57–418 PDF 

Calendar No. 464 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–221 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011 

JULY 15, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. KOHL, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3606] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3606) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2011 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate ....................$132,053,999,000 

Amount of 2010 appropriations ............................... 121,570,814,000 

Amount of 2011 budget estimate ............................ 132,028,200,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2010 appropriations .......................................... ∂10,483,185,000 

2011 budget estimate ........................................ ∂25,799,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Breakdown by Title ................................................................................................. 4 

Summary of the Bill: 

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

Reports to Congress .......................................................................................... 5 

Title I: 

Agricultural Programs: 

Production, Processing, and Marketing: 

Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 6 

Office of Tribal Relations ................................................................... 7 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative ................................................... 7 

Executive Operations ......................................................................... 7 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................. 9 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................. 10 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ........................... 10 

Office of Civil Rights .......................................................................... 11 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ...................... 11 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments ........... 12 

Hazardous Materials Management .................................................. 12 

Departmental Administration ........................................................... 13 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ....... 13 

Office of Communications .................................................................. 14 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 14 

Office of the General Counsel ........................................................... 15 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .............................................................................................. 15 

Economic Research Service ............................................................... 16 

National Agricultural Statistics Service .......................................... 16 

Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 17 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 22 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................................... 31 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................. 32 

Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................ 37 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............ 40 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ................................. 41 

Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................. 41 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services ............................................................................................ 43 

Farm Service Agency ......................................................................... 44 

Risk Management Agency ................................................................. 48 

Corporations: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund ...................................... 48 

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ............................................... 49 

Title II: 

Conservation Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ........................................................................................................ 51 

Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets .............................................. 52 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................ 52 

Title III: 

Rural Development Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ........................... 57 

Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 58 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service ...................................................... 66 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Rural Development Programs—Continued 

Rural Energy for America Program ......................................................... 70 

Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 71 

Title IV: 

Domestic Food Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 

Services ................................................................................................... 77 

Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................... 77 

Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural Service .......................................................................................................................... 85 

Title VI: 

Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration: 

Food and Drug Administration ................................................................ 90 

Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 98 

Title VII: General Provisions .................................................................................. 100 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 103 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 103 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 104 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 104 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 106 

Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 106 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 117 
(4) 

BREAKDOWN BY TITLE 

The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven titles 

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

comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations 

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

[In thousands of dollars] 

2010 2011 Committee 

recommendation 

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 30,191,573 30,259,695 

Title II: Conservation programs .................................................................................. 1,009,415 1,045,504 

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 2,934,309 2,767,584 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 82,782,603 94,051,710 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 2,089,499 2,129,010 

Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................. 2,357,089 2,516,282 

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ ¥193,674 ¥715,786 

Other appropriations (discretionary) ........................................................................... 400,000 ..............................

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 121,570,814 132,053,999 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

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

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

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

and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural 

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

The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for administrative 

expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA]. 

Given the competing priorities that the Committee faces, the bill 

as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural 

and rural development programs and on other programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the subcommittee’s allocation 

for fiscal year 2011. 

All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure 

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

programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications for the 

funding levels are included in the report. The Committee provides 

full pay costs, as requested by the President, for agencies under the 

jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and 

loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects the 

Department only to approve those applications judged meritorious 

when subjected to the established review process. 

REPORTS TO CONGRESS 

The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies 

to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee 

utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make 

decisions on future appropriations. The Committee requests that 

all studies and reports be provided as one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120 days after the date of 

enactment, unless an alternative submission schedule is specifically stated in the report request. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 5,936,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,338,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary, 

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

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

President and Members of Congress on all matters pertaining to 

agricultural policy. 

The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,338,000 for 

the Office of the Secretary. 

Animal Fighting.—The Committee is very concerned about reports of illegal animal fighting activities and directs the Secretary 

to work with relevant agencies on the most effective and proper 

means for investigating and enforcing laws and regulations regarding these activities. 

Global Food Security.—The Committee continues its strong support of work toward the goal of global food security. This bill includes a number of programs designed to assist in that effort including continuing last year’s increased level of spending for the 

McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program and the flagship Public Law 480 program. In addition, the Committee includes 

$10,000,000 in this bill to allow the Secretary to utilize the expertise of USDA and associated organizations such as land grant universities, to assist in the establishment and growth of sustainable 

food systems in developing countries. The Committee believes that 

progress such as this will contribute greatly to reducing the threat 

of chronic and acute hunger and to improve both national and 

international security and stability. 
7 

OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,025,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,010,000 

The Office of Tribal Relations will interact with USDA program 

agencies to understand pending actions that may affect Indian 

tribes. This interaction and programmatic knowledge will improve 

USDA’s ability to conduct consultation activities, thereby better addressing the needs of USDA tribal constituents and improving relationships. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,010,000 for 

the Office of Tribal Relations. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $35,000,000 

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

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative will promote a range of 

interventions that expand access to nutritious foods, including developing and equipping grocery stores and other small businesses 

and retailers selling healthy food in communities that currently 

lack these options. This initiative will help reduce the number of 

food deserts over the next several years and will create new markets for farmers in an effort to revitalize distressed communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 for 

the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. 

The Committee recognizes the difficulty of obtaining nutritious 

food products in many communities, especially in rural communities where retail outlets may be located at a significant distance 

making access by rural residents problematic and expensive. The 

Committee provides a direct appropriation of $15,000,000 and also 

allows a reserve of up to $15,000,000 in available funds for a total 

amount of $30,000,000 for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative in 

fiscal year 2011. Because of the need to assist rural populations in 

access to nutritious food, and because rural business and community development (which will serve as the catalyst for better food 

access) is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, 

these funds are to focus on improving product access in rural 

America. The Committee also expects this initiative to benefit 

farmers through the creation of new retail markets in rural and 

non-rural areas. The Secretary is directed to submit a report to the 

Committee by March 1, 2011 on the approach and status of implementing this activity. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

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

policy officials and selected departmentwide services. Activities 
8 

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

Advocacy and Outreach. 

CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $13,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 13,175,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,100,000 

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

programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for the Nation’s economic intelligence and analysis, risk assessment, and costbenefit analysis related to domestic and international food and agriculture issues, provides policy direction for renewable energy development, conducts analyses of climate change impacts on agriculture and forestry, and is responsible for coordination and review 

of all commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data 

used to develop outlook and situation material within the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,100,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Economist. 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $15,254,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 15,424,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,424,000 

The National Appeals Division conducts administrative hearings 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,424,000 for 

the National Appeals Division. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $9,436,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 9,547,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,547,000 

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction 

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

related implications; analyzes program and resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of pertinent data to aid the 

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program 

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

and interested public. The Office also provides departmentwide co-
9 

ordination of the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative programs and reports. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,547,000 for 

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,859,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,876,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,876,000 

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

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

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

Security, and other Federal departments and agencies involving 

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

activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,876,000 for 

the Office of Homeland Security. 

OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 7,009,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,709,000 

The purpose of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach is to increase the accessibility of USDA programs to underserved constituents. The Office would oversee the Office of Small Farms Coordination and the Advisory Committee for Beginning Farmers and 

Ranchers. In addition, the Office would coordinate the activities of 

various USDA programs and agencies that have as a mission purpose the provision of assistance to underserved constituents and 

would generally encourage and advocate for full participation by all 

Americans in USDA programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,709,000 for 

the Office of Advocacy and Outreach. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $61,579,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 63,719,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,719,000 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in 

August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the ClingerCohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This office provides 

policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the Department’s information management and information technology 
10 

investment activities in support of USDA program delivery, and is 

the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. The Office provides longrange planning guidance, implements measures to ensure that 

technology investments are economical and effective, coordinates 

interagency information resources management projects, and implements standards to promote information exchange and technical 

interoperability. In addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for certain activities financed under the Department’s Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides telecommunication and automated data processing [ADP] 

services to USDA agencies through the National Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins, Colorado, and Kansas 

City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided 

to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of Communications, the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Operations. 

On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of the 

Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT organization within the office of the Chief Information Officer; this converged organization is named Information Technology Services and 

replaces a network of cross-agency teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within the SCA and allows for unified 

management of the IT infrastructure. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,719,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount includes 

an increase of $2,000,000 for cyber security, as requested. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $6,566,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 6,632,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,632,000 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the 

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

heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management, 

accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and performance measurement activities within the Department. The Office is also responsible for the management and operation of the National Finance 

Center and the Departmental Working Capital Fund. In addition, 

the Office provides accounting and fiscal services to the Office of 

the Secretary, Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, and Executive Operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,632,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 907,000 
11 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights provides 

oversight of civil rights and related functions. This includes coordination of the administration of civil rights laws and regulations for 

employees of the Department of Agriculture and participants in 

programs of the Department, and ensuring compliance with civil 

rights laws. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $907,000 for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $23,922,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 24,133,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,133,000 

The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities. These activities 

include employment opportunity as well as program non-discrimination policy development, analysis, coordination, and compliance. 

The Office is responsible for providing leadership in facilitating the 

fair and equitable treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] 

employees, and for monitoring program activities to ensure that all 

USDA programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The 

Office’s outreach functions provide leadership, coordination, facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners to ensure 

equal and timely access to USDA programs for all constituents, 

with emphasis on the underserved, through information sharing, 

technical assistance, and training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,133,000 for 

the Office of Civil Rights. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $806,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 828,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 814,000 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration directs 

and coordinates the work of the departmental management offices 

in carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real 

and personal property management, personnel management, ethics, 

and other general administrative functions. In addition, the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for certain activities financed under the Department’s Working Capital 

Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,000 for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 
12 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $293,093,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 277,937,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 269,191,000 

Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building 

Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in 

leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. Annual 

appropriations finance payments to the General Services Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services. Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs D.C. complex 

buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major nonrecurring 

repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates pursuant to the Public 

Buildings Amendments of 1972, and agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to appeal. For the last several years the 

Department has implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff 

more efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $269,191,000 for 

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments. The 

Committee recommendation includes increases of $300,000 for payments to the Department of Homeland Security, $3,400,000 for repair and maintenance priorities, and $5,600,000 for renovation of 

the South Building. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 2010 

and budget request levels: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2010 enacted 2011 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Rental Payments ........................................................................................ 184,812 178,470 178,470 

Building Operations ................................................................................... 94,781 85,667 76,921 

DHS Building Security ................................................................................ 13,500 13,800 13,800 

Total .............................................................................................. 293,093 277,937 269,191 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,125,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 5,139,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,139,000 

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

standards regarding the storage and disposition of hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is required to contain, 

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

under the Department’s jurisdiction. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,139,000 for 

Hazardous Materials Management. 
13 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $41,319,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 30,706,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,706,000 

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

coordination of administrative functions of the Department. These 

activities include departmentwide programs for human resource 

management, ethics, occupational safety and health management, 

real and personal property management, procurement, contracting, 

motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply management, 

emergency preparedness, small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings 

conducted by the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. 

