and cleaning infected facilities. If an outbreak 

should occur, at current funding levels, laboratories would not have 

the capability to handle testing activities, therefore hampering the 

Agency’s ability to contain, control, and eradicate a disease quickly 

and effectively. The requested funding would have addressed these 

issues. We remain hopeful that the Committee can address this 

shortfall as the bill moves through the legislative process. 

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING (COOL) FUNDING

We also have strong reservations about providing $2 million for 

the implementation of the COOL requirements for all covered commodities. There is no information available relating to the use of 

these funds, or even why they are needed in fiscal year 2008. The 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

160 

funding may, in fact, be premature since COOL will not be enacted 

until September 30, 2008. With the fierce competition for funds, 

this $2 million could be put to better use elsewhere in the bill. 

Further complicating matters, the timeline that the Democrat 

majority directs for the implementation of COOL for all covered 

commodities is based on statute enacted in 2002. Yet, on July 19, 

2007, the House Agriculture Committee passed an amendment during consideration of the new farm bill that makes changes to the 

2002 statute. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA) OFFICE CLOSURES

Further, we are concerned about the restrictive FSA office closure language included in the bill. In many cases, the USDA has 

completed required steps to close certain offices under provisions 

set forth in fiscal year 2006, and again in the Continuing Resolution that agencies are operating under this fiscal year. Members 

are urged to consider these facts: there are 58 FSA offices that 

have no staff; 139 offices that have one employee; 338 that have 

two employees; and 515 offices that have three employees. 

It is also worth noting that the funding level included in the bill 

for FSA salaries and expenses is $102 million below the President’s 

budget request. As a result, the Democrat majority has significantly cut the appropriation below the request while prohibiting 

the FSA from closing unneeded offices. There are many States that, 

while not necessarily happy with proposals to close some offices, 

are willing to work with the FSA to close offices that should no 

longer be open. The minority worked with Chairwoman DeLauro to 

modify the language in the bill in order to continue making 

progress on this issue. Ranking Member Kingston offered an 

amendment that would allow FSA to close those offices that have 

zero employees, and the amendment was adopted by the full committee. People often ask why government can’t run more efficiently. 

Closing FSA offices provides a good example. It’s hard to run an 

agency with 435 managers second-guessing all decisions. 

FUNDING FOR RURAL AMERICA

The fiscal year 2008 Committee-reported bill continues the Subcommittee’s commitment to rural America. From fiscal year 2001 

through the House-passed fiscal year 2007 bill, the Committee provided more than $72.4 billion for the following programs: 

Rural Community Advancement Program—$5.7 billion 

Rural Housing (loans, subsidies)—$38 billion 

Rural Electric (loans, subsidies)—$28.7 billion 

FARM LABOR

The bill contains large increases over both fiscal year 2007 and 

above the fiscal year 2008 request in loans and grant funds for construction of facilities for farm laborers. The program cannot really 

function effectively without substantial rental assistance and a 

deep subsidy. Of further concern is that the program is limited to 

domestic farm workers. As a result, the program is not widely used 

by many states. In our view, these issues should be thoroughly 

analyzed before providing substantial increases. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

161 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable energy funding is strongly supported on a bipartisan 

basis and the demand for on-farm renewable energy facilities has 

increased. But this is the kind of program that can easily turn into 

a boondoggle and leave the taxpayer holding the bag for a bunch 

of small white elephants that don’t work or are not used. Free 

money tends to produce these kinds of results. The funding should 

be directed towards projects that actually work, save taxpayers 

money, and use proven technology. These funds are not for research nor are they for high risk ventures. We urge that the Democrat majority work to ensure that this investment is based on outcomes and results rather than pure political emotion. 

RURAL BROADBAND/DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE (DLT)

We continue to have reservations about this program. It is one 

thing for the federal government to help expand the use of DLT 

and broadband services. It is quite another for the government to 

both compete with and undermine the private sector where they 

would operate except for being undercut by the government. The 

increases provided in this bill should not be enacted until and unless that issue has been resolved or it will exacerbate the problem. 

In addition, there are concerns about the government subsidizing 

the implementation of internet services for individuals that have 

the wherewithal to pay those costs. We are all for helping rural, 

low-income areas but not the retired doctor who has moved to a 

mountain-top lodge who is unable to use his laptop to access the 

latest stock quotes from the NYSE. 

