|
This Statement of Administration Policy provides the
Administration's views on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001, as reported
by the House Appropriations Committee. As the House considers its version of
the bill, your consideration of the Administration's views would be
appreciated.
The President's FY 2001 Budget is based on a balanced approach
that maintains fiscal discipline, eliminates the national debt, extends the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare, provides for an appropriately sized
tax cut, establishes a new voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit, in the
context of broader reforms, expands health care coverage to more families, and
funds critical investments for our future. An essential element of this
approach is ensuring adequate funding for discretionary programs. To this end,
the President has proposed discretionary spending limits at levels that we
believe are necessary to serve the American people.
Unfortunately, the FY 2001 congressional budget resolution
provides inadequate resources for discretionary investments. We need realistic
levels of funding for critical government functions that the American people
expect their government to perform well, including education, national
security, law enforcement, environmental protection, preservation of our global
leadership, air safety, food safety, economic assistance for the less
fortunate, research and technology, and the administration of Social Security
and Medicare. Based on the inadequate budget resolution, this bill fails to
address critical needs of the American people.
Consequently, given the severe underfunding of critical programs
and highly objectionable language provisions in the bill, the President's
senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill if it were presented to
him in its current form.
Kyoto Protocol
The Committee bill's climate change language, together with the
accompanying report language, is unacceptable and may well be unconstitutional.
The Administration will not accept any appropriations language that limits
activities under current law to reduce greenhouse gasses, or that restricts the
President's constitutional authority to negotiate international agreements. As
we have stated many times, the Administration has not, and will not, attempt to
implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to ratification. Consequently, the
Committee's language must be deleted since it is unwarranted, disruptive, and
can be interpreted as unconstitutionally preventing the Department of
Agriculture from assisting the President in carrying out his constitutional
authority to conduct international negotiations. We note that this provision is
cast in the language of permanent law.
Food Safety
While the Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
portion of the Food Safety Initiative, we strongly urge the House to fully fund
the Administration's request for the Initiative and base funding. The FDA
increase will fund annual inspections of high-risk domestic foods, such as
unpasteurized juice, and expand the number of inspections of imported and
ready-to-eat foods. However, only $6 million of the Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) requested $28 million increase is included in the Committee bill. This
cut would impair important activities, such as developing effective methods of
handling and treating agricultural products to minimize microbial contamination
and the implementation of the Egg Safety Action Plan, as endorsed by the
President's Council on Food Safety. In addition, the Administration strongly
objects to the provision of the Committee bill that would impede our efforts to
reduce needless deaths and illness from eggs contaminated with salmonella. The
Administration strongly urges the House to delete this provision and provide
full funding for the Initiative.
Moreover, to maintain the food safety gains we have achieved to
date, also requires full funding of the base budget for food safety, and the
Administration is concerned about the Committee's bill in this regard. In
particular, the Committee's funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) is $14 million below the budget request of $688 million. This proposed
funding level is inadequate to cover necessary levels of import/export
inspection and would reduce funding for state food safety programs. The bill,
in short, does not provide sufficient resources to fund activities critical to
the safety of the Nation's meat and poultry supply. In addition, FSIS resources
would be further strained by section 746, which would require mandatory
inspection of ratites, such as ostriches and emus, rather than the current
voluntary inspection-for-fee process for these animals. In order to fully fund
FSIS food safety activities, and to release resources needed for priority
programs as discussed elsewhere in this SAP, we urge the Congress to enact the
Administration's proposed meat and poultry inspection user fees, which should
cost consumers less than one cent per pound of inspected meat.
Plant Pest and Diseases
The Administration places a high priority on fighting plant
pests and diseases, especially when they are invasive species that may be
eradicated before becoming an established threat. To combat sudden outbreaks of
invasive species, the Administration has used emergency transfers through the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at a level that is much higher than the two
previous Administrations combined. The Administration has been developing
guidelines that will help direct future responses to these threats. To address
ongoing plant pest and disease outbreaks, the Administration has proposed
substantial appropriations in the FY 2001 Budget. The Committee bill has not
provided these appropriations, therefore requiring a greater increase in
emergency spending from CCC for activities that can no longer be considered
unforeseen.