Departmental Administration is also responsible for representing 

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

addition, Departmental Administration engages in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-wide compliance 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,706,000 for 

Departmental Administration. 

Acquisition Workforce.—The Committee recommends a general provision that provides $1,000,000 to improve the capacity and capabilities of the Department’s acquisition workforce. If the Secretary intends to continue this effort in fiscal year 2012, the Committee strongly suggests that the budget request include information describing any evidence of deficiencies in the Department’s 

current acquisition activities and detail the manner in which a specific appropriations request is calculated. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $3,968,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,081,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,008,000 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations 

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

in the development and implementation of policies and procedures 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,008,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. 

The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to support 

congressional relations’ activities at the agency level. Within 30 
14 

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

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the allocation 

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

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

years funded by these transfers. 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $9,722,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 9,839,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,839,000 

The Office of Communications provides direction, leadership, and 

coordination in the development and delivery of useful information 

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

serves as the liaison between the Department and the many associations and organizations with an interest in USDA’s mission 

areas. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,839,000 for 

the Office of Communications. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $88,725,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 90,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 89,744,000 

The Office of Inspector General was established October 12, 

1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–452). 

This act expanded and provided specific authorities for the activities of the Office of Inspector General which had previously been 

carried out under the general authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports 

directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and responsibilities of this Office include direction and control of audit and investigative activities within the Department, formulation of audit and 

investigative policies and procedures regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and coordination of programrelated audit and investigation activities performed by other Department agencies. 

The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance 

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

means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred. 

The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes 

administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $89,744,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. In addition, the recommendation 

includes the fiscal year 2010 level for OIG to continue to address 
15 

violations of section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) 

and to coordinate with State and local law enforcement personnel 

in this effort. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $43,551,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 45,654,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,104,000 

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

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

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before 

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

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

judicial proceedings and litigation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,104,000 for 

the Office of the General Counsel. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 920,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 904,000 

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

Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural research, 

education, extension, and economic and statistical information. The 

Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for the 

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

Herbicide Resistance.—The Committee directs USDA to engage 

with farmers, land grant universities, State departments of agriculture, and the private sector to identify issues and to develop solutions related to herbicide resistance that are practicable, cost-effective, and minimize environmental impacts. The Chief Scientist 

shall provide the Committee with a report, which should include 

details on USDA’s research on herbicide resistance to date, a future 

research agenda, and outreach efforts undertaken in carrying out 

this directive. 
16 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $82,478,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 87,171,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 83,671,000 

The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and 

other social science information and analysis for public and private 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,671,000 for 

the ERS. The Committee recommendation includes increases of 

$1,500,000 to improve user access to statistical data provided by 

ERS; $1,000,000 for economic research on the access to affordable 

and nutritious food by low-income communities; $990,000 for data 

integrity measures; and assumes all savings proposed in the budget 

request. The Committee recommendation also includes $500,000 for 

continuation of the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $161,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 164,721,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 163,721,000 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] administers 

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

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

of the agricultural sector which are essential for making effective 

policy, production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 

statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support 

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

training to developing countries. 

NASS is also responsible for administration of the Census of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive 

data on the agricultural economy including: data on the number of 

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

land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of farm operators, 

market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major 

crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation practices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $163,721,000 for 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The Committee recommendation includes increases of $4,000,000 to enhance the annual county estimates program; $500,000 to begin a comprehensive 

data series on organic production, handling and distribution; and 

$800,000 to enhance remote sensing activities. Included in this 

amount is $33,494,000 for the Census of Agriculture. 
17 

Chemical Use Data Series.—The Committee believes that the 

Chemical Use Data Series provides timely, valuable information on 

fertilizer and chemical user data on major field crops and selected 

specialty crops, and is pleased that NASS is continuing the collection and analysis of chemical use data, as well as practices such 

as integrated pest management. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,179,639,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,199,669,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,216,825,000 

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

and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental conditions. 

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

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

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

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

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

support for international programs, and scientific resources to the 

executive branch and Congress. 

The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and 

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

mission focuses on the development of technical information and 

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

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

agricultural products by observing practices that will maintain a 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,216,825,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service. 

The Committee recognizes the successful history of ARS, the premier in-house USDA research agency, and strongly supports ongoing research activities vital to protecting this Nation’s food supply, 
18 

environment, rural communities, and working toward energy independence. The Committee continues $13,286,000, for this purpose. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the President’s 

budget proposal regarding laboratory closures, and expects research to continue at those locations. The Committee directs the 

Secretary to evaluate the agency’s capital asset requirements for 

necessary coordination with ongoing and emerging research priorities. As part of this evaluation, ARS should provide opportunity for 

public comment in order to incorporate the priorities of all interested stakeholders, including ARS and other scientists, and users 

of ARS data. 

The Committee recommends the following increases, as re- quested in the budget: $6,130,000 for crop breeding and protection 

to enhance food production and security; $2,438,000 for research on 

improved breeding strategies and germplasm, and animal protection to enhance food production and security; $3,751,000 for increased food safety research; $2,293,000 for research aimed at reducing world hunger, including $793,000 to strengthen high priority grain disease research at St. Paul, Minnesota; $675,000 for 

increased research on human nutrition; $5,000,000 for Regional 

Biofuels Feedstocks Research and Demonstration Centers; 

$1,625,000 for research on global climate change, including 

$1,293,000 at Auburn, Alabama, to increase the resilience of crops 

and production systems to the stresses of climate change and 

weather extremes, and $332,000 at Oxford, Mississippi, for research on mitigating the effects of climate change through improved water management; $250,000 for research on colony collapse disorder; and $500,000 on research regarding locally grown 

foods. 

Bioenergy and Sustainable Agriculture.—The Committee recognizes the constraints placed upon the National Program Initiatives 

of Bioenergy/Biomass and Production Systems for Sustainable Agriculture especially the availability and cost of energy, water, feed, 

fertilizer, and technology to control invasive pest species. The Committee provides $3,000,000 for research to mitigate these key constraints. 

Bioenergy Feedstock.—The Committee provides $500,000 to study 

new production practices and systems that can maximize yield of 

high quality feedstock. 

Cattle Production Systems.—The Committee provides an increase 

of $500,000 to develop management practices that improve the production efficiency of cattle grazing operations in temperate pastures. 

Childhood Health and Obesity.—The Committee is concerned 

about the high rates of obesity in this country, and the medical 

issues obesity brings, and believes that prevention of childhood obesity is an important step in reducing overall obesity rates. Therefore, the Committee includes an increase of $1,000,000 for research 

regarding what nutrients and dietary factors are needed to optimize infant and child development, and what infants should be fed 

to reduce childhood diseases and diseases they will experience later 

as adults. 

Diversified Rice Farming Techniques.—The Committee includes 

an increase of $400,000, as requested in the budget, for develop-
19 

ment of diversified rice farming techniques, as part of the overall 

increase provided for crop breeding and protection to enhance food 

production and security. 

Human Nutrition Research.—Of the funds provided to restore Human Nutrition Research, the Committee directs that $350,000 

go to Boston, MA; $300,000 go to Houston, TX; and $1,000,000 go 

to Kannapolis, NC. 

Infectious Livestock Diseases.—The Committee recognizes the 

need to continue research on infectious livestock diseases. The 

Committee provides $1,750,000 for expanded research on the 

emerging serotype of Bluetongue virus and zoonotic Rift Valley 

Fever virus to develop countermeasures and control insect vectors. 

Invasive Weeds Management.—The Committee is aware of problems associated with invasive weeds and rangeland degradation in 

the Western Great Basin. The Committee recommendation includes 

an increase of $500,000 to provide solutions and management practices for controlling invasive species and restoring ecosystem structure and function. 

Peanut Genome Mapping.—The Committee provides $750,000 to 

map and sequence the peanut genome and to develop molecular 

markers to aid in marker-assisted variety development. 

Pear Genetics and Genomics.—The Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to provide a report detailing specifically 

its year-by-year plans to locate and allocate resources including 

staff, facilities and equipment for pear genetics and genomics 

throughout the Agricultural Research Service. This report should 

also provide an estimate of how long it will take to meet the goals 

of the Pyrus plant improvement roadmap, including funding requirements necessary to meet the terms of that roadmap. 

Pulse Health Initiative.—The Committee recognizes the need to 

investigate the ability of pulse crops—dry beans, dry peas, lentils, 

and chickpeas—to provide solutions to critical health issues including but not limited to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and 

cancer; and to increase the consumption of pulse crops by improving their functionality in baked goods and end use as a food and 

food ingredient through the study of milling, extrusion, extraction, 

and cooking properties. The Committee also recognizes the potential to improve the sustainability of agricultural rotations and reduce green house gas emissions by improving the nitrogen fixing 

abilities of pulse crops. The Committee recommends ARS provide 

adequate funding to establish the Pulse Health Initiative. 

Research Partnerships.—The Committee is aware of ARS efforts 

to accelerate the adoption of Federal agricultural research and 

technology innovations through Federal/private sector partnerships 

with Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership intermediaries. The Committee provides $250,000 to establish one or 

more demonstration projects with the Mississippi Technology Alliance as a pilot for the commercialization of science-based agricultural technologies from Federal laboratories. 

Sugarcane.—The Committee supports efforts to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane producers through the expansion of 

valuable non-sugar byproducts and the development of pest and 

disease protection for viable diversified agricultural crops and encourages ARS to provide additional funding for this purpose. 
20 

Sustainable Natural Resource and Crop Management Practices.— The Committee recognizes the opportunity to improve the sustainability of farm operations through improvements in soil and water 

quality and diversification of farm products and income. Research 

is needed to develop natural resource and crop management practices to integrate trees and/or shrubs with crops/livestock at the 

interface of the urban and rural landscape. The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to accelerate efforts to develop 

land use systems and new conservation tools to support the longterm future of rural and urban working farms and landscapes. 