WIC

The mark includes $5.62 billion dollars for WIC. This is a $415.6 

million increase above FY ’07 and an increase of $223.4 million 

above the President’s request. We have not seen any justification 

of how the Democrat majority arrived at this funding level. 

While the Committee has a clear and strong history of supporting this important program, the vastly increased WIC appropriations are coming at the expense of other critical programs that 

are equally important to the health and welfare of Americans as 

a whole. These include rural water, housing, telecommunications 

and utilities that are so important to rural America; research, education, and extension programs that enable the safe and abundant 

food supply for this and coming generations; conservation programs 

that protect our watersheds, rivers, and air quality; and the countless other programs funded by this bill. 

Nearly half of the increase in the subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation goes to this program at the expense of the very programs 

which are designed to diminish the need for WIC participation. 

WIC is an important program, but one that treats the result of the 

problem, and not the problem itself. 

There is clear evidence of the Committee’s longstanding support 

of the WIC program. Total funding for this program grew by $1.2 

billion in six years, from $4.043 billion in 2001 to $5.244 billion in 

fiscal year 2007. Congress should closely examine how this program is currently funded, and how it will be funded in the future, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

162 

as this program alone consumes nearly 30 percent of the discretionary budget authority in this bill. 

Another issue that Congress should examine is Medicaid adjunctive-eligibility for WIC participants. This provision allows that 

those eligible to receive food stamps, Medicaid, and TANF—or even 

certain family members that are eligible to receive Medicaid or 

TANF—have automatic income eligibility for WIC. For the WIC 

program, the State agency’s income standard must be between 100 

percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) guidelines, but no more 

than 185 percent of FPL. However, this limit becomes less meaningful for those who live in states with Medicaid eligibility above 

185 percent. Some states, such as Hawaii and New Hampshire, 

have Medicaid eligibility requirements of 300 percent of FPL. This 

is shocking. Under the guidelines, those states whose Medicaid eligibilities are set at 300 percent of FPL—which in some cases can 

be about $62,000 for a family of four—can also automatically receive WIC funding in addition to their Medicaid dollars. We believe 

that this is not the intention of the program. 

FDA

At $1.698 billion, the bill includes a $128 million increase above 

fiscal year 2007 for the Food and Drug Administration, and $62 

million above the President’s request. Our hope is that the Chairwoman’s goal is to direct these resources toward the inspection of 

those products that have caused so much pain and suffering in this 

country as a result of weak regulatory controls in exporting countries. 

The bill includes a major, controversial provision that allows the 

importation of prescription drugs. If this provision is going to remain in the bill, then there should be funding to ensure the safety 

and efficacy of those imported drugs. 

HORSE SLAUGHTER

Without any consultation with the minority, the Democrat majority decided to include multiple horse slaughter provisions that are 

troublesome and may have many unintended consequences. The 

provision would bar oversight not only for transportation and export of horses intended for human consumption, but also for horses 

to be transported for any purpose, including the prevention and the 

spread of communicable disease. The interstate movement, import, 

and export of live horses for any purpose would be shut down by 

the provision by virtue of the prohibition on inspection activities including the creation, distribution, certification, endorsement or filing of ‘‘any certificate concerning horses.’’ Finally, and most importantly, the prohibition on the assessment and collection of fees 

under 21 U.S.C. 136 would make it impossible for the Secretary to 

administer federal animal quarantine laws regarding horses not 

merely at importation, but domestically as well, under existing regional animal disease programs. Because these provisions were not 

well written and their adverse effects not contemplated, they will 

cause harm to the entire horse industry in this country. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

163 

FOOD AID/FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE FUNDING

Our colleagues should be made aware of the fact that we have 

had no hearings on one of the major accounts in this bill. This bill 

appropriates $1.483 billion for the Foreign Agricultural Service and 

International Food Aid programs of which $1.219 billion is for Title 

II—Public Law 480 grants, $164 million is for the Foreign Agricultural Service, and $100 million is for the McGovern-Dole International Feeding Program. The Chairwoman has indicated her willingness to proceed with hearings on this important subject matter 

at a later date, and we look forward to this opportunity. 

In conclusion, we would not have funded some of the increases 

in the bill the way the Democrat majority did, nor rescinded the 

level of funds that the majority has from section 32. We would have 

put all available offsets on the table for consideration as we have 

in the past, and would have worked with an allocation that could 

be supported by the Legislative and Executive branches. Our hope 

is that the bill, as it moves through the legislative process, can be 

improved to the point that it will become a legislative product the 

President will sign. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING