24-271
2005
109TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 201(a) OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
[Graphic image not available]
NOVEMBER 7, 2005- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
24-271
2005
109TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 201(a) OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
[Graphic image not available]
NOVEMBER 7, 2005- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
| COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET | |
| JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman | |
| JIM RYUN, Kansas ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri JO BONNER, Alabama SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JEB HENSARLING, Texas ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina CONNIE MACK, Florida K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana |
JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Minority Member DENNIS MOORE, Kansas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut CHET EDWARDS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JIM COOPER, Tennessee ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine ED CASE, Hawaii CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia HENRY CUELLAR, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania RON KIND, Wisconsin |
| Professional Staff | |
| JAMES T. BATES, CHIEF OF STAFF | |
| THOMAS S. KAHN, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL |
| C O N T E N T S | Page | |
| Introduction | 1 | |
| Title I--Committee on Agriculture | 7 | |
| Title II--Committee on Education and the Workforce | 57 | |
| Title III--Committee on Energy and Commerce | 366 | |
| Title IV--Committee on Financial Services | 586 | |
| Title V--Committee on the Judiciary | 708 | |
| Title VI--Committee on Resources | 779 | |
| Title VII--Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure | 910 | |
| Title VIII--Committee on Ways and Means | 917 | |
| Miscellaneous House Report Requirements | 1081 | |
| Legislative Text | 1117 |
1st Session
109-276
--PROVIDING FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 201(a) OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
[To accompany H.R. 4241]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
- The Committee on the Budget, to whom reconciliation recommendations were submitted pursuant to section 201(a) of the House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, having considered the same, report the bill without recommendation.
BUDGET COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Four months before Katrina, Congress had already committed to addressing the growing crisis of Federal spending: The budget resolution adopted in April (the conference report on H. Con. Res. 95) included the first effort in nearly a decade to restrain the government's unsustainable entitlement spending. The worst natural disaster in the Nation's history--and the substantial Federal resources needed to help its victims--simply brought the fiscal challenge into a sharper and more immediate focus.
These are the main factors driving the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on the Budget on 3 November 2005. The discussion below describes the economic, historical, and fiscal context more fully, and offers a sketch of the overall reconciliation plan.
PRE-KATRINA
To fully appreciate the significance of this measure, it is helpful to reflect on the situation before Hurricane Katrina struck--by about mid-August of this year. Both the U.S. economy and the Federal budget seemed to have caught a lucky streak:
--The economy had hit its stride. Real growth in gross domestic product [GDP] had averaged 3.7 percent for the previous eight quarters, and most analysts were projecting a sustained expansion.
--Jobs were growing at an average of about 194,000 a month.
--More than 4 million new payroll jobs had been added in just more than 2 years.
--The always-important manufacturing sector had been expanding for 27 consecutive months.
--Even the oil and gasoline price spikes of mid-summer, though serious, were not throwing the economy off track.
--Federal tax revenue for the current year had risen 15 percent--an increase that was both unprecedented and unpredicted--and the estimated budget deficit had declined by $94 billion in just 6 months.
But `luck is the residue of design,' the great Branch Rickey famously said; and that was true of these fiscal and economic fortunes as well: They were the product of a plan. In the middle of 2001, when the economy was slowing, Congress and the President lowered tax burdens (by $1.35 trillion over 11 years) to cushion the fall, and to provide a better foundation for growth. As it turned out, the recession that year was one of the mildest on record; and even with the tax cuts--and the ample spending that budget surpluses at the time allowed--the congressional budget could project $2.4 trillion in debt reduction by 2011.
Then the World Trade Center fell--and the U.S. was forced to meet global terrorism head-on. The ensuing war--which continues today--and the need to enhance security at home added extraordinary burdens to the budget, driving it into deficit.
With sizable deficits came constant reminders of the need for spending control, and Congress responded. The fiscal year 2005 budget level-funded total non-security discretionary spending. The fiscal year 2006 budget actually reduced this spending--marking the first non-security cut since President Reagan. The resolution also budgeted for the Global War on Terror.
In addition, this year's budget committed Congress to the first budget `reconciliation' legislation since 1997, embodied herein.
THE NEED FOR RECONCILIATION
The problem of government entitlement spending has long been known. Mounting medical costs, the forthcoming retirement of the baby-boom generation, and a permanent shift in the Nation's demographics--one that reduces the number of workers for each retiree even after the baby-boomers are gone--will place unanswerable demands on Federal resources. They will crowd out other priorities and strain not only the Federal budget, but the Nation's economy as a whole.
Just 10 years ago, this spending (excluding interest) represented about 49 percent of the budget; today it is 54 percent; in just 10 years, it will exceed 62 percent. Further, overall mandatory spending is growing at a rate of about 6 percent per year. This relentless upward trend typically outpaces both the economy's growth and the long-term average increase in Federal revenue. Hence the problem: this spending growth cannot be sustained without continuous cuts in other programs, ever-increasing taxes, or more debt financing--none of which is acceptable.
Reconciliation is the budgetary process designed to address entitlements. Generally speaking, it works as follows:
--In any given year, the budget resolution may give `instructions' to select authorizing committees to achieve savings in entitlement programs in their respective jurisdictions. The committees involved may be any deemed suitable by the budget resolution, and the amounts of savings are whatever the resolution considers necessary.
--The authorizing committees involved then develop revisions in programs under their jurisdictions pursuant to these instructions. In short, these program revisions `reconcile' projected spending to the savings amounts required. The policy decisions are entirely up to the authorizing committees: The budget resolution instructions involve only the required savings amounts; they do not prescribe the programs affected or the policies to be developed.
--The authorizing committees then submit their policy changes to the Budget Committee, which binds them, without amendment, into a single bill, and reports it to the floor.
--Once passed, the measure goes into a conference with a corresponding bill from the Senate--where reconciliation is exempt from filibuster--and the two bodies develop a final conference report.
Reconciliation not only controls spending, but also tends, in the process, to drive much-needed reform of entitlement programs--some of which have not been revised or updated in decades.
THE EFFECT OF KATRINA
Although the growing demands of entitlement spending are well known, and reform long overdue, they develop and worsen gradually, and hence often fail to command the urgent and continuing attention they deserve. Katrina changed that: It forced Congress to recognize that overall spending had to be restrained starting now. It also caused Congress to raise the ante: committees were asked to increase their savings targets, relative to those set forth in the budget resolution, to begin offsetting the tens of billions of dollars that have been, and will be, spent for hurricane recovery.
Thus this reconciliation bill has two broad policy goals, one long-term, and one near: It starts the reform of government entitlements in ways that will make them more effective, more efficient, and less costly; and it recognizes that hurricane recovery is important enough to warrant diverting resources to it that otherwise would have been spent elsewhere. Both apply to the definition of `setting priorities and making choices'--more simply called `budgeting.'
COMPONENTS OF THE MEASURE
The bill reported by the Budget Committee provides $53.9 billion of savings over 5 years. As noted, these savings have three principal goals:
--To provide a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs. Congress already has provided nearly $65 billion in recovery funding, and more funding is expected in the near future.
--To begin a longer-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement spending.
--To stimulate reform of entitlement programs.
Eight House authorizing committees have hereby contributed to the savings effort, by modifying the authorizing laws for programs in their respective jurisdictions. Those committees, and their savings amounts, are as follows:
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT SAVINGS BY COMMITTEE
[Outlays in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------
Committee Savings 2006-10
--------------------------------------------------
Agriculture -3,649
Education and the Workforce -20,422
Energy and Commerce -17,066
Financial Services -470
Judiciary -428
Resources -3,678
Transportation and Infrastructure -156
Ways and Means -8,047
Total savings -53,916
--------------------------------------------------
The specific provisions that achieve these savings are described hereinafter, in the reports submitted by the respective authorizing committees.