Upper Midwest Water Research.—The Committee is supportive of 

the ongoing research collaboration between ARS and the Great 

Lakes Water Institute and the Milwaukee Water Council regarding 

the production of yellow perch, whose populations have decreased 

significantly in recent years. The Committee believes that aquaculture research, specifically as it relates to the Great Lakes, 

should be increased, and that ARS should expand the work it is 

doing in collaboration with the Great Lakes Water Institute and 

the Milwaukee Water Council. 

The following is a list of congressionally designated projects: 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

Committee 

recommendation 

Aquaculture Fisheries Center; Stuttgart, AR ................................................................................................... $519,000 

Biomass Crop Production; Brookings, SD ........................................................................................................ 1,250,000 

Bioremediation Research; Beltsville, MD ......................................................................................................... 111,000 

Biotechnology Research and Development Center; Headquarters ................................................................... 3,500,000 

Computer Vision Engineer; Kearneysville, WV ................................................................................................. 400,000 

Dairy Forage Research Center; Madison, WI ................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center; Booneville, AR ........................................................................ 1,805,000 

Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research; New Orleans, LA .................................................................................. 623,000 

Endophyte Research; Booneville, AR ................................................................................................................ 994,000 

Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus Disease Management; Prosser, WA ................................................ 200,000 

Formosan Subterranean Termites; New Orleans, LA ....................................................................................... 3,490,000 

Human Nutrition Research; Boston, MA; Houston, TX; Kannapolis, NC .......................................................... 1,650,000 

National Center for Agricultural Law; Beltsville, MD ...................................................................................... 654,000 

Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory; Mandan, ND .............................................................................. 543,000 

Northwest Center for Small Fruits; Corvallis, OR ............................................................................................ 275,000 

Phytoestrogen Research; New Orleans, LA ...................................................................................................... 1,750,000 

Poultry Diseases; Beltsville, MD ...................................................................................................................... 408,000 

Sorghum Research; Little Rock, AR ................................................................................................................. 135,000 

Technology Transfer; Headquarters .................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Water Management Research Laboratory; Brawley, CA ................................................................................... 340,000 

Water Use Reduction; Dawson, GA .................................................................................................................. 1,200,000 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 22,597,000 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $70,873,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,000,000 

The ARS ‘‘Buildings and Facilities’’ account was established for 

the acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, or 

used by, the Agricultural Research Service. Routine construction or 

replacement items continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the regular account. 
21 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,000,000 for 

buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research Service. 

Modern research facilities are an important part of the ability of 

ARS to meet the objectives of its mission purpose, and the Committee recommends funding to ensure that modernization and upgrades of facilities are achieved. 

Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to recommend full funding to complete the construction of all ongoing 

projects. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities: 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Agricultural Research Center; Beltsville, MD .................................................................................................. 3,000 

Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT ........................................................................................................ 6,000 

Agricultural Research Center; Pullman, WA .................................................................................................... 5,000 

Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT ....................................................................................................... 3,000 

Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV ............................................................................................ 1,500 

ARS Biotechnology Lab; Lorman, MS ............................................................................................................... 2,000 

ARS Research and Development Center; Auburn, AL ...................................................................................... 6,000 

ARS Waste Management Research Facility; Bowling Green, KY ..................................................................... 5,000 

Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du Sac, WI ...................................................................... 1,000 

National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center; Orono, ME .......................................................................... 1,500 

Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center; Hilo, HI ...................................................................................... 5,000 

Sugarcane Research Laboratory; Houma, LA ................................................................................................... 1,000 

Systems Biology Research Facility; Lincoln, NE .............................................................................................. 4,000 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 44,000 

ARS Agroforestry Research Center.—The Committee directs that 

funds appropriated to date for the National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, Missouri, be used to design and construct 

the ARS Agroforestry Research Center and a headhouse/greenhouse complex for plant physiology and genetics research. The 

Agroforestry Research Center shall be named the Dr. H.E. Gene 

Garrett Agroforestry Center. 

Bay Springs Research Facility Prospectus.—The Committee directs the agency to provide a prospectus on the construction of a 

research facility at Bay Springs, Mississippi. The prospectus shall, 

at a minimum, include the following information: the feasibility, requirements, and scope of the proposed project; details on the building size, cost, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements; and details on the existing and planned research program and associated resource requirements. 

San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Science Center.—The Committee 

is aware that there are funds remaining in the San Joaquin Valley 

Agricultural Science Center, Parlier, California, design and construction account and that the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural 

Science Center could benefit from the acquisition of additional land 

to support their research mission. The Committee directs ARS to 

use these remaining funds for site acquisition in support of the re-
22 

search mission at the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Science Center. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 

1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be known as the 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA]. The Secretary 

transferred to NIFA, effective October 1, 2009, any and all other 

authorities administered by the Administrator of the Cooperative 

State, Research, Education and Extension Service. The mission is 

to work with university partners and customers to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human sciences to 

benefit people, communities, and the Nation. 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $788,243,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 838,729,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 780,720,000 

Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are 

USDA’s principal entre ́e to the university system of the United 

States for the purpose of conducting agricultural research and education programs as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a–361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry 

Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.); the Competitive, 

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

450i); the National Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 

note); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 

Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–624); 

the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 

107–171); and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110–246). Through these authorities, USDA participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and assist the 

State institutions in the conduct of agricultural research and education through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 

50 States and the territories; by approved Schools of Forestry; the 

1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University and West 

Virginia State University; 1994 Land-Grant Institutions; by Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; and other eligible institutions. The 

appropriated funds provide Federal support for research and education programs at these institutions. 

The research and education programs participate in a nationwide 

system of agricultural research program planning and coordination 

among the State institutions, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 

the agricultural industry of America. 
23 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $780,720,000 for 

research and education activities of the National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for research and education activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

Committee recommendation 

Hatch Act ........................................................................................................................................................... $215,000,000 

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program ................................................................................. 29,000,000 

Evans-Allen program (1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University) .................... 48,500,000 

Animal Health and Disease Research ............................................................................................................... 2,950,000 

Special Research Grants: 

Advanced Genetic Technologies (KY) ........................................................................................................ 650,000 

Advancing Biofuel Production (TX) ........................................................................................................... 300,000 

Aegilops Cylindrica (Jointed Goatgrass/Biomass) (WA) ............................................................................ 200,000 

Agricultural Diversification (HI) ................................................................................................................ 153,000 

Agricultural Science (OH) .......................................................................................................................... 450,000 

Air quality (TX, KS) ................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Animal Science Food Safety Consortium (AR, IA, KS) .............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Aquaculture (LA) ....................................................................................................................................... 150,000 

Aquaculture (MS) ...................................................................................................................................... 337,000 

Avian Bioscience (DE) ............................................................................................................................... 150,000 

Barley for Rural Development (ID, MT) ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

Biodesign and Bioprocessing (VA) ............................................................................................................ 211,000 

Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration (TN) ........................................................................... 500,000 

Biomass-based Energy Research (OK, MS) .............................................................................................. 839,000 

Bioresource Land Use Planning Project (KY) ............................................................................................ 671,000 

Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance (NM) ............................................ 168,000 

Center for Food, Nutrition and Obesity (WV) ............................................................................................ 550,000 

Center for One Medicine (IL) .................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Center for Multi-Functional Prairie Agriculture (SD) ................................................................................ 700,000 

Center for Rural Studies (VT) ................................................................................................................... 350,000 

Childhood Obesity and Nutrition (VT) ....................................................................................................... 250,000 

Cool season legume research (ID, ND, WA) ............................................................................................. 350,000 

Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality (GA) ................................................................................. 346,000 

Cranberry/Blueberry (MA) .......................................................................................................................... 152,000 

Cranberry/Blueberry Disease & Breeding (NJ) .......................................................................................... 522,000 

Crop Diversification and Biofuel Research and Education (KY) .............................................................. 525,000 

Dairy and Meat Goat Research (TX) ......................................................................................................... 200,000 

Dairy Farm Profitability (PA) ..................................................................................................................... 372,000 

Delta Revitalization Project (MS) .............................................................................................................. 176,000 

Drought Mitigation (NE) ............................................................................................................................ 600,000 

Efficient irrigation (NM, TX) ...................................................................................................................... 575,000 

Emerald Ash Borer (OH) ............................................................................................................................ 522,000 

Environmentally Safe Products (VT) ......................................................................................................... 250,000 

Floriculture (HI) ......................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO, NV) .................................................................. 1,213,000 

Food & Fuel Initiative (IA) ........................................................................................................................ 298,000 

Forages for Advancing Livestock Production (KY) .................................................................................... 473,000 

Fresh Produce Food Safety (CA) ............................................................................................................... 750,000 

Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease 

(MS) ...................................................................................................................................................... 797,000 

Global Change, UV–Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 1,750,000 

Grain Sorghum (KS) .................................................................................................................................. 1,250,000 

Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture (OR, WA) ..................................................... 142,000 

Human Nutrition (LA) ................................................................................................................................ 526,000 

Illinois Plant Breeding Center (IL) ............................................................................................................ 617,000 

Inland Marine Aquaculture (VA) ............................................................................................................... 380,000 

Infectious Disease Research (CO) ............................................................................................................ 617,000 

Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR) ..................................................................................... 500,000 
24 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Committee 

recommendation 

Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems 

(IN) ........................................................................................................................................................ 188,000 

Leopold Center Hypoxia Project (IA) .......................................................................................................... 100,000 

Livestock & Dairy Policy (NY) ................................................................................................................... 180,000 

Maple Research (VT) ................................................................................................................................. 165,000 

Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses (IN) .............................................................................................. 188,000 

Midwest Poultry Consortium (IA) .............................................................................................................. 250,000 

Milk Safety (PA) ........................................................................................................................................ 780,000 

Minor Use Animal Drugs ........................................................................................................................... 429,000 

National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium (CO, GA, NY) ........................................................ 655,000 

National Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability (AR) .............................................................. 175,000 

National Center for Soybean Technology (MO) ......................................................................................... 690,000 

Native Grassland and Sustainability (KS) ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering (NM) ..................................................................................... 199,000 

Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative (NV) ................................................................................................... 500,000 

New Century Farm (IA) .............................................................................................................................. 350,000 

New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture (MS) ...................................................... 654,000 

Organic Cropping (OR) .............................................................................................................................. 142,000 

Organic Cropping (WA) ............................................................................................................................. 264,000 

Pierce’s Disease and Invasive Pest Research (CA) .................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program (TX) .. 200,000 

Potato Research ........................................................................................................................................ 1,436,000 

Preharvest Food Safety (KS) ..................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Protein Utilization (IA) ............................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics (ID) ..................................................................................................... 300,000 

Renewable Energy and Products (ND) ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Rural Policies Research Institute (IA) ...................................................................................................... 755,000 

Russian Wheat Aphid (CO) ....................................................................................................................... 237,000 

Small Fruit Research (ID, OR, WA) ........................................................................................................... 285,000 

Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture (NM) ................................................................... 178,000 

Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium (NM) ......................................................................................... 350,000 

Soybean Cyst Nematode (MO) ................................................................................................................... 556,000 

Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources (VA) ....................................................... 237,000 

Sustainable Food and Bio-Energy Systems (MT) ...................................................................................... 305,000 

Sustainable Production and Processing Research for Lowbush Specialty Crops (ME) ........................... 200,000 

Sustainable Wheat Production and Food Security (SD) ........................................................................... 600,000 

Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management (LA) .......................................................................................... 180,000 

Tropical and Subtropical Research/T STAR (HI) ....................................................................................... 800,000 

Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project (MO) ................................................................................. 588,000 

Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars (WA) ...................................................................................................... 247,000 

Viticulture Consortium (CA) ...................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Water Conservation (KS) ........................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Wetland Plants (LA) .................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

Wheat Genetic Research (KS) ................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership (WY) ............................................................................ 300,000 

Wood Utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, WV) ................................................................... 4,841,000 

Total, Special Research Grants ............................................................................................................ 49,686,000 

Improved Pest Control: 

Expert IPM Decision Support System ........................................................................................................ 156,000 

Integrated Pest Management .................................................................................................................... 2,415,000 

Minor Crop Pest Management, IR–4 ........................................................................................................ 12,180,000 

Pest Management Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 1,434,000 

Total, Improved Pest Control ................................................................................................................ 16,185,000 

Critical Ag Materials Act of 1984 ..................................................................................................................... 1,083,000 

Aquaculture Centers, Section 1475 ................................................................................................................... 3,928,000 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education ............................................................................................. 15,000,000 

1994 Institutions Research Program ................................................................................................................. 1,805,000 

Supplemental and Alternative Crops, Section 1473 D ...................................................................................... 835,000 
25 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Committee 

recommendation 

AFRI .................................................................................................................................................................... 310,074,000 

Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Restoration (NM, TX, MT) ........................................................................... 983,000 

New Era Rural Technology Program .................................................................................................................. 875,000 

Farm Business Management and Benchmarking Program ............................................................................... 1,500,000 

Sun Grant Program ............................................................................................................................................ 2,250,000 

Federal Administration: 

Ag-based Industrial Lubricants (IA) ......................................................................................................... 405,000 

Agriculture Development in the American Pacific (HI) ............................................................................ 400,000 

Agriculture Technology Innovation, MD ..................................................................................................... 150,000 

Agriculture Waste Utilization (WV) ............................................................................................................ 500,000 

Applied Agriculture and Environment Research (CA) ............................................................................... 350,000 

Biofuels Research (VT) .............................................................................................................................. 100,000 

Biotechnology Research (MS) .................................................................................................................... 480,000 

Center for Dairy and Beef Excellence (PA) ............................................................................................... 340,000 

Clemson University Veterinary Institute (SC) ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Converting Agricultural Waste to Energy (KS) .......................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Cotton Research (TX) ................................................................................................................................ 200,000 

Council for Agriculture Science and Technology (IA) ............................................................................... 110,000 

Data Information System (REEIS) ............................................................................................................. 2,704,000 

Development of Biobased Chemicals and Materials from Agriculture Raw Materials (MI) .................... 125,000 

Electronic Grants Administration System ................................................................................................. 2,136,000 

Ethnobotanicals (MD) ................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Farmland Preservation (OH) ...................................................................................................................... 152,000 

Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of Central Florida .................................... 285,000 

International Center for Food Technology Development to Expand Markets (IL) ..................................... 450,000 

Kansas Advanced Biofuel Development .................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Kansas Center for Advanced Plant Design .............................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC (IA) .......................................................... 95,000 

Mississippi Valley State University ........................................................................................................... 1,002,000 

NE Center for Invasive Plants (CT, VT, ME) ............................................................................................. 295,000 

Office of Extramural Programs ................................................................................................................. 440,000 

Pay Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 5,826,000 

Peer Panels ............................................................................................................................................... 397,000 

Polymer Research (KS) .............................................................................................................................. 2,350,000 

Rural Systems (MS) .................................................................................................................................. 215,000 

Shrimp Aquaculture (MS) .......................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Law Center (VT) .......................................................... 343,000 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (OH) .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

Water Pollutants (WV) ............................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Total, Federal Administration ............................................................................................................... 28,650,000 

Higher Education: 

Graduate Fellowships Grants .................................................................................................................... 3,859,000 

Institution Challenge Grants ..................................................................................................................... 5,654,000 

1890s Institution Capacity Building Grants ............................................................................................. 18,250,000 

Multicultural Scholars ............................................................................................................................... 1,241,000 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program ........................................................................ 9,237,000 

Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program ................................................................................... 3,342,000 

Secondary/2-Year Post Secondary ............................................................................................................. 983,000 

Veterinary Medical Services Act ................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 

Alaska Native-Serving and Native-Hawaiian-Serving Institutions ........................................................... 3,200,000 

Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas ......................................................................................... 900,000 

Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas ........................................................................................... 750,000 

Total, Higher Education Grants ............................................................................................................ 52,416,000 

Total, Research and Education ............................................................................................................ 780,720,000 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $310,074,000 for the Agriculture and Food 
26 

Research Initiative [AFRI]. The Committee notes that programs 

previously funded through the Integrated Activities account are eligible for funding under AFRI. 

Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

specifies priority areas within the Agriculture and Food Research 

Initiative [AFRI], including an emphasis on conventional (classical) 

plant and animal breeding. The Committee strongly concurs with 

the intent of this section, and requests a report from the agency as 

to its plans for implementing the intent of this important conventional/classical plant and animal breeding requirement. 

Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee 

remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced 

human resources development in the agricultural and related 

sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee 

continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the competitive research grant funds be used for USDA’s agricultural research 

enhancement awards program (including USDA–EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i. 

Agriculture Policy Research.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $1,213,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy Institute, 

of which $340,000 shall be used to conduct analysis of rangeland, 

cattle, and hay with the University of Nevada-Reno. The Committee recommendation also includes $755,000 for the Rural Policies Research Institute. 

Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions 

Education Grants.—The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for 

grants to individual eligible institutions or consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, with grant funds to be awarded 

equally between Alaska and Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242. The Committee directs the agency to 

fully comply with the use of grant funds as authorized. 

Alternative Crops.—The Committee recommends $850,000 for alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research efforts 

on canola. The Committee understands that the United States does 

not produce enough canola to meet its consumption needs and encourages the Department to seek stakeholder input and to provide 

funds in a manner that reaches those areas most likely to see expansions in canola production. 

Community Food Projects.—The Committee expects the Department of Agriculture to consider as fully eligible for Community 

Food Project [CFP] grants any program that encourages the effective use of community resources to combat hunger and the root 

causes of hunger through the recovery of donated food, distribution 

of meals to nonprofit organizations, and the training of unemployed 

and underemployed adults for careers in food service. The Committee considers such programs to meet the requisite eligibility 

standards for CFP grants in that they meet the food needs of lowincome people, increase the self-reliance of communities in providing their own food needs, and plan for long-term solutions to address such needs. 

Floriculture and Tropical and Subtropical Research.—The Committee provides funding to carry out floriculture research in Hawaii 

and expects priorities of this activity (as defined by industry stakeholders) to include the maintenance and improvement of 
27 

germplasm of orchid, anthurium, and protea to derive and release 

new commercial varieties and continue research on disease resistance and insect control. The Committee also provides funding for 

tropical and subtropical research and supports the current mechanism of solicitation, recommendation and distribution of funds 

through the Pacific Basin and Caribbean Basin Administration 

Groups. 

Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.—The Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource research were an integral part of the National Research Initiative, 

the predecessor program to the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [AFRI]. As this program has grown, however, the allocation 

of AFRI funds by NIFA for research on forestry and related natural 

resource topics has fallen behind. In the future, the Committee directs the AFRI program administrator to put a greater emphasis 

on AFRI funding for forestry and natural resources topics with a 

goal of eventually providing at least 10 percent of the total funds 

provided for AFRI for forestry and natural resources related research on topics including: woody plant systems, including large 

scale efforts to sequence the genome for several economically important tree species, technologies for enhanced pest and disease resistance, and increased tree growth rates; management of complex 

forest ecosystems, including issues of forest health, productivity, 

economic sustainability, and restoration; assessing alternative 

management strategies, with emphasis on risk analysis, geospatial 

analysis including landscape implications, consideration of ecological services, providing decision support systems; and development 

of nanotechnology and biorefining technologies for the forest products sector as critical to enhancing global competitiveness and energy security. 

National Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability.—The 

Committee provides $175,000 for the National Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability and encourages the ERS, NRCS, 

RMA, and NIFA to cooperate with the Center in establishing national sustainability standards, measures, and protocols. 

Special Research Grants.—The Committee recognizes the vital 

relationships between Federal research activities and land grant 

institutions and firmly supports the importance of congressionally 

recognized research priorities. The Special Research Grants program was authorized by the Congress to promote research among 

these partners in specific areas of need to meet emerging and longterm national and regional challenges. 

The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the purpose of conducting research and related activities to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the food and agricultural sciences 

of the United States. The authorizing statute directs that these 

grants be provided through State-Federal partnerships to promote 

excellence of such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the development of regional research centers, and to generally 

support these activities among the States, the regions, and the Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can only be 

awarded if the proposed activity has undergone scientific peer re-
28 

view and that the grantee submit an annual report to the Secretary describing the results of the research or related activity and 

the merits of the results. 

Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants awarded 

under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth explanations of prospective research objectives, and an understanding that grantees 

should not expect indefinite fiscal assistance from the Committee 

under this authority. In addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to 

specific research projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on 

emerging important research priorities and result in a less efficient 

Federal investment in agricultural and related research. 

For fiscal year 2011, the Committee continues its responsibility 

of expressing congressional interest and intervention in setting research priorities through the investment of Federal funds. As the 

Committee has expressed in previous years, specific problems require specific objectives and specific attention. Therefore, the individual research activities described in this report are intended to 

accomplish the objectives set forth in this report and are not intended to extend into ongoing, long-term, indefinite research endeavors. The Secretary is encouraged to work with grantees to ensure that research conducted with these funds is set to achieve specific objectives and to refrain from undertaking research of an indefinite nature. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a 

report by March 1, 2011, regarding the status of grant awards for 

fiscal year 2011 and the specific objectives to be sought in each 

case. 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 11,880,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,880,000 

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 

by Public Law 103–382 provides an endowment for the 1994 landgrant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This program 

will enhance educational opportunity for Native Americans by 

building educational capacity at these institutions in the areas of 

student recruitment and retention, curricula development, faculty 

preparation, instruction delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. Income funds are also available for facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination 

of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 

the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, distribute 

the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income 

from these funds shall be distributed among the 1994 land-grant 

institutions on a pro rata basis, the proportionate share being 

based on the Indian student count; and 40 percent of the adjusted 

income shall be distributed in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant 

institutions. 
29 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000 for 

the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund. 

HISPANIC-SERVING AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $10,000,000 

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

Section 7129 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

provides for the establishment of an endowment fund for the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities [HSACU]. The 

Hispanic/Latino community is the fastest growing sector of the 

American population. This investment in the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities is needed to ensure institutions 

can effectively compete for NIFA competitive grants. 

On the termination of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and 

after making adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, shall distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed among the Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities on a pro rata 

basis based on the Hispanic enrollment count of each institution; 

and 40 percent shall be distributed in equal shares to the Hispanicserving agricultural colleges and universities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Endowment Fund. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $494,923,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 479,203,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 491,231,000 

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever 

Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The Department of Agriculture is 

authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, cooperative 

extension work that consists of the development of practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of instruction and 

practical demonstrations of existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, related subjects, and to encourage the application of such information by demonstrations, publications, 

through 4–H clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance 

or resident at the colleges. 

To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State and 

county extension offices in each State, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs 

to improve American agriculture and strengthen the Nation’s families and communities. 
30 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $491,231,000 for 

extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for extension activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

Committee 

recommendation 

Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c) .............................................................................................................. $297,500,000 

Smith-Lever, Section 3d Programs: 

Food and Nutrition Education (EFNEP) ..................................................................................................... 68,070,000 

Farm Safety ............................................................................................................................................... 4,863,000 

New Technologies for Ag Extension .......................................................................................................... 1,750,000 

Pest Management ..................................................................................................................................... 9,938,000 

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk ..................................................................................................... 8,412,000 

Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification ....................................................................................... 486,000 

Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ....................................................................................... 3,500,000 

Sustainable Agriculture ............................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Total, Section 3d Programs .................................................................................................................. 102,019,000 

1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University ......................................................... 42,677,000 

Rural Health and Safety Education ................................................................................................................... 1,738,000 

1890 Facilities (Sec. 1447) ............................................................................................................................... 19,770,000 

Grants to Youth Serving Institutions ................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) ..................................................................................................... 4,068,000 

Extension Services at the 1994 Institutions ..................................................................................................... 5,321,000 

Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD) ......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Women and Minorities in STEM Fields .............................................................................................................. 400,000 

Federal Administration: 

Ag in the Classroom ................................................................................................................................. 553,000 

Childhood Farm Safety (IA) ....................................................................................................................... 75,000 

Conservation Technology Transfer (WI) ..................................................................................................... 376,000 

Dairy Education (IA) .................................................................................................................................. 175,000 

E-commerce (MS) ...................................................................................................................................... 231,000 

Efficient irrigation (NM, TX) ...................................................................................................................... 475,000 

Extension Specialist (MS) ......................................................................................................................... 173,000 

Food Production Education (VT) ................................................................................................................ 116,000 

General Administration, Including Pay Costs ........................................................................................... 8,252,000 

Health Education Leadership (KY) ............................................................................................................ 300,000 

Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (WI) ................................................................................................ 400,000 

Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach (MI) ...................................................................................... 147,000 

Iowa Vitality Center ................................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program ................................................................................................. 700,000 

National Center for Farm Safety (IA) ........................................................................................................ 150,000 

Northeast Energy and Environmental Dairy System (PA) ......................................................................... 305,000 

Nutrition Enhancement (WI) ...................................................................................................................... 950,000 

Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative ............................................................................................................... 700,000 

Pilot Technology Transfer (MS, OK) .......................................................................................................... 209,000 

Potato Integrated Pest Management—Late Blight (ME) ......................................................................... 450,000 

Range Improvement (NM) ......................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Urban Horticulture (WI) ............................................................................................................................. 376,000 

Urban Horticulture and Marketing (IL) ..................................................................................................... 175,000 

Total, Federal Administration ............................................................................................................... 15,738,000 

Total, Extension Activities .................................................................................................................... 491,231,000 
31 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $60,022,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 24,874,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,577,000 

Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated 

research, education, and extension competitive grants program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,577,000 for 

integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for integrated activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

Committee 

recommendation 

Section 406 Legislative Authority: 

Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................... $12,649,000 

Methyl Bromide Transition Program ........................................................................................................... 3,054,000 

Organic Transition Program ........................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 

Total, Section 406 .................................................................................................................................. 20,703,000 

International Science and Education Grants Program ........................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Critical Issues Program ....................................................................................................................................... 732,000 

Regional Rural Development Centers Program ................................................................................................... 1,312,000 

Homeland Security, Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative .............................................................................. 9,830,000 

Sustainable Agriculture Federal-State Matching Grant Program ........................................................................ 3,000,000 

Total, Integrated Activities ..................................................................................................................... 38,577,000 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 920,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 904,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws 

enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s marketing, grading, and standardization activities related to grain; 

competitive marketing practices of livestock, marketing orders, and 

various programs; veterinary services; and plant protection and 

quarantine. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. 
32 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $904,953,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 870,576,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 926,609,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. 

The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the animal and plant 

resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives 

are carried out under the major areas of activity, as follows: 

Pest and Disease Exclusion.—The agency conducts inspection and 

quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The agency also 

participates in inspection, survey, and control activities in foreign 

countries to reinforce its domestic activities. 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].—The agency collects 

user fees to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine activities 

at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal 

and plant diseases and pests. 

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.—The agency conducts programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect endemic and 

exotic diseases and pests. 

Pest and Disease Management Programs.—The agency carries 

out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and animal 

diseases that threaten the United States; reduce agricultural losses 

caused by predatory animals, birds, and rodents; provide technical 

assistance to other cooperators such as States, counties, farmer or 

rancher groups, and foundations; and ensure compliance with 

interstate movement and other disease control regulations within 

the jurisdiction of the agency. 

Animal Care.—The agency conducts regulatory activities that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses as the 

Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These activities 

include inspection of certain establishments that handle animals 

intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring certain horse shows. 

Scientific and Technical Services.—The agency performs other 

regulatory activities, including the development of standards for 

the licensing and testing of veterinary biologicals to ensure their 

safety and effectiveness; diagnostic activities to support the control 

and eradication programs in other functional components; applied 

research to reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of new pest and animal damage control methods and 

tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $926,609,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 
33 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION: 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) ................................... 29,000 26,526 29,526 

Cattle Fever Ticks ....................................................................... 13,157 13,355 13,355 

Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease ...................... 4,004 4,007 4,007 

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection ............................................... 62,920 63,568 63,568 

Import/Export ............................................................................... 13,298 13,564 13,564 

Overseas Technical and Trade Operations ................................. 16,172 17,195 17,195 

Screwworm .................................................................................. 27,714 20,243 20,243 

Tropical Bont Tick ....................................................................... 429 432 432 

Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion ................................... 166,694 158,890 161,890 

PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING: 

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance ............................... 121,667 128,659 130,175 

Animal and Plant Health Reg. Enforcement .............................. 13,983 15,913 16,913 

Avian Influenza ........................................................................... 60,243 47,219 47,219 

Emergency Management Systems .............................................. 15,794 15,933 15,933 

National Veterinary Stockpile ...................................................... 3,757 3,771 3,771 

Pest Detection ............................................................................. 28,113 26,957 28,314 

Select Agents .............................................................................. 5,176 5,214 5,214 

Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring ..................... 248,773 247,266 247,539 

PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT: 

Aquaculture ................................................................................. 6,560 5,816 6,570 

Biological Control ........................................................................ 10,467 10,149 11,399 

Brucellosis ................................................................................... 9,707 9,154 9,804 

Chronic Wasting Disease ............................................................ 16,875 14,208 16,929 

Contingency Funds ...................................................................... 2,058 2,085 2,085 

Cotton Pests ................................................................................ 23,390 9,041 22,254 

Emerging Plant Pests: 

Asian Long-horned Beetle .................................................. 33,021 49,200 42,130 

Citrus Canker/Citrus Health Program ................................ 44,656 44,780 45,781 

Emerald Ash Borer ............................................................. 37,205 13,160 22,000 

Glassey-winged Sharpshooter ............................................ 22,983 22,360 23,066 

Sudden Oak Death ............................................................. 5,347 5,090 5,366 

Potato Cyst Nematode ....................................................... 8,327 6,245 8,357 

Karnal Bunt ........................................................................ 2,151 2,160 2,160 

Light Brown Apple Moth .................................................... 1,008 11,010 10,010 

Sirex Woodwasp ................................................................. 1,500 1,505 1,505 

Varroa Mite ........................................................................ 469 .......................... 469 

Other Emerging Plant Pests .............................................. 2,102 2,105 4,105 

Total, Emerging Plant Pests ......................................... 158,769 157,615 164,949 

Golden Nematode ........................................................................ 831 843 843 

Grasshopper ................................................................................ 5,578 4,637 5,637 