In cases where an extraordinary emergency exists, and there is
still an opportunity to eradicate an invasive plant or disease within a single
crop year, the Administration supports the use of the CCC as a means of
delivering immediate assistance. Where eradication efforts extend over several
seasons and incentives already exist for Federal, State, and industry
cooperation, costs are predictable and should be incorporated into the
discretionary appropriations process. Such long-term assistance should be
carefully designed to provide an effective response without upsetting the
markets for production and distribution of these products, and to maintain
equity with assistance provided for crop losses in other circumstances. We look
forward to working with the Congress to make certain that policies meet this
test.
Tobacco
While the Supreme Court concluded that FDA does not have the
authority under current law to continue its efforts to reduce underage use of
tobacco products, the Court did state that tobacco is, "perhaps the single most
significant threat to public health in the United States." The President has
called on the Congress to enact new legislation to provide FDA the authority to
protect our Nation's children. The Administration strongly encourages the House
to restore the $39 million in the President's request to support this
legislation. This would make it clear to the American people that Congress
plans to protect our Nation's children. The Administration wants to work with
the House to restore the FY 2000 funds rescinded by the Committee and provide
FDA the capacity to reduce medical errors, improve oversight of gene therapy
clinical trials, assure the safety of blood and tissue products, and provide
critical infrastructure improvements.
International Programs and Trade Sanctions
The President believes that commercial exports of food and other
human necessities should not be used as a tool of foreign policy except under
the most compelling circumstances. On April 28, 1999, the Administration
announced that the United States would exempt commercial sales of agricultural
commodities and products for humanitarian purposes, as well as medicine and
medicinal equipment, from future unilateral Executive Branch economic sanctions
regimes ? unless the President determines our national interest requires
otherwise. The President has extended this policy to existing sanctions on a
case-by-case basis. The Administration would support codification of our
current policy in legislation and views favorably certain legislative proposals
in this spirit. However, the Administration strongly objects to the specific
provisions of Title VIII in its current form of the bill because they would
seriously limit the President's ability to implement foreign policy and would
have grave implications for our non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, and
counter-narcotics initiatives.
The FY 2001 Committee mark for P.L. 480 Title II at $800
million, $37 million below the requested level of $837 million, would seriously
impair the ability of the U.S. Agency for International Development to continue
the expansion of Title II non-emergency activities while maintaining adequate
resources to respond to food emergencies around the world. The expansion of
Title II activities continues to focus on the highly food insecure populations
in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia but also includes new initiatives related to
HIV/AIDS. In addition, if farm commodity prices recover to normal levels, the
availability of surplus Section 416(b) resources in FY 2001 would not approach
the levels available in FYs 1999 and 2000. As a result, the Title II request
level is likely to be necessary to ensure the ability of the United States to
respond to worldwide food aid requirements in FY 2001.
Conservation and Environmental Programs
The Administration strongly opposes a number of reductions to
important conservation and environmental programs contained in the Committee
bill, which would reduce benefits to all Americans by cutting or eliminating
key activities proposed to be carried out through the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The bill and report include highly objectionable
language prohibiting NRCS funds from being used for climate change, biomass,
urban resource partnerships, most of the American Heritage Rivers (AHR)
initiative, or the Community Federal Information Partnership. These actions
would harm local community development and environmental restoration efforts.
The AHR is an interagency initiative that applies coordinated Federal resources
to benefit all river communities, helps communities evaluate their needs and
identify funding sources, and cuts red tape so they can promptly implement
priority practices. In addition, NRCS soil databases provide the foundation for
the Nation's vital soil carbon sequestration efforts. The Committee's action
would severely limit the ability of all USDA agencies that rely on NRCS data to
advance valuable research on the effects of climate change on agriculture and
potential ways for farmers to adapt to climate change.
These restrictions, coupled with the $70 million reduction to
the request for NRCS conservation operations salaries and expenses, would
result in a significant step backwards in efforts to improve land stewardship
capabilities of farmers and ranchers. Furthermore, the Administration strongly
objects to the Committee's reduction in authorized mandatory funding for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to $174 million. This
represents a cut of $26 million from current law and $151 million from the
President's request. This program is vitally important in assisting farmers and
ranchers in improving their agricultural operations while benefitting all
Americans through cleaner water and air, and it is an important component of
the Clean Water Action Plan. Coupled with the Committee's funding only $9
million of the requested $48 million increase in discretionary funds for the
Plan, this reduction would severely impede progress on cleaning up our Nation's
waters. We urge the House to eliminate the EQIP reduction and fully fund the
Administration's request for the Clean Water Action Plan.
The Administration is pleased that the Committee has adopted the
President's proposal to provide subsidized loans to State and local governments
to rehabilitate dams built with NRCS assistance. These loans will safeguard the
Federal investment, as well as protect local citizens and property from
flooding.
The Administration objects to section 742, which would prohibit
the use of funds for floodplain determinations carried out as part of an
application for a Farm Service Agency aquaculture loan. For Federally-financed
aquaculture projects, floodplain determinations are a critical part of the
statutorily-required environmental impact statement process. Prohibiting USDA
funds from being used for this activity will result in environmental impact
statements that do not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act or
USDA loan procedures and would likely result in loan applications that could
not be approved.
Crop Insurance and Farm Safety Net Assistance
The Administration is concerned that the Congress has not
approved comprehensive farm safety net legislation, which could provide
assistance to a wide range of crop, dairy, and livestock producers to expand
the amount of acres that could be enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program
and the Wetlands Reserve Program, as the Administration proposed.
The Administration objects to the amendment added in Committee
that would significantly reduce administrative reimbursement rates to private
crop insurance companies who deliver Federal crop insurance. The provision
would cut nearly $100 million, or 20 percent, from the current funding for
delivery of the program, weakening the crop insurance program when it is
becoming a more effective and widely-used tool to improve risk management in
the agricultural sector. Smaller companies, in particular, could find it
difficult to maintain high-quality customer service at the reduced level of
reimbursement, which could lead to fewer companies and less competition in the
sector. Such a reaction could, in turn, make the crop insurance program less
attractive to farmers, which is inconsistent with the actions Congress is
taking to enact crop insurance reform legislation. We urge the House to delete
this provision.
Food Stamp Program Employment and Training (E&T)
The Administration strongly objects to the use of Food Stamp
Employment and Training (E&T) funds as a means to pay for non-Food Stamp
activities. E&T funds were increased under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
as part of a bipartisan agreement to create important employment and training
opportunities for able-bodied adults without dependents who are at risk of
losing food stamps.
Outreach for Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers
The Committee bill provides $3 million for the Outreach for
Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers program, $7 million less than the request. In FY
2000, the Administration used mandatory spending provided through the Fund for
Rural America to increase the Outreach program level by $5.2 million, to an
enacted level of over $8 million. However, the Committee bill would eliminate
all resources available in FY 2001 for the Fund for Rural America, thereby
blocking the possibility of augmenting program resources again. The bill would,
therefore, cut the program by more than half from the FY 2000 enacted level.
This reduction would severely isrupt the important services being provided to
minority farmers.
This program has aided over 9,000 borrowers, improving USDA
default rates in areas where the program operates. It has also assisted over
100,000 families and has proven to be effective in mitigating the decline in
the number of minority farmers by increasing their participation in
agricultural programs, assisting them in marketing and production, and
improving the profitability of their farming operations. Reducing program
resources at this critical juncture, when USDA has begun improving its civil
rights record, would stymie progress USDA is making to further equal
opportunity for minority farmers, and we urge the Committee to restore funding
to the requested level.