CONCLUSION
It is sometimes said that budgeting is intrinsic to governing. After all, a budget is the one legislative vehicle through which Congress looks at the whole picture, weighs priorities against one another, and sets its agenda. Congress has many priorities, one of which--since August--has been recovering from the devastation of Katrina; and Congress will fulfill its obligations. But the term `priorities' is meaningless without limits--in this case, limits on the growth of Federal entitlement spending. If it is true that to govern is to choose, then Congress has chosen--through this reconciliation bill--to govern.
Hon. JIM NUSSLE,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
Cannon Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am transmitting herewith the recommendations of the Committee on Agriculture with respect to the reconciliation bill for fiscal year 2006, provided for under House Concurrent Resolution 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.
The enclosed recommendations were adopted by this Committee in a business meeting on October 28, 2005, in the presence of a quorum. Enclosed please find a hard copy of the Committee's recommendations on Title I--Agriculture; Section-by-Section Analysis; Purpose and Need; Committee Consideration; and the remainder of the contents of the report filed pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of the House, including a set of Minority Views.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
PURPOSE AND NEED
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95, directs the Committee on Agriculture to report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the level of direct spending for the Committee by $173,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $3,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
The nation is facing significant budget pressures and the House is working hard to address them. It is unrealistic to think that we can meet the pressing challenges without reducing federal spending. Mandatory spending today takes up almost 55% of the total federal budget; if left on its current path, in a decade it will consume 60% of the federal budget. $3 billion represents only 1% of mandatory spending within the jurisdiction of this Committee.
While all federal safety net programs, including agriculture, need to be sustainable, the burden of addressing the nation's budget pressures needs to be equitably shared in order to be effective. The provisions passed by the House Committee on Agriculture represent a broad and very balanced response to this Committee's reconciliation instructions. Commodity, conservation, rural development, and research programs, and the food stamp program, all bear some burden but none take a disproportionate cut.
With respect to agricultural commodity programs, the provisions passed by this Committee primarily impact only the direct payments producers receive under Title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The total amount of direct payments to each eligible producer is reduced by 1 percent per year in 2006 through 2009, and the percentage of advance direct payments for which producers are eligible in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 is reduced from 50% to 40%. In addition, $282 million worth of savings is achieved by repealing the special marketing loan provisions for cotton known as `Step-2.' Step-2 payments were designed to keep U.S. upland cotton competitive on the world market. However, Brazil successfully argued to a WTO panel that the program is inconsistent with U.S. WTO obligations regarding export subsidies as specified under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement.
In several areas, such as conservation, rural development, research and energy, the Committee eliminates funding for programs that were authorized under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (the 2002 Farm Bill) but have since been subject to limits and rescissions. These Congressional diversions of mandatory funds have essentially nullified the programs.
In fiscal year 2005 alone, nearly $1.3 billion of mandatory funding for programs that were authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was eliminated. And since the 2002 Farm Bill, for example, funding for the rural strategic investment grants program was rescinded in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006. As a result, $100 million was diverted from the program. The rural strategic investment grants program was supposed to provide rural communities with resources to develop strategic planning processes and implement innovative community development strategies.
Likewise, mandatory funding for the agricultural management assistance program, the broadband access program, the value-added agricultural product grants program, the rural business investment program, the rural firefighters and emergency personnel grants, and the renewable energy program has been diverted. So it is by eliminating funding for the rural strategic investment grants program and similarly affected programs that this Committee can avoid making destructive cuts to programs that are both operating and important to producers and rural communities. We are, in effect, reclaiming these funds to help meet the Committee's priorities.
Next, this Committee achieved reductions in food stamp program spending by making slight adjustments to the food stamp eligibility requirements. The Committee enhanced the categorical eligibility provision related to eligibility for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in the Food Stamp Act. Under section 1601, persons who are eligible for cash benefit assistance under TANF will be eligible, categorically, for food stamp benefits. Current law provides that individuals receiving TANF assistance of any kind are categorically eligible for food stamp benefits. Recipients who no longer have categorical eligibility status under the amended provision would have the opportunity to be reviewed for food stamp program eligibility independent of their status as a TANF beneficiary. By refining the eligibility requirements, this proposal ensures that this nation's most needy will continue to receive the food stamp assistance.
Another adjustment this Committee passed relates to the eligibility of non-citizens for food stamp benefits. Under current law, permanent, non-citizen residents of the U.S. are eligible for food stamps after five years of residency. Thus, the current rule represents a drastic deviation from the previous requirement--a record of 40 quarters of work in order to become eligible. This Committee strikes a balance between these disparate historical eligibility requirements by revising the law to require 7 years of residency instead, and notes that a non-citizen may apply for U.S. citizenship status after 5 years of residency and as such would not be further restricted from food stamp eligibility.
The reductions in the food stamp program account for about one-half of one percent of the total food stamp budget: $844 million over five years. Put another way, this accounts for a reduction of about half a penny for every dollar spent on the food stamp program. And while the food stamp program comprises nearly 60 percent of this Committee's mandatory spending, it receives less than 25 percent of the total savings under the package.
Finally, the marginal reductions in the remainder of the provisions keep in tact the safety net for the beneficiaries for which the programs were intended. This holds firm the promise we made to our producers in 2002 and ensures that the nation's most needy will continue to receive federal assistance.
In total, the reductions in commodity programs constitute $1.007 billion worth of savings in the total proposal. Conservation programs account for $760 million in savings. Reductions in research programs contribute $620 million, and rural development program reductions contribute $446 million. Lastly, changes in food stamp program eligibility save an additional $844 million over five years. Together, these reductions produce a savings of $3.7 billion over 5 years.
Putting together a reconciliation package, like writing a farm bill, requires weighing the diverse interests of production agriculture, conservation, research, rural development and nutrition interests. Because this Committee took a broad and balanced approach, we were able to achieve more than the $3 billion the budget resolution requires of us and continue the long standing tradition that agriculture has always been willing to do its part to ensure the fiscal well-being of our nation.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) Provides that this title will be known as the `Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 2005.'
(b) Provides a table of contents for this title.
SUBTITLE A--COMMODITY PROGRAMS
SEC. 1101. PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR COVERED COMMODITIES AND PEANUTS
(a) Reduces the total amount of the direct payment to be paid to producers of covered commodities by 1% for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
(b) Reduces the total amount of the direct payment to be paid to producers of peanuts by 1% for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
SEC. 1102. REDUCTION IN PERCENTAGE OF DIRECT PAYMENT AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID IN ADVANCE
(a) Reduces the percentage of advance direct payments for which producers of covered commodities are eligible in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 from 50% to 40%.
(b) Reduces the percentage of advance direct payments for which producers of peanuts are eligible in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 from 50% to 40%.
SEC. 1103. COTTON COMPETITIVENESS PROVISIONS
(a) Repeals the special marketing loan provisions for upland cotton known as `Step 2.'
(b) Makes a conforming amendment to Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
(c) Designates that the amendments made by this section will become effective on August 1, 2006.
SUBTITLE B--CONSERVATION
SEC. 1201. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUNDS TO CARRY OUT WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
(a) Reduces funding for the watershed rehabilitation program by $15 million.
(b) Removes the requirement that funds for the watershed rehabilitation program remain available to the Secretary until such funds are expended.
(c) Rescinds funds that are previously made available and that are unobligated as of September 30, 2006.
SEC. 1202. CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM
(a) Limits the funding for the conservation security program to $2,213,000,000 for fiscal years 2006 through 2010. Increases the funding for the conservation security program to $5,729,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2015.
(b) Extends the authorization for the conservation security program through 2011.
SEC. 1203. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUNDS TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Eliminates funding for agricultural management assistance program in 2007.
SUBTITLE C--ENERGY
SEC. 1301. TERMINATION OF USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUNDS TO CARRY OUT RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Eliminates funding for loans and grants under the renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements program.
SUBTITLE D--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 1401. ENHANCED ACCESS TO BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS
(a) Eliminates funding for enhanced broadband access in fiscal year 2007.
(b) Prohibits funding for this program from remaining available until expended.
(c) Rescinds all funding that is available and unobligated as of September 30, 2006.
SEC. 1402. VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
(a) Eliminates funding for value-added agricultural product grants in fiscal year 2007.
(b) Prohibits funding for this program from remaining available until expended.
(c) Rescinds all funding that is available and unobligated as of September 30, 2006.
SEC. 1403. RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM
(a) Eliminates funding for the rural business investment program in fiscal year 2007.
(b) Prohibits funding for this program from remaining available until expended.
(c) Rescinds all funding that is available and unobligated as of September 30, 2006.
SEC. 1404. RURAL BUSINESS STRATEGIC INVESTMENT GRANTS
(a) Eliminates funding for rural business strategic investment grants in fiscal year 2007.
(b) Rescinds all funding that is available and unobligated as of September 30, 2006.
SEC. 1405. RURAL FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL GRANTS
(a) Eliminates funding for rural firefighter and emergency personnel grants in fiscal year 2007.
(b) Prohibits funding for this program from remaining available until expended.
(c) Rescinds all funding that is available and unobligated as of September 30, 2006.
SUBTITLE E--RESEARCH
SEC. 1501. INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS
(a) Eliminates funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Provides $200,000,000 of funding in 2010 and in subsequent fiscal years.
(b) Limits availability of fiscal year 2006 funds to the one year period beginning on October 1, 2005, while maintaining the two-year period of availability for funds made available in other fiscal years.
SUBTITLE F--NUTRITION
SEC. 1601. ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
(a) Amends the Food Stamp Act to restrict categorical eligibility status. Provides that only persons who are recipients of cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program will be categorically eligible for food stamp program benefits.
(b) Reauthorizations most provisions in the Food Stamp Act through 2011.
SEC. 1602. AVAILABILITY OF COMMODITIES FOR THE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(1) Authorizes the purchase of $140,000,000 worth of commodities per year through 2011.
(2) Authorizes the purchase of an additional $12,000,000 worth of commodities 2006.
(3) Designates that the additional commodities for 2006 are to be distributed to States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
SEC. 1603. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
Amends the `Welfare Reform' law to require that noncitizens reside in the U.S. for 7 years before becoming eligible for food stamp benefits.
SEC. 1604. DISASTER FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to pay to State agencies 100% of the administrative costs incurred in the delivery of food stamp benefits to households under the disaster food stamp program initiated in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
II. Full Committee Consideration
The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with a quorum present, on October 28, 2005, to consider its recommendations to the Budget Committee as provided in the Budget Resolution Instructions contained in the H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.
Chairman Goodlatte called the meeting to order and made an opening statement as did Ranking Member Peterson. Without objection, the Chairman's Mark to the Budget Committee for Title I--Agriculture, with respect to the Reconciliation Bill for Fiscal Year 2006 was placed before the Committee and open for amendment at any point. Counsel and staff were then recognized to give a brief summary of the recommendations.
Mr. Holden was then recognized to offer and explain an amendment to eliminate FY 2006 limitations on funding or operation of certain agriculture programs and activities. Discussion occurred and by a roll call vote of 19 yeas, 25 nays, and 2 not voting, the amendment failed. See Roll Call Vote #1.
Mr. Melancon was recognized to offer and explain an amendment to provide assistance to citrus, nursery, vegetable, and fruit crops impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. Chairman Goodlatte voiced opposition to the amendment and after a brief discussion by a roll call vote of 19 yeas, 25 nays, and 2 not voting, the amendment failed. See Roll Call Vote #2.
Mr. Peterson was then recognized to offer and explain an amendment to provide emergency food and farm disaster assistance. The Chairman voiced opposition to the amendment and after a brief discussion by a roll call vote of 19 yeas, 25 nays, and 2 not voting, the amendment failed. See Roll Call Vote #3.
There being no further amendments, Mr. Pombo moved to favorably report the Chairman's Mark for Title I--Agriculture, to the Committee on the Budget for insertion in the Reconciliation Bill. Discussion occurred and by a roll call vote of 24 yeas, 20 nays, and 2 not voting, the recommendations were adopted. See Roll Call #4.
Chairman Goodlatte then advised Members that pursuant to the rules of the House of Representatives that Members have 2 calendar days to file such views with the Committee. Ranking Member Peterson indicated that he intended to submit additional views.
Without objection, staff was given permission to make any necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect the intent of the Committee.
Chairman Goodlatte thanked all the Members and adjourned the meeting subject to the call of the chair.
REPORTING THE BILL--ROLLCALL VOTES
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the following rollcall votes taken with respect to consideration of the recommendations regarding the Reconciliation Bill for Fiscal Year 2006:
ROLLCALL NO. 1
Summary: Amendment to eliminate FY 2006 limitations on funding or operation of certain agriculture programs and activities.
Offered by: Mr. Holden.
Results: Failed by a vote of 19 yeas/25 nays/2 not voting.
YEAS
11. Cuellar
12. Melancon
13. Costa
14. Salazar
15. Barrow
16. Pomeroy
17. Larsen
18. Davis
19. Chandler
NAYS
19. Boustany
20. Schwarz
21. Kuhl
22. Foxx
23. Conaway
24. Fortenberry
25. Schmidt
NOT VOTING
ROLLCALL NO. 2
Summary: Amendment to provide assistance to citrus, nursery, vegetable, and fruit crops impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
Offered by: Mr. Melancon.
Results: Failed by a vote of 19 yeas/25 nays/2 not voting.
YEAS
11. Cuellar
12. Melancon
13. Costa
14. Salazar
15. Barrow
16. Pomeroy
17. Larsen
18. Davis
19. Chandler
NAYS
18. Neugebauer
19. Boustany
20. Schwarz
21. Kuhl
22. Foxx
23. Conaway
24. Fortenberry
25. Schmidt
NOT VOTING
ROLLCALL NO. 3
Summary: Amendment to provide emergency food and farm disaster assistance.
Offered by: Mr. Peterson.
Results: Failed by a vote of 19 yeas/25 nays/2 not voting.
YEAS
11. Cuellar
12. Melancon
13. Costa
14. Salazar
15. Barrow
16. Pomeroy
17. Larsen
18. Davis
19. Chandler
NAYS
19. Boustany
20. Schwarz
21. Kuhl
22. Foxx
23. Conaway
24. Fortenberry
25. Schmidt
NOT VOTING
ROLLCALL NO. 4
Summary: Motion to favorably report the Chairman's Mark for Title I--Agriculture, to the Budget Committee for insertion in the Reconciliation Bill.
Offered by: Mr. Pombo.
Results: Adopted by a vote 24 yeas/20 nays/2 not voting.
YEAS
13. Bonner
14. Rogers
15. King
16. Musgrave
17. Neugebauer
18. Boustany
19. Schwarz
20. Kuhl
21. Foxx
22. Conaway
23. Fortenberry
24. Schmidt
NAYS
11. Cuellar
12. Melancon
13. Costa
14. Salazar
15. Barrow
16. Pomeroy
17. Larsen
18. Davis
19. Chandler
20. Johnson
NOT VOTING
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to reduce the level of direct spending by the Committee on Agriculture for the period fiscal year 2006 thru 2010.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds the Constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I, clause 8, section 18, that grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers vested by Congress in the Constitution of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.
BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE (SECTIONS 308, 402, AND 423)
The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority, or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the filing of this report are as follows:
Hon. BOB GOODLATTE,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 2005.
CBO understands that the Committee on the Budget will be responsible for interpreting how these proposals compare with the reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Jim Langley (for farm programs) and Kathleen FitzGerald (for Food Stamps).
Sincerely,
Donald B. Marron
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.
Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 2005
Summary: The Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 2005 would amend laws governing commodity, conservation, energy, rural development, research, and nutrition programs over the 2006-2010 period. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $567 million in fiscal year 2006, by about $3.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period, and by about $4.3 billion over the 2006-2015 period, relative to CBO's March 2005 baseline projections (see Table 1). Enacting the legislation would not affect federal revenues.
The estimated savings from this legislation would be affected by provisions in the conference agreement on the agriculture appropriation bill for fiscal year 2006 (H.R. 2744). Upon enactment of that conference agreement (which passed the House on October 28), the savings from this legislation would increase by $528 million--to $3.7 billion over the 2006-2010 period and $4.8 billion over the 2006-2015 period (see Memorandum at the bottom of Table 1). These additional savings are associated with the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and several rural development programs, which are discussed in more detail later in this estimate.
This reconciliation legislation would reduce direct payments made by the Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC's) price and income support program. It also contains a provision that would end that reduction if legislation were enacted to extend direct payments beyond crop year 2009. Because that limitation would take effect only upon enactment of other legislation, it is not reflected in CBO's cost estimate, which assumes that the reduction in direct payments continues indefinitely. The House Budget Committee has directed CBO to consider this limitation to be effective, thus terminating the reduction after crop year 2009. That assumption reduces estimated savings from the legislation, starting in fiscal year 2010. Under that assumption, and assuming enactment of the conference agreement on the agriculture appropriation bill, enacting this reconciliation legislation would reduce direct spending by $567 million in fiscal year 2006, by $3.65 billion over the 2006-2010 period, and by $4.6 billion over the 2006-2015 period (see Table 2).
The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Some of its provisions would reduce federal funding for assistance to state and local governments.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: CBO's estimate of the budgetary impact of this legislation is shown in Table 1. Table 2 reflects the scorekeeping direction from the House Budget Committee. It differs from Table 1 with regard to projected savings from the commodity program in 2010 and subsequent years, and assumes that the conference agreement on H.R. 2744 is enacted. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources), 350 (agriculture), 450 (community and regional development), and 600 (nutrition).
Basis of estimate: This estimate assumes that the bill will be enacted in December 2005.
Commodity Program
Subtitle A would reduce the Department of Agriculture's direct payments to agricultural producers by 1 percent for the 2006 and 2007 crops, reduce advance direct payments by 10 percent in 2006 and 2007, and eliminate the upland cotton Step 2 payments.
CBO's estimate of the budgetary impact of these amendments to the agricultural commodity program is detailed in Table 3.
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF CBO'S ESTIMATE OF THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2006-2010 2006-2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Commodity Program:
Estimated Budget Authority -553 -164 -108 -105 -103 -105 -102 -104 -104 -104 -1,033 -1,552
Estimated Outlays -553 -164 -108 -105 -103 -105 -102 -104 -104 -104 -1,033 -1,552
Conservation Programs:
Estimated Budget Authority -85 -135 -105 -138 -191 -135 -80 -49 -56 -56 -654 -1,030
Estimated Outlays 0 -162 -126 -150 -197 -143 -84 -52 -58 -57 -635 -1,029
Energy Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -23 -23
Estimated Outlays 0 -9 -9 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -23 -23
Rural Development Programs:
Estimated Budget Authority -185 -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -245 -245
Estimated Outlays 0 -58 -84 -52 -10 -6 -5 0 0 0 -204 -215
Research, Extension, and Education Grants:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -200 -200 -200 0 0 0 0 0 0 -600 -600
Estimated Outlays 0 -30 -100 -160 -170 -100 -40 0 0 0 -460 -600
Food Stamp Program:
Estimated Budget Authority -14 -186 -191 -199 -202 -103 0 0 0 0 -794 -896
Estimated Outlays -14 -186 -191 -199 -202 -103 0 0 0 0 -794 -896
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority -837 -768 -604 -642 -497 -343 -182 -153 -160 -160 -3,350 -4,346
Estimated Outlays -567 -609 -618 -671 -682 -457 -231 -156 -162 -161 -3,149 -4,314
Memorandum:
Total Changes Assuming Enactment of H.R. 2744:
Estimated Budget Authority -1,206 -928 -604 -642 -497 -343 -182 -153 -160 -160 -3,877 -4,875
Estimated Outlays -567 -776 -798 -797 -736 -464 -226 -156 -162 -161 -3,677 -4,843
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2- SUMMARY OF THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 REFLECTING SCOREKEEPING DIRECTION FROM THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND ENACTMENT OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2006-2010 2006-2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Commodity Program 1 :
Estimated Budget Authority -553 -164 -108 -105 -76 -52 -49 -51 -51 -51 -1,006 -1,260
Estimated Outlays -553 -164 -108 -105 -76 -52 -49 -51 -51 -51 -1,006 -1,260
Conservation Programs:
Estimated Budget Authority -210 -135 -105 -138 -191 -135 -80 -49 -56 -56 -779 -1,155
Estimated Outlays 0 -237 -151 -166 -206 -143 -84 -52 -58 -57 -760 -1,154
Energy Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -23 -23
Estimated Outlays 0 -9 -9 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -23 -23
Rural Development Programs:
Estimated Budget Authority -429 -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -489 -489
Estimated Outlays 0 -126 -183 -114 -23 -13 0 0 0 0 -446 -459
Research, Extension, and Education Grants:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -360 -200 -200 0 0 0 0 0 0 -760 -760
Estimated Outlays 0 -54 -156 -208 -202 -100 -40 0 0 0 -620 -760
Food Stamp Programs:
Estimated Budget Authority -14 -186 -191 -199 -204 -103 0 0 0 0 -794 -896
Estimated Outlays -14 -186 -191 -199 -204 -103 0 0 0 0 -794 -896
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority -1,206 -928 -604 -642 -470 -290 -129 -100 -107 -107 -3,852 -4,585
Estimated Outlays -567 -776 -798 -797 -710 -411 -173 -103 -109 -108 -3,650 -4,554
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3- IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 ON SPENDING FOR THE COMMODITY PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Reduction of Direct Payments 1 :
Estimated Budget Authority -26 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53
Estimated Outlays -26 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53 -53
Limit on Advance Direct Payments:
Estimated Budget Authority -513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays -513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cotton Competitiveness Provisions:
Estimated Budget Authority -14 -111 -55 -52 -50 -52 -49 -51 -51 -51
Estimated Outlays -14 -111 -55 -52 -50 -52 -49 -51 -51 -51
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority -553 -164 -108 -105 -103 -105 -102 -104 -104 -104
Estimated Outlays -553 -164 -108 -105 -103 -105 -102 -104 -104 -104
Memorandum:
Commodity Program Outlays Under CBO's March 2005 Baseline 19,289 16,669 14,687 14,962 14,662 14,339 13,962 13,862 13,840 12,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1101--Reduction of Direct Payments. Section 1101 would require a 1 percent reduction in direct payments for the 2006 and 2007 crops of feed grains, oilseeds, wheat, cotton, rice, and peanuts. The legislation also specifies that no reduction occur for the 2010 and subsequent crop years, if future legislation were to authorize direct payments for those crop years. Current law authorizes the CCC price and income support program, including direct payments to applicable crops, through 2007. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 specifies that such expiring programs should be assumed to continue to operate as they exist upon scheduled expiration. Therefore, the CBO baseline assumes that the price and income support program continues indefinitely beyond its expiration date of 2007. Hence, our estimate assumes the 1 percent reduction would apply to the 2010 and subsequent crops.
Relative to CBO's baseline projections, enacting this section would reduce direct spending for the CCC price and income support program by $26 million in 2006, $238 million over the 2006-2010 period, and $503 million over the 2006-2015 period, CBO estimates. The House Budget Committee has directed CBO to assume that the 1 percent reduction in direct payments would end with the 2009 crop, reflecting a provision in the legislation that would be contingent on enactment of legislation to extend direct payments beyond that year. (CBO's cost estimates do not ordinarily incorporate contingencies that depend on enactment of future legislation.). Under the House Budget Committee's assumptions, this section would reduce direct spending by $26 million in 2006, $211 million over the 2006-2010 period, and $211 million over the 2006-2015 period.
Section 1102--Advance Direct Payments. The 2002 farm act (Public Law 107-171) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to offer eligible producers up to a 50 percent advance payment on their annual direct payment for feed grains, oilseeds, wheat, cotton, rice, and peanuts. Producers may request advance payments beginning on December 1 of the calendar year before the crop is harvested until the final payment is made in October of the calendar year in which the crop is harvested. Section 1102 would limit those annual advance payments to no more than 40 percent of the direct payments for the 2006 and 2007 crop years.
This section would not affect the total value of direct payments that producers are eligible to receive for each crop year, only the timing of the payment. By shifting payments from each year to the following year, this provision would have the effect of reducing outlays in 2006 and shifting some outlays beyond 2015. CBO estimates that limiting advance direct payments would reduce spending by $513 million in 2006, with no change in total payments in each subsequent fiscal year through 2015.
Section 1103--Cotton Competitiveness Provisions. Section 1103 would eliminate cotton user marketing certificates, more commonly known as the Step 2 payments, effective beginning on August 1, 2006. First authorized in 1990, Step 2 is a provision of the marketing assistance loan program unique to upland cotton. It provides for cash or in-kind payments to eligible domestic users and exporters of U.S.-grown upland cotton whenever U.S. cotton prices are higher than world market cotton prices.
CBO estimates that eliminating Step 2, effective August 1, 2006, would reduce CCC spending for the cotton program by $14 million in 2006, $282 million over the 2006-2010 period, and $536 million over the 2006-2015 period. Those savings are less than CBO's baseline estimates for Step 2 payments over the 2006-2015 period ($1.2 billion) because Step 2 payments also affect the demand for and price of upland cotton.
CBO estimates that eliminating Step 2 would reduce U.S. cotton exports by about 2.5 percent and domestic mill use by a smaller amount (because mill use is a smaller component of total use). We estimate that such a decrease in demand would reduce domestic cotton prices by $0.0075 to $0.0200 per pound, which is 50 percent to 60 percent of the estimated forgone Step 2 payment rate. The payment rate for countercyclical payments is determined, in part, by average U.S. cotton prices; the lower the prices, the higher the countercyclical payments. CBO estimates that lower U.S. prices due to elimination of Step 2 would lead to an increase in countercyclical payments of $484 million over the 2006-2015 period. Eliminating Step 2 would also slightly increase world cotton prices. The world price is used to determine repayment rates for upland cotton marketing loans and loan deficiency payments. We estimate that higher world prices would reduce the cost of cotton marketing loans by $17 million over the 2006-2015 period.
Conservation
Subtitle B would amend the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Conservation Security Program (CSP), and the Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMAP). Authority for CSP would be extended through 2011 but total spending authority would be reduced. Under the assumptions underlying CBO's March 2005 baseline projections, we estimate that extending CSP through 2011 would result in outlays of $1.6 billion over the 2008-2015 period. Pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, such extensions are assumed in the baseline projections and have no cost relative to those projections. CBO's estimates of the budgetary effects of the amendments to conservation programs are detailed in Table 4.
Section 1201--Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides assistance to communities to rehabilitate aging local dams. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial assistance for the planning, design, and implementation of rehabilitation projects that may include upgrading or removing the dams. Section 1201 would limit the availability of CCC funds for 2007 to $50 million, and would rescind all balances from prior years unobligated as of September 30, 2006. CBO estimates that these provisions would reduce spending for watershed rehabilitation by $100 million over the 2006-2010 period.
TABLE 4- IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 ON SPENDING FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Watershed Rehabilitation Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 1 -85 -15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -60 -20 -13 -7 0 0 0 0 0
Conservation Security Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -100 -95 -128 -181 -135 -80 -49 -56 -56
Estimated Outlays 0 -100 -95 -128 -181 -135 -80 -49 -56 -56
Agricultural Management Assistance Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -20 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -2 -11 -9 -9 -8 -4 -3 -2 -1
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority -85 -135 -105 -138 -191 -135 -80 -49 -56 -56
Estimated Outlays 0 -162 -126 -150 -197 -143 -84 -52 -58 -57
Memorandum:
Outlays for Conservation Programs
Under CBO's March 2005 Baseline 3,652 4,006 4,224 4,894 4,829 4,771 4,817 4,779 4,748 4,781
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1202--Conservation Security Program. The CSP, first authorized in the 2002 farm act, provides financial and technical assistance to promote conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, plant and animal life, and land currently used for agricultural production. Producers enroll in 5- to-15-year contracts in exchange for cost-share assistance and annual payments. Under current law, total spending on CSP contracts is limited to $6.037 billion over the 2005-2014 period. Fiscal year 2015 is not covered by that limit; CBO's baseline includes $835 million in outlays for 2015.
Section 1202 would restrict CSP spending to $2.213 billion over the 2006-2010 period and $5.729 billion over the 2006-2015 period. CBO estimates that imposing those spending caps would reduce spending on the CSP program by $504 million over the 2006-2010 period and $880 million over the 2006-2015 period.
Section 1203--Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMAP). This program, authorized by the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, provides $20 million in 2007 and $10 million each subsequent year for financial assistance to producers in 15 states where participation in the federal crop insurance program has historically been low. Section 1203 would prohibit obligations for AMAP over the 2007-2010 period. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce conservation spending by $31 million over the 2006-2010 period and by $49 million over the 2006-2015 period.
Energy
The renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements program provides a combination of loans and grants to farmers to purchase renewable energy systems or to make energy-efficiency improvements. Section 1301 would eliminate funding for the program in 2007. CBO estimates that action would reduce direct spending by $23 million over the 2006-2010 period (see Table 5).
TABLE 5- IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 ON SPENDING FOR ENERGY PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy-Efficiency Improvements Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -9 -9 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Development
The legislation would eliminate fiscal year 2007 funding and rescind unobligated balances for the Rural Community Grants (firefighter assistance) program, the broadband loans component of the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and the Broadband program, and the Value-Added Marketing program. In addition, the bill would rescind the unobligated balances of both the Rural Strategic Investment and the Rural Business Investment programs. (The rescissions would take effect on September 30, 2006, and would apply to balances available on that date.) In sum, CBO estimates the provisions would reduce direct spending by $204 million over the 2006-2010 period and by $215 million over the 2006-2015 period (see Table 6).
TABLE 6- IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 ON SPENDING FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Rural Firefighers and Emergency Personnel Grants:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays: 0 -1 -4 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Enhanced Access to Broadband:
Estimated Budget Authority -60 -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -1 -7 -11 -10 -6 -5 0 0 0
Value-Added Marketing Program:
Estimated Budget Authority -30 -40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -28 -35 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rural Business Investment Program:
Estimated Budget Authority -45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -23 -18 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rural Business Strategic Investment Grants:
Estimated Budget Authority -50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -5 -20 -25 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Changes 1 :
Estimated Budget Authority -185 -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -58 -84 -52 -10 -6 -5 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research
The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems is a competitive grant program designed to support research, extension and education activities for U.S. agriculture. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 created the initiative and provided mandatory funding for it. The program was reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 with mandatory funding of $160 million in 2006 and $200 million in subsequent years. The bill would eliminate funding available to the program over the 2007-2009 period. Funding would remain at $200 million in 2010 and subsequent years. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce mandatory spending by $460 million over the 2006-2010 period and $600 million over the 2006-2015 period (see Table 7).
TABLE 7- IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 ON SPENDING FOR THE INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems:
Estimated Budget Authority 1 0 -200 -200 -200 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 -30 -100 -160 -170 -100 -40 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrition
Subtitle F would extend and modify the Food Stamp program. The 2002 farm act authorized the Food Stamp program through 2007. This legislation would extend that authority through 2011. Under the assumptions underlying CBO's March 2005 baseline projections, we estimate that extending the program through 2011 would result in additional outlays of $137 billion over the 2008-2011 period. Pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, this extension is assumed in the baseline projection and has no cost relative to that projection. Other provisions in the subtitle would reduce spending for the Food Stamp program and would increase spending for the Emergency Food Assistance program (see Table 8).