Gypsy Moth .................................................................................. 5,420 4,981 5,481 

Imported Fire Ant ........................................................................ 1,902 1,909 1,909 

Johne’s Disease ........................................................................... 6,876 3,470 6,885 

Noxious Weeds ............................................................................ 1,990 1,174 1,993 

Plum Pox ..................................................................................... 2,206 2,129 2,215 

Pseudorabies ............................................................................... 2,510 2,560 2,560 

Scrapie ........................................................................................ 17,906 18,043 18,043 

Tuberculosis ................................................................................ 16,764 15,601 15,849 

Wildlife Services Operations ....................................................... 77,780 71,015 80,701 

Witchweed ................................................................................... 1,517 1,522 1,522 

Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management .............................. 369,106 335,952 377,628 
34 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

ANIMAL CARE: 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................ 21,979 25,933 25,933 

Horse Protection .......................................................................... 500 900 900 

Subtotal, Animal Care ............................................................ 22,479 23,233 26,833 

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES: 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ............................................. 13,050 18,695 18,954 

Environmental Compliance ......................................................... 2,715 2,750 2,750 

Plant Methods Development Labs .............................................. 9,949 10,137 10,637 

Veterinary Biologics .................................................................... 17,325 17,645 20,645 

Veterinary Diagnostics ................................................................ 26,073 29,745 30,633 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ..................................... 18,630 16,064 18,901 

Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services .......................... 87,742 95,036 102,520 

MANAGEMENT: 

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ............................. 4,474 4,474 4,474 

Physical/Operational Security ..................................................... 5,725 5,725 5,725 

Subtotal, Management ........................................................... 10,199 10,199 10,199 

TOTAL, APHIS .......................................................................... 904,953 870,576 926,609 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation monies, as in 

past fiscal years, to cover additional emergencies as the Secretary 

determines necessary. 

Animal Disease Traceability (Formerly National Animal ID System).—During fiscal year 2010 the Department gathered public 

comments and released a framework for a new Animal Disease 

Traceability initiative. The initiative will focus on State-specific 

concerns, and States and tribal governments will guide its development. Rather than taking the lead, the agency role is now 

facilitator and collaborator. At this stage it is premature to identify 

agency resource needs and the Committee provides no funding specifically for the initiative. However, once a comprehensive plan has 

been developed and funding needs identified, the Committee may 

consider this for further action during deliberations on the fiscal 

year 2011 bill. 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services.—The Committee provides an 

increase of $5,767,000 for biotechnology regulatory services and 

notes that while biotechnology holds promise for increased agricultural productivity, it is extremely important that adequate regulatory safeguards are in place to assure that only properly approved products are allowed entry to the market to avoid the possibility of any introduction of products with unintended traits which 

could have potentially devastating effects on the food supply and 

the economy. 

Center for Veterinary Biologics.—The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 for the Center for Veterinary Biologics [CVB]. The leadership of Veterinary Services is commended for recently holding a stakeholder meeting and for committing to make timely improvements to the center’s management, 
35 

transparency, and procedures. The Committee will closely monitor 

how the CVB implements these changes. The Deputy Administrator of Veterinary Services is directed to provide the Committee 

with semi-annual reports on the workload of the CVB and the 

number of days it takes for applications to complete the review 

process. 

Emerald Ash Borer.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$22,000,000 for emerald ash borer. These funds, coupled with the 

expected $17,000,000 to be carried over from fiscal year 2010, will 

provide a $39,000,000 program level in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recognizes this invasive species poses a significant threat to 

the Nation’s ash trees, has the potential to cause substantial economic and ecological damage, and that further efforts are required 

to manage its spread and develop techniques and technologies for 

eradication. To these ends, $1,000,000 is included for a cooperative 

research agreement with the Agricultural Research Service to advance eradication efforts against this destructive infestation. 

Invasive Honey Bee Pests.—The Committee is concerned with the 

national and global pollination impact associated with the varroa 

mite and Small Hive Beetle discoveries in Hawaii, and provides 

$469,000 for the agency to work with other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, and community and industry leaders to suppress varroa 

mites and other invasive honey bee pests and eradicate and manage infestations where necessary. 

COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES

In complying with the Committee’s directives, the Committee expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and activities 

without prior notification to and approval by the House and Senate 

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

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, and activities as specified by 

the Appropriations Committees. Unspecified reductions necessary 

to carry out the provisions of this act are to be implemented in accordance with the definitions contained in the program, project, 

and activity section of this report. 

The following is a list of congressionally designated projects: 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

Project Program Amount 

Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, Delaware Department of Agriculture.Veterinary diagnostics ............................ $69,000 

Arthropod damage control Nevada, APHIS Nevada ....................... Grasshopper ............................................ 1,000,000 

Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.Wildlife services methods development.1,500,000 

Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont ........ Animal health monitoring and surveillance.240,000 

Blackbird management, APHIS Louisiana ..................................... Wildlife services operations ................... 94,000

Bovine tuberculosis eradication Michigan, Michigan Department 

of Agriculture.

Tuberculosis ............................................ 248,000 

Brucellosis eradication in the Greater Yellowstone area states, 

Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana Department of 

Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board.

Brucellosis .............................................. 650,000 

California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and Agriculture.Pest detection ......................................... 619,000 
36 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS— 

Continued 

Project Program Amount 

Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture ......... Noxious weeds ........................................ 208,000 

Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania 

and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

Wildlife services operations ................... 223,000 

Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan .............................................. Wildlife services operations ................... 139,000 

Cormorant control, APHIS Mississippi ........................................... Wildlife services operations ................... 223,000 

Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.Wildlife services operations ................... 103,000 

Database of North Carolina’s agricultural industry for rapid response, NC Department of Agriculture.Animal health monitoring and surveillance.208,000 

Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.Veterinary diagnostics ............................ 69,000 

Genetically modified products, Iowa State University ................... Biotechnology regulatory services .......... 259,000 

Giant Salvinia control, Northwestern State University .................. Plant methods development ................... 500,000 

Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii ...................................................... Agricultural quarantine inspection ........ 3,000,000 

Hawaii wildlife services activities, APHIS Hawaii ......................... Wildlife services operations ................... 2,230,000 

Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Tennessee, University of Tennessee ....... Biological control .................................... 1,250,000

Integrated predation management activities, APHIS West Virginia.Wildlife services operations ................... 280,000 

Invasive aquatic species, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife 

Management Cooperative, Vermont.

Aquaculture ............................................ 94,000 

National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University.Veterinary diagnostics ............................ 750,000 

New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico 

State University.

Animal health monitoring and surveillance.404,000 

Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe .............................. Noxious weeds ........................................ 176,000 

Noxious weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture .. Noxious weeds ........................................ 235,000 

Technology to combat asian long-horned beetles in New York 

forests, SUNY–College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

Emerging plant pests ............................. 500,000 

Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.Wildlife services operations ................... 926,000 

Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Hawaii ........................................ Emerging plant pests ............................. 469,000 

Wildlife management and control, APHIS Mississippi .................. Wildlife services operations ................... 496,000 

Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks.

Wildlife services operations ................... 519,000 

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ...................... ................................................................. 17,681,000 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,712,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,712,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,712,000 

The APHIS appropriation for ‘‘Buildings and Facilities’’ funds 

major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific program activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive 

maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of $4,712,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow 

APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically needed 

repairs to and replacements of building components, such as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized basis at 

APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities, closure of a fa-
37 

cility could result if APHIS is unable to complete the required repairs. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $91,148,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 97,255,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 96,955,000 

The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by 

the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory authorities, 

the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

U.S.C. 1621–1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51– 

65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471–476); 

the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511–511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499s); the Egg Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031–1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 

713c). 

Programs administered by this agency include the market news 

services, payments to States for marketing activities, the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading, 

classing, and shell egg surveillance services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 

U.S.C. 499a–499b), and market protection and promotion activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $96,955,000 for 

marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The 

Committee recommendation includes increases of $891,000 for the 

Pesticide Data Program, $250,000 for Microbiological Data Program sampling, $3,111,000 for the National Organic Program, and 

$920,000 for the Know Your Farmer Know Your Food initiative. 

Dairy Price Reporting.—The Committee encourages the Secretary 

to consider the recommendations of the Dairy Industry Advisory 

Committee regarding implementation of section 1510 of Public Law 

110–246. 

Organics.—The Committee is greatly concerned by the inability 

of the Department to take immediate remedial actions upon strong 

evidence that products certified as organic may, in fact, not be eligible for such designation. A recent incident involving a third-party 

certification agent that approved imported products to carry a 

USDA organic label has proved most troubling. A departmental 

audit later resulted in a suspension of the party’s certification, but 

such suspension occurred nearly 3 years after the initial audit. 

Further troubling is the fact that the Department lacked the ability 

to withdraw the certification due to lengthy appeals and other 

delays while products of questionable content continued to appear 

in U.S. markets. The Committee finds this type of delay unacceptable and fears that continued problems of this nature will erode the 

integrity of the entire USDA Organics Program. 
38 

The Committee has recommended an additional $3,111,000 for 

operations of the National Organics Program [NOP], as requested. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary to conduct a full 

review of the Department’s authorities for enforcement of the NOP 

to identify proper actions for prompt responses to protect the integrity of the program whenever and wherever violations occur. The 

Secretary is directed to provide a written report to the Committee 

by March 1, 2011, on steps taken to improve enforcement of the Organic Standards Act. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2010 ..................................................................................... $64,583,000 

Budget limitation, 2011 ......................................................................... 60,947,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,947,000 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97– 

35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading and 

classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton Standards 

Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 

et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other provisions of law are 

designed to facilitate commerce and to protect participants in the 

industry. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $60,947,000 on administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $20,056,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 20,283,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,283,000 

Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 612c), 

an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected during 

each preceding calendar year and unused balances are available for 

encouraging the domestic consumption and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition programs of the 

Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts. 

