|
To Members of the NASULGC System:
- Board on Agriculture Assembly
- Budget and Advocacy Committee
- Council on Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching
- Council on Governmental Affairs
Another month has come and gone and yet there remains much
uncertainty in the F.Y. 2008 congressional appropriations
process. And, markups of the Agriculture Appropriations bill have
been postponed until after the Independence Day recess.
Process Developments:
Earmarks. As you will recall from our last report, House
Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey (D-WI) announced
that no earmarks would be included within any of the
appropriations bills. Instead, Obey said, the earmarks would be
inserted when the House bills were eventually reconciled with
the Senate bills during the joint House-Senate conference
committee stage.
Obey's plan changed when many other members objected to a lack
of transparency. The shift in process required most
appropriations bills to be sent back to committee so that
earmarks could be inserted. This has caused major delays in the
process, as the House Appropriations clerks have struggled both
to vet individual earmark requests and meet Obey's
general direction to limit earmarks to approximately one-half of
their F.Y. 2006 levels.
Agriculture Appropriations:
House Markups.
The House has postponed the Agriculture Appropriations bill
markup until after the 10-day July 4th recess, which began
on June 28. The current schedule calls for the House
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to markup the bill
on July 12, with the full committee markup likely to occur
the following week. Presumably, the bill would be on the
House floor sometime during the last week of July, but that
is not assured.
Senate Markups. The Senate subcommittee markup of the
Agriculture Appropriations bill is tentatively scheduled for
July 17, with full committee markup two days later. However,
the bill is not expected to reach the Senate floor before
Congress adjourns for its month-long August recess (on or
about August 3rd).
Details Not Available. As always, details of the
subcommittees' likely outcomes for CSREES and other agencies
are being kept under tight wraps. However, as reported last
month, we are receiving signals that indicate another
"extremely tight" year. (For example, although the
administration requested a $218 million increase for the
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, nutrition groups
estimate that food cost increases in recent months will
require an increase of about $500 in the WIC program).
So, stay tuned, we'll keep you posted.
The Cornerstone Team
|