TABLE 8- IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 ON SPENDING FOR NUTRITION PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Eligible Households:
Estimated Budget Authority -40 -127 -132 -136 -139 -71 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays -40 -127 -132 -136 -139 -71 0 0 0 0
Residency Requirement:
Estimated Budget Authority -25 -60 -60 -65 -65 -33 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays -25 -60 -60 -65 -65 -33 0 0 0 0
Food Stamp Interaction Effects:
Estimated Budget Authority 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Emergency Food Assistance Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disaster Food Stamp Program:
Estimated Budget Authority 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total:
Estimated Budget Authority -14 -186 -191 -199 -202 -103 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays -14 -186 -191 -199 -202 -103 0 0 0 0
Memorandum:
Spending for Food Stamp Program Under CBO's March 2005 Baseline 33,445 33,054 33,275 33,882 34,638 35,542 36,474 37,301 38,273 39,277
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Stamp Eligibility. Subtitle F would change eligibility for the Food Stamp program in two ways: by restricting categorical eligibility; and by extending the residency requirement for legal permanent residents.
Section 1601--Eligible Households. Under current law, households that receive or are eligible to receive any type of benefit from the TANF program are among those considered categorically eligible for food stamps. This includes non-cash benefits such as job placement services. Categorically eligible households are not subject to the same income and asset tests as other participants. This provision would restrict categorical eligibility to only those households receiving cash assistance. Based on information from the Food Stamp Quality Control (QC) Data, CBO estimates that about 225,000 people who are categorically eligible based on non-cash benefits would not be able to meet the income and asset tests for the program. On average, those individuals would lose about $45 a month in food stamp benefits in 2007.
In addition, school-age children in these households would no longer be automatically eligible for free school meals. (All children in Food Stamp households are categorically eligible for free school lunches and breakfasts.) Based on income information from the QC data, we expect that most of these children would nevertheless be eligible for reduced-price meals based on their family income; about 40,000 children would lose their eligibility. On average, benefits for these students would decline by about $185 a year.
This provision would be in effect upon enactment in 2006 and expire on September 30, 2010. CBO assumes that, in 2011, newly eligible individuals would gradually join the program over the course of the year.
Section 1603--Residency Requirement. The 2002 farm act made legal permanent residents who have resided in the United States for at least five years eligible for food stamps. (Legal permanent residents under the age of 18 or who are disabled are eligible without a waiting period.) This provision would extend the residency requirement to seven years during the 2006-2010 period. CBO estimates that about 70,000 people would no longer be eligible for benefits, based on fiscal year 1996 QC data adjusted for changes in Food Stamp rules and recent immigration statistics. Food Stamp outlays would be lowered by $275 million over the 2006-2010 period and by $308 million over the 2006-2015 period. In 2011, when the waiting period would drop back to five years, CBO expects that newly eligible participants would come back onto the program over the course of the year.
Interaction effects. Taken alone, CBO estimates that restricting categorical eligibility would reduce Food Stamp outlays by $546 million and child nutrition outlays by $28 million over the 2006-2010 period. These estimated savings would decline slightly after taking into account the proposal to extend the waiting period for legal permanent residents. (CBO estimates that a small share of categorically eligible participants are legal permanent residents who would lose benefits under the new waiting-period requirements.) As a result, the gross savings cited above would be reduced by an estimated $1 million per year over the 2006-2010 period.
Section 1602--Availability of Commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Section 1602 would reauthorize $140 million for the purchase of commodities for the Emergency Food Assistance Program through 2011. This provision does not have an estimated budget impact because the extension is already assumed in the baseline. But the legislation would provide an additional $12 million in fiscal year 2006 for commodities to be distributed to states that were under a major disaster declaration as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to states adjacent to those states. CBO estimates that this provision would increase outlays by $12 million in 2006.
Section 1604--Disaster Food Stamp Program. States pay 50 percent of the administrative costs associated with the Food Stamp program. Under the legislation, states would be reimbursed for the full cost of certain administrative expenses for disaster food stamp benefits issued after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Data from the Food and Nutrition Service show that 1.1 million households were certified for disaster benefits, including supplements for current food stamp recipients, after the hurricanes. CBO estimates that the increase in the federal share of administrative costs would be $38 million in fiscal year 2006.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. Some of its provisions would reduce federal funding for assistance to state and local governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jim Langley, David Hull, and Greg Hitz (Commodity Program and Research); Gregory Waring (Rural Development); and Kathleen FitzGerald (Nutrition). Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller and Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
- 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):
FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--COMMODITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Direct Payments and Counter-Cyclical Payments
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1103. AVAILABILITY OF DIRECT PAYMENTS.
- (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (c) PAYMENT AMOUNT- [Struck out->]
[ The amount ][<-Struck out] Except as provided in subsection (e), the amount of the direct payment to be paid to the producers on a farm for a covered commodity for a crop year shall be equal to the product of the following:- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (d) TIME FOR PAYMENT-
- (1) * * *
- (2) ADVANCE PAYMENTS- At the option of the producers on a farm, up to 50 percent of the direct payment for a covered commodity for any of the 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 crop years ][<-Struck out] 2005 crop years and up to 40 percent of the direct payment for a covered commodity for each of the 2006 and 2007 crop years shall be paid to the producers in advance. The producers shall select the month within which the advance payment for a crop year will be made. The month selected may be any month during the period beginning on December 1 of the calendar year before the calendar year in which the crop of the covered commodity is harvested through the month within which the direct payment would otherwise be made. The producers may change the selected month for a subsequent advance payment by providing advance notice to the Secretary.* * * * * * *
- (e) Direct Payment Amount Reduction- Notwithstanding subsection (c), for the 2006 and 2007 crop years (and the 2008 and 2009 crop years if direct payments are provided under this section for those crop years), the Secretary shall reduce the total amount of the direct payment to be paid to the producers on a farm for a covered commodity for the crop year concerned by an amount equal to 1 percent of the direct payment amount otherwise determined for that farm for that covered commodity for that crop year. No reduction shall be made under the authority of this subsection if direct payments are made for the 2010 or any subsequent crop year of a covered commodity.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1207. [Struck out->][ SPECIAL MARKETING LOAN PROVISIONS FOR UPLAND COTTON. ][<-Struck out] UPLAND COTTON IMPORT QUOTAS.
- [Struck out->]
[ (a) COTTON USER MARKETING CERTIFICATES- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (1) ISSUANCE- During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act through July 31, 2008, the Secretary shall issue marketing certificates or cash payments, at the option of the recipient, to domestic users and exporters for documented purchases by domestic users and sales for export by exporters made in the week following a consecutive 4-week period in which-- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1 3/32 -inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per pound; and ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) the prevailing world market price for upland cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location) does not exceed 134 percent of the loan rate for upland cotton established under section 1202. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (2) VALUE OF CERTIFICATES OR PAYMENTS- The value of the marketing certificates or cash payments shall be based on the amount of the difference (reduced by 1.25 cents per pound) in the prices during the fourth week of the consecutive 4-week period multiplied by the quantity of upland cotton included in the documented sales. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (3) ADMINISTRATION OF MARKETING CERTIFICATES- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) REDEMPTION, MARKETING, OR EXCHANGE- The Secretary shall establish procedures for redeeming marketing certificates for cash or marketing or exchange of the certificates for agricultural commodities owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation or pledged to the Commodity Credit Corporation as collateral for a loan in such manner, and at such price levels, as the Secretary determines will best effectuate the purposes of cotton user marketing certificates, including enhancing the competitiveness and marketability of United States cotton. Any price restrictions that would otherwise apply to the disposition of agricultural commodities by the Commodity Credit Corporation shall not apply to the redemption of certificates under this subsection. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) DESIGNATION OF COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS- To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall permit owners of certificates to designate the commodities and products, including storage sites, the owners would prefer to receive in exchange for certificates ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) TRANSFERS- Marketing certificates issued to domestic users and exporters of upland cotton may be transferred to other persons in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (4) DELAYED APPLICATION OF THRESHOLD- Through July 31, 2006, the Secretary shall make the calculations under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) without regard to the 1.25 cent threshold provided under those paragraphs. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (b) ][<-Struck out] (a) SPECIAL IMPORT QUOTA-- (1) ESTABLISHMENT-
- (A) * * *
- (B) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS- Except as provided in subparagraph (C), whenever the Secretary determines and announces that for any consecutive 4-week period, the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1 3/32 -inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe [Struck out->]
[ , adjusted for the value of any certificate issued under subsection (a), ][<-Struck out] exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per pound, there shall immediately be in effect a special import quota.- (C) TIGHT DOMESTIC SUPPLY- During any month for which the Secretary estimates the season-ending United States upland cotton stocks-to-use ratio, as determined under subparagraph (D), to be below 16 percent, the Secretary, in making the determination under subparagraph (B), shall not adjust the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1 3/32 -inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe [Struck out->]
[ , for the value of any certificates issued under subsection (a) ][<-Struck out] .* * * * * * *
- (4) OVERLAP- A special quota period may be established that overlaps any existing quota period if required by paragraph (1), except that a special quota period may not be established under this subsection if a quota period has been established under [Struck out->]
[ subsection (c) ][<-Struck out] subsection (b).- [Struck out->]
[ (c) ][<-Struck out] (b) LIMITED GLOBAL IMPORT QUOTA FOR UPLAND COTTON-- (1) * * *
- (2) NO OVERLAP- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a quota period may not be established that overlaps an existing quota period or a special quota period established under [Struck out->]
[ subsection (b) ][<-Struck out] subsection (a).* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Peanuts
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1303. AVAILABILITY OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR PEANUTS.