Agricultural Research and Education Programs
The Committee bill would severely reduce high-priority
agricultural research that is needed to improve farm productivity and benefit
all Americans. Funding for competitive grants through the National Research
Initiative would be cut by $22 million, or 19 percent, from the FY 2000 enacted
level and $53 million from the request. Only $16 million of the $98 million in
increases for priority research through the Agricultural Research Service would
be funded, while instead, the bill would fund hundreds of unrequested,
lower-priority research projects. Diversion of funds to these unrequested
projects is particularly objectionable in light of the extremely limited
increase in funding for research and higher education programs targeted to
Native Americans and minority institutions.
The Administration objects to the bill's underfunding of
programs to advance the use of bioproducts made from agricultural commodities.
The bill includes only $4 million of the $35 million increase requested by the
Administration for funding under this bill. Expansion of bioproducts, including
biofuels, is an essential part of improving the farm safety net and
diversifying the rural economy, and we urge increased funding for these
purposes.
Mandatory Research and Rural Development Funds
The Administration strongly objects to Committee language that
would block the use of all funding to implement the Fund for Rural America and
the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, representing a
reduction of $180 million from the requested level. These programs fund
projects benefitting and supported by all Americans, including food safety and
human nutrition, agricultural genomics, including biotechnology risk assessment
research, improvements in farm efficiency, and economic development assistance
vital to diversifying the rural economy and improving rural Americans' quality
of life. We urge the House to set aside jurisdictional concerns and adopt the
Administration's request for these programs.
Rural Development Programs
The Committee bill would reduce rural single-family housing
direct loans by over $200 million from the request, which would prevent over
4,500 very-low to low-income rural families from having the opportunity to live
in decent, safe, affordable housing. In addition, funding for the Intermediary
Relending Program would be reduced by $26 million, or 41 percent, from the
requested level, resulting in an estimated 20,000 fewer jobs created or
preserved. We urge the House to restore funding for these programs to the
President's request.
The Administration strongly objects to the $47 million, or eight
percent, reduction in requested funds for Rural Development staff. Given the
need to absorb automatic pay increases, cuts of this magnitude would cause a
reduction-in-force of an estimated 300 employees, which would significantly
impair the agency's mandate to provide "supervised" credit, reducing the speed
and thoroughness of customer service for the agency's growing loan portfolio.
Without adequate service, many borrowers, such as very-low income families with
USDA single-family housing loans, may not receive the advice and service they
need to remain current on their loans and remain in their homes, and taxpayer
losses on the portfolio may grow. Adequate staff funding should be restored by
the House.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children
The Administration is concerned that the small increase provided
by the Committee would not allow the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to provide supplemental food packages,
nutrition education, and health care referrals to all the women, infants, and
children who are eligible to participate in the program. While the
Administration is pleased that the Committee has provided requested funds for
the School Breakfast Demonstration, Commodity Assistance Program, and Food
Donations Program, the mechanism that would require these funds to be
transferred from WIC carryover funds would impede effective program operations.
Common Computing Environment
The Committee bill provides only $25 million of the $75 million
requested to improve USDA's field office information systems through the Common
Computing Environment (CCE). Given the bill's low level of investment, USDA
would not be able to reduce the Federal paperwork burden on its farmer and
other county-office customers until well into the future at best, or achieve
the "e-commerce" initiatives envisioned by the Congress in the "Freedom to
E-File" bill. As the Committee Report notes, the CCE will "replace the current,
aging information systems with a modern CCE that optimizes information sharing,
customer service, and staff efficiencies." These reforms are long-overdue, and
we urge the House to increase funding for the CCE. Continuing to underfund the
modernization initiative would mean Congress would have to provide significant
investments in USDA's outdated information systems just to maintain existing
services, when additional funds would be more productively spent on
implementing an improved system.
Language/Other Issues
-
Concentration in the Livestock Sector. The
Administration has made a strong commitment to address the problems of
concentration and anti-competitive behavior in the livestock sector, and
objects to the insufficient funding in the bill for these purposes. The House
bill provides only $1 million of the $3.7 million increase requested to address
this problem through the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards
Administration. The bill's funding level would not allow USDA to develop the
modeling and analytic capability necessary to identify anti-competitive actions
by livestock companies, ensure that time-sensitive, priority cases are
investigated promptly, and establish the swine contract library required by
last year's mandatory price reporting legislation. These activities are crucial
to better ensuring that family farmers have a level playing field in which to
market their livestock.