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

2009–2011: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL YEARS 2009– 

2011 

Fiscal year 2009 

actual 

Fiscal year 2010 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2011 

estimate 

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) .......................... $7,979,334,788 $8,061,101,371 $6,605,945,807 

Rescission of Current Year Funds ................................................. ¥242,022,000 ............................ ............................
39 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL YEARS 2009– 

2011—Continued 

Fiscal year 2009 

actual 

Fiscal year 2010 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2011 

estimate 

Less Transfers: 

Food and Nutrition Service ................................................... ¥6,455,802,000 ¥6,747,877,000 ¥5,322,714,872 

Commerce Department ......................................................... ¥108,510,788 ¥114,224,371 ¥68,230,935 

Total, Transfers ................................................................ ¥6,564,312,788 ¥6,862,101,371 ¥5,390,945,807 

Budget Authority ............................................................................ 1,173,000,000 1,199,000,000 1,215,000,000 

Unobligated Balance, Start of Year .............................................. 293,529,985 375,373,561 76,000,000 

Rescission of Prior Year Funds ..................................................... ¥51,507,985 ¥133,351,561 ............................

Proposed Rescission of Current Year Funds ................................. ............................ ............................ ¥50,000,000 

Unavailable for Obligations ........................................................... ¥343,492,000 ¥76,000,000 ¥113,000,000 

Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS ............................................. ............................ ¥242,022,000 ............................

Available for Obligation ................................................................. 1,071,530,000 1,123,000,000 1,128,000,000 

Less Obligations: 

Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities) .......... 467,880,887 465,000,000 465,000,000 

12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement ........................... ............................ 152,200,000 120,000,000 

State Option Contract ........................................................... ............................ ............................ 5,000,000 

Removal of Defective Commodities ...................................... 28,963 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Emergency Surplus Removal ................................................ 319,513,092 283,100,000 ............................

Direct Payments .................................................................... 750,000 3,375,000 ............................

Disaster Relief ...................................................................... ............................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ............. 119,418,398 24,639,114 203,000,000 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ..................................... 108,000,000 25,000,000 113,000,000 

Whole Grain Products Study (FSA) ....................................... 4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Accounting Adjustment ......................................................... ¥28,159,093 1,561,000 ............................

Estimated Future Needs ....................................................... ............................ 118,232,886 181,226,000 

Total, Commodity Procurement ........................................ 991,432,247 1,080,608,000 1,094,726,000 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................... 31,092,419 22,336,000 20,283,000 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ....................................... 17,123,773 20,056,000 12,991,000 

Total, Administrative Funds ............................................. 48,216,192 42,392,000 33,274,000 

Total Obligations .............................................................. 1,039,648,439 1,123,000,000 1,128,000,000 

Unobligated Balance, End of Year ................................................ 375,373,561 76,000,000 113,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of 

$20,283,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing 

agreements and orders. 

Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause 

3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct funds from the 

section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers. 

This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct 

assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions 

adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee notes the importance in the ability of the Secretary 

to utilize this authority, but believes that communication between 

the Department and the Congress should be improved when this 

practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide notification to the Appropriations Committee in advance of 

any public announcement or release of section 32 funds under the 

specific authorities cited above. 
40 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,334,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,634,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,484,000 

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is 

authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are made 

to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market alternative 

farm commodities; determine methods of providing more reliable 

market information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This program has made possible many types of projects, such 

as electronic marketing and agricultural product diversification. 

Current projects are focused on the improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and seeking new outlets for existing farm 

produced commodities. The legislation grants the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture authority to establish cooperative agreements with 

State departments of agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the agricultural marketing chain. The States 

perform the work or contract it to others, and must contribute at 

least one-half of the cost of the projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,484,000 for 

payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing 

projects and activities. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $41,964,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 44,192,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,192,000 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary’s 1994 reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are carried out 

under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) and other 

programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and grain-related 

products; conducting official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), 

assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors competition 

in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and poultry prices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,192,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. The Committee recommendation includes an 

increase of $1,800,000 for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. 
41 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2010 ..................................................................................... $42,463,000 

Budget limitation, 2011 ......................................................................... 45,041,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000 

The Agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing 

system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and official 

inspection of rice and grain-related products under the Agricultural 

Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was amended in 1981 

to require the collection of user fees to fund the costs associated 

with the operation, supervision, and administration of Federal 

grain inspection and weighing activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $50,000,000 on inspection and weighing services expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $813,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 836,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 821,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry, 

and processed egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $821,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. 

Ombudsman.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider the establishment of an ombudsman to provide FSIS inspectors and other personnel with an avenue to register their concerns 

and help ensure that they are able to carry out their responsibilities—ensuring compliance with all food safety and humane slaughter requirements—without undue interference. If deemed appropriate, the Committee recommends that this ombudsman be independent from FSIS, reporting directly to the Under Secretary for 

Food Safety. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,018,520,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,036,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,047,200,000 

The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection Service 

are to assure that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg 

Products Inspection Act. 
42 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June 

17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant 

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. 

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic plants 

preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare 

meat or poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to States which maintain 

meat and poultry inspection programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,047,200,000 

for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

Codex Alimentarius.—Codex Alimentarius is critical for the protection of consumer health globally and facilitating international 

trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends $3,903,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex office including international outreach and education. 

Humane Slaughter.—The Committee continues to include 

$3,000,000, as requested in the budget, for maintenance of the Humane Animal Tracking System. Further, the Committee notes that 

the budget request will maintain no less than 148 full-time equivalent positions which have been provided solely for humane slaughter enforcement. 

The Committee is pleased that USDA, during fiscal year 2010, 

acted upon the longstanding recommendations of this Committee 

regarding objective scoring methods to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The Committee encourages USDA to continue 

these efforts, and expand them as determined appropriate. 

Inspections.—The Committee recommendation does not include 

the proposed reduction of $10,300,000 for the implementation of 

section 11016 of Public Law 110–246, and expects USDA to meet 

its statutory obligation and promulgate regulations to implement 

this section. Further, USDA is directed to report on the progress 

of implementing this section within 30 days of the enactment of 

this act. 

Mobile Review Team.—The Committee directs FSIS to consider 

the hiring and training of a mobile review team of FSIS employees 

to conduct unscheduled audits, including the potential for undercover surveillance, focused on assessing compliance with humane 

handling rules of live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and 

handled in pens, chutes and stunning areas. These teams could 

also, if deemed appropriate, be responsible for reporting on or acting on other food safety responsibilities, as outlined by FSIS. The 

Committee directs FSIS to report back to the Committee on the 

feasibility of such a team, including whether FSIS or another 

USDA agency would be the most appropriate to carry out this effort; and the potential responsibilities, challenges, costs, and benefits of having such a team. If FSIS deems this to be a worthwhile 

effort, the Committee encourages them to begin implementation. 

State Meat Inspection.—The Committee is concerned that USDA 

has not yet promulgated regulations regarding interstate shipment 

of meat and poultry from eligible State-inspected plants, in accord-
43 

ance with Public Law 110–246. The Committee encourages USDA 

to continue to collaborate with State agencies, as appropriate, on 

the swift publication and implementation of these regulations. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Food safety inspection: 

Federal .............................................................................................. 903,067 912,248 919,248 

State .................................................................................................. 65,654 65,118 65,118 

International ...................................................................................... 19,445 16,161 19,461 

Codex Alimentarius ........................................................................... 3,884 3,903 3,903 

PHDCIS .............................................................................................. 26,470 39,470 39,470 

Total .............................................................................................. 1,018,520 1,036,900 1,047,200 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 920,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 904,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out 

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

international affairs (except for foreign economic development) and 

commodity programs. The Office has oversight and management 

responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency (including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk Management Agency, and the 

Foreign Agricultural Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services. 

Food Aid Quality.—The Committee continues strong interest in 

maintaining high quality standards in food products used for international humanitarian assistance. The Department is encouraged 

further to develop adequate standardization of quality control 

mechanisms. In addition, the Committee expects that appropriate 

levels of funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation be directed to inspection of shipments in order to avoid breaks in food 

pipelines and to maintain an orderly conveyance of food to the 

world’s hungry populations. 

Geospatial Data.—The Committee is aware of section 1619 of the 

Farm bill that requires geospatial data collected from farming operations to be portable and standardized. The Secretary is encouraged to work with the Nebraska Natural Resource Districts with 

their efforts in collecting geospatial data, as deemed appropriate. 
44 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3, 1994, 

pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103–354. The 

FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity 

price support and production adjustment programs financed by the 

Commodity Credit Corporation; the Conservation Reserve Program 

[CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the warehouse examination function; 

farm ownership, farm operating, emergency disaster, and other 

loan programs; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop loss protection for growers of 

many crops for which crop insurance is not available. In addition, 

FSA currently provides certain administrative support services to 

the Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency [RMA]. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, salaries, and expenses 

Appropriations, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,253,777 316,340 1,570,117 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................ 1,364,673 321,405 1,686,078 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 1,343,350 316,378 1,659,728 

The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, funds 

the administrative expenses of program administration and other 

functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and 

transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Food for Peace 

loans, and agricultural credit insurance fund program accounts, 

and miscellaneous advances from other sources. All administrative 

funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides clarity and better management and control of 

funds, and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 

eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expenditures under numerous separate accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,659,728,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including a 

direct appropriation of $1,343,350,000. 

Information Technology.—The Committee provides substantial 

funding for the information technology [IT] needs requested in the 

President’s budget proposal. The Committee remains aware of the 

unstable status of the Farm Service Agency computer system which 

is responsible for the calculation and tracking of the agency’s payments to agricultural producers, and which has resulted in disruption of services to U.S. farmers and ranchers. 

National Agriculture Imagery Program.—The Committee recommends that no less than the fiscal year 2010 level shall be allocated to purchase imagery products to meet programmatic requirements. 
45 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,369,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,369,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,369,000 

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural 

Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Originally designed to 

address agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by 

the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) to include other 

agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation 

compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest 

System lands, and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be 

solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural 

mediation program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,369,000 for 

State Mediation Grants. 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000 

This program is intended to assist in the protection of groundwater through State rural water associations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for 

Grassroots Source Water Protection. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 1 ........................................................................... $930,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 1 ......................................................................... 876,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 876,000 

1 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided. 

Under the program, the Department makes indemnification payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who, 

through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program 

also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market 

due to nuclear radiation or fallout. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2011 to be $876,000, for 

indemnity payments to dairy farmers. 
46 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 

used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency 

loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication. 

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a 

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development grant accounts. 

The following programs are financed through this fund: 

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs provided to farmers. 

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by providing FSA 

loans. 