- (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (d) PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR SUBSEQUENT CROP YEARS- [Struck out->]
[ The amount ][<-Struck out] Except as provided in subsection (f), the amount of the direct payment to be paid to the producers on a farm for the 2003 through 2007 crops of peanuts shall be equal to the product of the following:- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (e) TIME FOR PAYMENT-
- (1) * * *
- (2) ADVANCE PAYMENTS- At the option of the producers on a farm, up to 50 percent of the direct payment for any of the 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 crop years ][<-Struck out] 2005 crop years and up to 40 percent of the direct payment for each of the 2006 and 2007 crop years shall be paid to the producers in advance. The producers shall select the month within which the advance payment for a crop year will be made. The month selected may be any month during the period beginning on December 1 of the calendar year before the calendar year in which the crop is harvested through the month within which the direct payment would otherwise be made. The producers may change the selected month for a subsequent advance payment by providing advance notice to the Secretary.- (f) Direct Payment Amount Reduction- Notwithstanding subsection (d), for the 2006 and 2007 crops of peanuts (and the 2008 and 2009 crops of peanuts if direct payments are provided under this section for those crops), the Secretary shall reduce the total amount of the direct payment to be paid to the producers on a farm for that crop of peanuts by an amount equal to 1 percent of the direct payment amount otherwise determined for that farm for that crop of peanuts. No reduction shall be made under the authority of this subsection if direct payments are made for the 2010 or any subsequent crop of peanuts.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE E--MISCELLANEOUS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6405. RURAL FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL GRANT PROGRAM.
- (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (c) FUNDING- Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007, to remain available until expended ][<-Struck out] 2006.* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--ENERGY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 9006. RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS.
- (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (f) FUNDING- Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available to carry out this section $23,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 ][<-Struck out] 2006.* * * * * * *
-
SECTION 136 OF THE FEDERAL AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM ACT OF 1996
[Struck out->][ SEC. 136. SPECIAL MARKETING LOAN PROVISIONS FOR UPLAND COTTON. ][<-Struck out]
- [Struck out->]
[ (a) COTTON USER MARKETING CERTIFICATES- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (1) ISSUANCE- During the period ending July 31, 2003, the Secretary shall issue marketing certificates or cash payments, at the option of the recipient, to domestic users and exporters for documented purchases by domestic users and sales for export by exporters made in the week following a consecutive 4-week period in which-- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1 3/32 -inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per pound; and ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) the prevailing world market price for upland cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location) does not exceed 134 percent of the loan rate for upland cotton established under section 132. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (2) VALUE OF CERTIFICATES OR PAYMENTS- The value of the marketing certificates or cash payments shall be based on the amount of the difference (reduced by 1.25 cents per pound) in the prices during the 4th week of the consecutive 4-week period multiplied by the quantity of upland cotton included in the documented sales. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (3) ADMINISTRATION OF MARKETING CERTIFICATES- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) REDEMPTION, MARKETING, OR EXCHANGE- The Secretary shall establish procedures for redeeming marketing certificates for cash or marketing or exchange of the certificates for agricultural commodities owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation or pledged to the Commodity Credit Corporation as collateral for a loan in such manner, and at such price levels, as the Secretary determines will best effectuate the purposes of cotton user marketing certificates, including enhancing the competitiveness and marketability of United States cotton. Any price restrictions that would otherwise apply to the disposition of agricultural commodities by the Commodity Credit Corporation shall not apply to the redemption of certificates under this subsection. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) DESIGNATION OF COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS- To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall permit owners of certificates to designate the commodities and products, including storage sites, the owners would prefer to receive in exchange for certificates. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) TRANSFERS- Marketing certificates issued to domestic users and exporters of upland cotton may be transferred to other persons in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (b) SPECIAL IMPORT QUOTA- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (1) ESTABLISHMENT- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) IN GENERAL- The President shall carry out an import quota program during the period ending July 31, 2003, as provided in this subsection. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS- Except as provided in subparagraph (C), whenever the Secretary determines and announces that for any consecutive 4-week period, the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1 3/32 -inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe, adjusted for the value of any certificate issued under subsection (a), exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per pound, there shall immediately be in effect a special import quota. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) TIGHT DOMESTIC SUPPLY- During any month for which the Secretary estimates the season-ending United States upland cotton stocks-to-use ratio, as determined under subparagraph (D), to be below 16 percent, the Secretary, in making the determination under subparagraph (B), shall not adjust the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1 3/32 -inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe, for the value of any certificates issued under subsection (a). ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (D) SEASON-ENDING UNITED STATES STOCKS-TO-USE RATIO- For the purposes of making estimates under subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall, on a monthly basis, estimate and report the season-ending United States upland cotton stocks-to-use ratio, excluding projected raw cotton imports but including the quantity of raw cotton that has been imported into the United States during the marketing year. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (2) QUANTITY- The quota shall be equal to 1 week's consumption of upland cotton by domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months for which data are available. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (3) APPLICATION- The quota shall apply to upland cotton purchased not later than 90 days after the date of the Secretary's announcement under paragraph (1) and entered into the United States not later than 180 days after the date. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (4) OVERLAP- A special quota period may be established that overlaps any existing quota period if required by paragraph (1), except that a special quota period may not be established under this subsection if a quota period has been established under subsection (c). ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (5) PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT- The quantity under a special import quota shall be considered to be an in-quota quantity for purposes of-- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d)); ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203); ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(d)); and ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (D) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (6) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `special import quota' means a quantity of imports that is not subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (7) LIMITATION- The quantity of cotton entered into the United States during any marketing year under the special import quota established under this subsection may not exceed the equivalent of 5 week's consumption of upland cotton by domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the 3 months immediately preceding the first special import quota established in any marketing year. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (c) LIMITED GLOBAL IMPORT QUOTA FOR UPLAND COTTON- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (1) IN GENERAL- The President shall carry out an import quota program that provides that whenever the Secretary determines and announces that the average price of the base quality of upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, in the designated spot markets for a month exceeded 130 percent of the average price of such quality of cotton in the markets for the preceding 36 months, notwithstanding any other provision of law, there shall immediately be in effect a limited global import quota subject to the following conditions: ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) QUANTITY- The quantity of the quota shall be equal to 21 days of domestic mill consumption of upland cotton at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months for which data are available. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) QUANTITY IF PRIOR QUOTA- If a quota has been established under this subsection during the preceding 12 months, the quantity of the quota next established under this subsection shall be the smaller of 21 days of domestic mill consumption calculated under subparagraph (A) or the quantity required to increase the supply to 130 percent of the demand. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT- The quantity under a limited global import quota shall be considered to be an in-quota quantity for purposes of-- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (i) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d)); ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (ii) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203); ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (iii) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(d)); and ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (iv) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (D) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection: ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (i) SUPPLY- The term `supply' means, using the latest official data of the Bureau of the Census, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Treasury-- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (I) the carry-over of upland cotton at the beginning of the marketing year (adjusted to 480-pound bales) in which the quota is established; ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (II) production of the current crop; and ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (III) imports to the latest date available during the marketing year. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (ii) DEMAND- The term `demand' means-- ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (I) the average seasonally adjusted annual rate of domestic mill consumption during the most recent 3 months for which data are available; and ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (II) the larger of-- ][<-Struck out] [Struck out->][ (aa) average exports of upland cotton during the preceding 6 marketing years; or ][<-Struck out]
[Struck out->][ (bb) cumulative exports of upland cotton plus outstanding export sales for the marketing year in which the quota is established. ][<-Struck out]
- [Struck out->]
[ (iii) LIMITED GLOBAL IMPORT QUOTA- The term `limited global import quota' means a quantity of imports that is not subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (E) QUOTA ENTRY PERIOD- When a quota is established under this subsection, cotton may be entered under the quota during the 90-day period beginning on the date the quota is established by the Secretary. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (2) NO OVERLAP- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a quota period may not be established that overlaps an existing quota period or a special quota period established under subsection (b). ][<-Struck out]-
SECTION 14 OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT
SEC. 14. REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURAL MEASURES NEAR, AT, OR PAST THEIR EVALUATED LIFE EXPECTANCY.