-
Funding for USDA Salaries and Expense Accounts. The
Committee has straightlined funding at the FY 2000 level for a number of
important organizations such as the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Office of
the Inspector General, and the Office of the General Counsel. Without funding
for unavoidable expenses such as pay cost increases, as well as the initiatives
recommended in the President's budget, these organizations cannot effectively
carry out their essential functions for the Department.
-
Community Food Security Program. The Administration
strongly objects to the Committee provision that prohibits the use of funds to
carry out a Community Food Security program or any similar activity without the
prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. This broad provision would
hamper the modest ongoing efforts to provide assistance to local governments
and organizations to address food insecurity faced by low-income families.
-
Partnership for Change - Colonias Initiative. The
Administration is disappointed that the Committee has not provided funding for
an intergovernmental partnership lead by the Food and Nutrition Service that
would increase use of already authorized assistance programs, such as nutrition
and housing assistance, by impoverished citizens of border areas known as
Colonias. Furthermore, the Administration objects to language prohibiting the
availability of funds for a Colonias initiative without prior approval by the
Committee.
-
USDA Headquarters Modernization. The Administration
strongly objects to the lack of funding for the renovation now in progress of
USDA's downtown D.C. headquarters building. A ten-year renovation plan was
approved by Congress in 1995 for the sixty-year-old building, to address health
and safety problems. The building will house 6,800 employees, and USDA is
solely responsible for its repair and maintenance. Since the renovation project
was approved by Congress in 1995, only 15 percent of the total planned cost has
been appropriated, and no funding was provided in FY 2000. The Administration
strongly urges the House to fund the needed renovation, as continued delays
will leave the renovation project only partially complete, resulting in higher
long-term costs for the needed renovation, and continued exposure of USDA
employees to health and safety risks.
-
Friends of the National Arboretum. The Committee bill
includes a provision that would allow a private, nonprofit organization, the
Friends of the National Arboretum (FONA), to compensate directly, make
donations, and provide gifts to Arboretum employees who assist FONA in
fundraisers for the Arboretum. The Administration objects to this provision,
which would create a situation whereby a private organization would have undue
influence over the employees and operations of the Arboretum. There are other
fundraising methods that might yield similar or greater benefits without
creating undue hardship on, conflict for, and inequities among these USDA
employees.
-
Food and Nutrition Service Research. The
Administration is concerned that the Committee did not provide funds to the
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for research and evaluation and objects to any
provision of the bill that would prohibit the use of FNS funds for these
activities. The funds are essential so that FNS can effectively and promptly
address program integrity and performance issues facing nutrition assistance
programs as well as continue critical updates of basic program information.
-
Infringement on Executive Authority. The
Administration objects to a number of provisions in the bill that would require
congressional approval before Executive Branch execution. The Administration
will interpret these provisions to require only notification of Congress, since
any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court ruling in INS v.
Chadha.
-
Section 721. The Act provides that no funds
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture may
be used "to transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of
Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of
information requested for the appropriations hearing process." This provision
could impede communications within the Executive Branch to a degree that
undercuts the President's ability to exercise his constitutional
responsibilities as the Nation's Chief Executive Officer to enforce the laws.
Accordingly, this section is constitutionally objectionable.
-
Recommendations Clause. Section 731 of the bill
provides that no funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Agriculture may be used to pay the salaries of personnel who
prepare or submit appropriations language as part of the President's Budget
submission that "assumes revenues or reflects a reduction . . . due to user
fees proposals . . .". Under the Recommendations Clause, Congress can neither
require, nor prohibit, the President from making particular legislative or
policy recommendations to Congress. Therefore, this section is constitutionally
objectionable because it would undermine the President's ability to fulfill his
constitutional duties under the Recommendations Clause.
|