- (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (h) FUNDING-
- (1) FUNDS OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION- In carrying out this section, of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available [Struck out->]
[ , to remain available until expended ][<-Struck out] --- (A) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (E) [Struck out->]
[ $65,000,000 ][<-Struck out] $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and* * * * * * *
-
FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--CONSERVATION
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE D--AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--CONSERVATION SECURITY AND FARMLAND PROTECTION
SUBCHAPTER A--CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1238A. CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM.
- (a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish and, for each of fiscal years 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 ][<-Struck out] 2011, carry out a conservation security program to assist producers of agricultural operations in promoting, as is applicable with respect to land to be enrolled in the program, conservation and improvement of the quality of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and any other conservation purposes, as determined by the Secretary.* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Funding and Administration
SEC. 1241. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.
- (a) IN GENERAL- [Struck out->]
[ For ][<-Struck out] Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the following programs under subtitle D (including the provision of technical assistance):- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (3) The conservation security program under subchapter A of chapter 2, using [Struck out->]
[ not more than $6,037,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2014. ][<-Struck out] not more than--- (A) $2,213,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010; and
- (B) $5,729,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2015.
* * * * * * *
-
SECTION 524 OF THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT
SEC. 524. EDUCATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
- (a) * * *
- (b) AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE-
- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (4) COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION-
- (A) * * *
- (B) FUNDING-
- (i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), the Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available to carry out this subsection not less than $10,000,000 for each fiscal year, except fiscal years 2007 through 2010.
- (ii) EXCEPTION- For each of fiscal years 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 ][<-Struck out] 2006, the Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available to carry out this subsection $20,000,000.- (iii) CERTAIN USES- Of the amounts made available to carry out this subsection for each of fiscal years 2004 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 ][<-Struck out] 2006 the Commodity Credit Corporation shall use not less than--- (I) * * *
* * * * * * *
-
SECTION 601 OF THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ACT OF 1936
SEC. 601. ACCESS TO BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS.
- (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (j) FUNDING-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available to carry out this section--
- (A) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005 [Struck out->]
[ , to remain available until expended ][<-Struck out] ; and- (B) $10,000,000 [Struck out->]
[ for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, to remain available until expended ][<-Struck out] for fiscal year 2006.* * * * * * *
-
SECTION 231 OF THE AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
SEC. 231. VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
- (a) * * *
- (b) GRANT PROGRAM-
- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (4) FUNDING- Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, on October 1, 2002, and on each October 1 thereafter through [Struck out->]
[ October 1, 2006 ][<-Struck out] October 1, 2005, of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available to carry out this subsection $40,000,000 [Struck out->][ , to remain available until expended ][<-Struck out] .* * * * * * *
-
CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle H--Rural Business Investment Program
* * * * * * *
SEC. 384S. FUNDING.
- [Struck out->]
[ (a) IN GENERAL- ][<-Struck out] Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available--- (1) such sums as may be necessary through fiscal year 2006 for the cost of guaranteeing $280,000,000 of debentures under this subtitle; and
- (2) $44,000,000 to make grants under this subtitle.
- [Struck out->]
[ (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- Funds transferred under subsection (a) shall remain available until expended. ][<-Struck out]* * * * * * *
Subtitle I--Rural Strategic Investment Program
* * * * * * *
SEC. 385E. RURAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
- (a) IN GENERAL- If the Secretary approves a national strategic investment plan submitted by the National Board, of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall transfer to the National Board $100,000,000 [Struck out->]
[ , to remain available until expended, ][<-Struck out] for the Board to use to make planning grants and innovation grants to Regional Boards and to otherwise carry out this subtitle.* * * * * * *
-
SECTION 401 OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998
SEC. 401. INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS.
* * * * * * *
- (b) FUNDING-
- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (3) OTHER FUNDING- Out of funds in the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall transfer to the Account--
- (A) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (D) on October 1, [Struck out->]
[ 2006 ][<-Struck out] 2009, and each October 1 thereafter, $200,000,000.* * * * * * *
- (f) ADMINISTRATION-
- (1) * * *
* * * * * * *
- [Struck out->]
[ (6) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- Funds for grants under this section shall be available to the Secretary for obligation for a 2-year period. ][<-Struck out]- (6) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS-
- (A) TWO-YEAR AVAILABILITY- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), funds for grants under this section shall be available to the Secretary for obligation for a 2-year period beginning on the date of the transfer of the funds under subsection (b).
- (B) EXCEPTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 TRANSFER- In the case of the funds required to be transferred by subsection (b)(3)(C), the funds shall be available to the Secretary for obligation for the 1-year period beginning on October 1, 2005.
* * * * * * *
-
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1977
* * * * * * *
ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
- SEC. 5. (a) Participation in the food stamp program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act except sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g) and section 3(i)(4), households in which each member [Struck out->]
[ receives benefits ][<-Struck out] in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 receives cash assistance, and in any other fiscal year receives benefits, under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act, or aid to the aged, blind, or disabled under title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act, shall be eligible to participate in the food stamp program. Except for sections 6, 16(e)(1), and section 3(i)(4), households in which each member receives benefits under a State or local general assistance program that complies with standards established by the Secretary for ensuring that the program is based on income criteria comparable to or more restrictive than those under subsection (c)(2), and not limited to one-time emergency payments that cannot be provided for more than one consecutive month, shall be eligible to participate in the food stamp program. Assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application for such participation.* * * * * * *
- (j) Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (i), a State agency shall consider a household member who receives supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382 et seq.), aid to the aged, blind, or disabled under title I, II, X, XIV, or XVI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), or who [Struck out->]
[ receives benefits ][<-Struck out] in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 receives cash assistance, and in any other fiscal year receives benefits, under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to have satisfied the resource limitations prescribed under subsection (g).* * * * * * *
ADMINISTRATION
- SEC. 11. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (t) GRANTS FOR SIMPLE APPLICATION AND ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION SYSTEMS AND IMPROVED ACCESS TO BENEFITS-
- (1) IN GENERAL- For each of fiscal years 2003 through [Struck out->]
[ 2007 ][<-Struck out] 2011, the Secretary shall use not more than $5,000,000 of funds made available under section 18(a)(1) to make grants to pay 100 percent of the costs of eligible entities approved by the Secretary to carry out projects to develop and implement--- (A) * * *
* * * * * * *
ADMINISTRATIVE COST-SHARING AND QUALITY CONTROL
- SEC. 16. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
- (h) FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS-
- (1) IN GENERAL-
- (A) AMOUNTS- To carry out employment and training programs, the Secretary shall reserve for allocation to State agencies, to remain available until expended, from funds made available for each fiscal year under section 18(a)(1) the amount of--
- <