Emergency Loans.—Made to producers to aid recovery from production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural 

disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to: restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses; 

reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts. 

Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop 

or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The term of the loan 

varies from 1 to 7 years. 

Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 

credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase 

farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not 

supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Loans are made 

for 40 years or less. 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Made to any Indian tribe 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (Public Law 

93–638) which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within the tribe’s reservation or 

Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the 

Interior, for use of the tribe or the corporation or the members 

thereof. 

Conservation Loans.—Made to farmers, ranchers, and other entities controlled by farmers and ranchers and primarily engaged in 

agricultural production. Direct and guaranteed loans may be used 

for conservation projects that support a USDA-approved conservation plan. Guarantees cover 75 percent of the principal loan 

amount. 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.—Made to Indian tribal 

members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as authorized by 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
47 

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development 

Grants.—Made to beginning farmers and ranchers who lack significant assets and have incomes below either 80 percent of the State’s 

median income, or 200 percent of the State’s poverty income level. 

Grants provide for matching-funds savings accounts to be used for 

specified farming-related expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total loan level of $5,423,940,000 

for programs within the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account. 

The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit 

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended 

by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and the 

budget request levels: 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 

budget 

Committee recommendation 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 650,000 475,000 650,000 

Guaranteed .................................................................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 900,000 1,190,000 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,650,000 

Guaranteed subsidized ............................................................... 170,000 144,035 170,000 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ............................................................. 3,940 2,000 3,940 

Conservation Loans: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Guaranteed .................................................................................. 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Boll Weevil Eradication ........................................................................ 100,000 60,000 100,000 

Total, Farm loans ................................................................... 5,083,940 4,741,035 5,423,940 

LOAN SUBSIDIES, GRANTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Subsidies Administrative expenses 

Total ACIF Direct loan Guaranteed loan Total Appropria- tions 

Transfer to FSA 

Appropriations, 2010 .......................................... 75,778 64,830 140,608 321,093 313,173 461,701 

Budget estimate, 2011 ...................................... 89,867 60,855 150,722 326,120 318,200 476,842 

Committee recommendation ............................... 119,537 67,946 187,483 321,093 313,173 508,576 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program 

account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated and 

loan guarantees committed, as well as for administrative expenses. 

The following table reflects the cost of programs under credit reform: 
48 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2010 enacted 2011 budget Committee recommendation 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct .................................................................................. 26,520 32,870 44,980 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 5,550 5,700 5,700 

Farm operating: 

Direct .................................................................................. 47,400 54,540 72,100 

Guaranteed unsubsidized .................................................. 35,100 34,950 38,450 

Guaranteed subsidized ...................................................... 23,902 19,920 23,511 

Conservation loans: 

Direct .................................................................................. 1,065 2,243 2,243 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 278 285 285 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans ..................................... 793 214 214 

Total, loan subsidies .............................................................. 140,608 150,722 187,483 

ACIF expenses ...................................................................................... 321,093 326,120 321,093 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $80,325,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 83,064,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 83,064,000 

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions 

relative to the Federal crop insurance program that is authorized 

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by 

the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA], Public Law 

106–224, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110–246). 

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance program. This act provides higher government subsidies for producer 

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and 

development for new insurance products and under-served areas 

through contracts with the private sector; and tightens compliance. 

Functional areas of risk management are: research and development; insurance services; and compliance, whose functions include 

policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,064,000 for 

the Risk Management Agency. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2010 1 ........................................................................... $7,502,601,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 1 ......................................................................... 7,613,232,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 7,613,232,000 

1 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended, are 

provided. 

The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 

delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 

startup costs for implementing this legislation such as studies, pilot 
49 

projects, data processing improvements, public outreach, and related tasks and functions. 

All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are 

mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation. 

Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a basic level 

of protection against catastrophic losses, which cover 50 percent of 

the normal yield at 55 percent of the expected price. The only cost 

to the producer is an administrative fee of $300 per crop per county. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated to be $7,613,232,000 for the Federal 

Crop Insurance Corporation Fund. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 

Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and 

protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including products, 

foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of 

these commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal 

corporation within the Department of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, approved June 29, 1948 (15 

U.S.C. 714). 

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling, 

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities; 

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs 

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation 

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental 

payments for such land for the duration of Conservation Reserve 

Program contracts. 

Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following 

statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Public 

Law 80–806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 

81–439), as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act 

of 1938 (Public Law 75–430), as amended (the 1938 Act); the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198), as amended (1985 Act); 

and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–246). 

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors, 

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and chairman of the 

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corpora-
50 

tion are designated according to their positions in the Department 

of Agriculture. 

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the 

personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service Agency 

[FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county committees. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales Manager, 

other agencies and offices of the Department, and commercial 

agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Corporation’s activities. 

Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a–11, 713a–12), annual 

appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing 

with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the 

Corporation for net realized losses. 

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2010 1 ........................................................................... $13,878,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 1 ......................................................................... 13,925,575,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 13,925,575,000 

1 Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2011 to be 

$13,925,575,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for net realized losses. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2010 ..................................................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

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

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s [CCC] hazardous waste 

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site investigation and 

cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs associated with 

the management of CCC hazardous waste are also paid from 

USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for the 

Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management 

program. 
(51) 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 920,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 904,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out the 

laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural resources and 

the environment. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Natural Resources Conservation Service and 

the Forest Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. 

Atlantic Salmon Recovery.—The Committee supports the goals of 

the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of Maine. This 

project will restore nearly 1,000 miles of habitat in the Penobscot 

watershed for endangered Atlantic salmon and six other species of 

sea-run fish and 100 percent of the historic habitat in Maine’s largest river system for four additional species. The Committee encourages NRCS to improve migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including the purchase of dams and the removal of impediments to 

passage, by utilizing all appropriate funding sources. 

Maine Irrigation.—The Committee commends the Department 

for its support of farmers with existing irrigation programs, 

through its Environmental Quality Incentives Program. However, 

funding for new irrigators, specifically potato farmers in Maine, 

has not been equitable in comparison to farmers in other areas of 

the country. The Committee directs the Department, through the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and its Agricultural Management Assistance Program, to work to ensure that irrigation 

funding and assistance equitably addresses the needs of Maine potato farms that lack irrigation programs. 

Resources First Foundation.—The Natural Resources Conservation Service entered to a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] 

with the Resources First Foundation in January of 2008 to work 

cooperatively on outreach efforts to private landowners, conservationists, and others in order to further conservation efforts through 

better accessibility and sharing of information. The Committee supports the intent of this MOU and directs NRCS to work in good 

faith to carry out NRCS Agreement No. 693A758–38. 
52 

Rhode Island Restoration.—The Committee is aware of NRCS’s 

efforts in the State of Rhode Island to restore habitat for anadromous fish, including herring and American shad, through the 

construction of fish passages and dam removal. NRCS is encouraged to continue these efforts particularly in the Blackstone, 

Woonasquatucket, Moshassuck, and Pawtuxet river watersheds. 

OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND MARKETS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $2,021,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets. The Committee expects 

these functions to be continued under the Office of the Chief Economist. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was established pursuant to Public Law 103–354, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The NRCS 

works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and Federal 

and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments in land use 

that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural 

production on a sustained basis, and reduce flood damage and sedimentation. 

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $887,629,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 923,729,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 928,979,000 

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16 

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include: 

Conservation Technical Assistance.—Provides assistance to district cooperators and other land users in the planning and application of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the 

quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and conserve water, 

enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and reduce upstream flooding; 

all to protect and enhance the natural resource base. 

Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related resource data for land conservation, use, and development; guidance 

of community development; identification of prime agricultural producing areas that should be protected; environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of periodic inventory reports of resource conditions. 

Resource appraisal and program development ensures that programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall respond to the 

Nation’s long-term needs. 
53 

Plant Materials Centers.—Assembles, tests, and encourages increased use of plant species which show promise for use in the 

treatment of conservation problem areas. 

Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.—Provides estimates of annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and relates 

to summer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future 

water supplies. 

Soil Surveys.—Inventories the Nation’s basic soil resources and 

determines land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. 

Soil survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies, State, and local organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $928,979,000 for 

Conservation Operations. The Committee recommendation includes 

increases of $13,000,000 for Strategic Watershed Action Teams, 

$35,000,000 for Common Computing Environment refresh, 

$1,500,000 for streamlining and integrating business model and information technology tools, $1,095,000 for Snow Surveys, and 

$500,000 for soil climate analysis network. 

Delta National Priority Area.—The Committee directs the agency 

to maintain a national priority area program under the guidelines 

of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] in the 

Delta of the State of Mississippi. 

National Geospatial Development Center.—The Committee encourages NRCS to continue activities at the National Geospatial 

Development Center in Morgantown, West Virginia. 

For fiscal year 2011, the Committee recommends funding, as 

specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. 

Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation 

measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made available to 

States. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE—CONSERVATION OPERATIONS— 

CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey (WY) ................................................................................................................ 200 

Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation (HI) ................................................................................ 1,400 

Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center (MS) ................................................................................................... 939 

CEMSA with Iowa Soybean Association (IA) ........................................................................................................ 288 

Center for Invasive Species Eradication (TX) ...................................................................................................... 1,000 

Conservation Enhancements (PA) ........................................................................................................................ 200 

Conservation Internships (WI) .............................................................................................................................. 120 

Conservation Technical Assistance in New Jersey .............................................................................................. 236 

Conservation Technical Assistance in Tennessee ............................................................................................... 1,000 

Conservation Technology Transfer (WI) ................................................................................................................ 516 

Cover Crop Program (MD) .................................................................................................................................... 1,000 

Delta Conservation Demonstration (MS) .............................................................................................................. 376 

Delta Water Study (MS) ....................................................................................................................................... 235 

Farm Viability Program (VT) ................................................................................................................................ 300 

Grazing Land Conservation (WI) .......................................................................................................................... 732 

Great Basin Plant Materials Center (NV) ............................................................................................................ 269 

Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control .................................................................. 404 

Hungry Canyons Alliance (IA) .............................................................................................................................. 282 
54 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE—CONSERVATION OPERATIONS— 

CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Illinois Conservation Initiative (IL) ...................................................................................................................... 1,126 

Kentucky Soil Erosion Control .............................................................................................................................. 724 

Mississippi Conservation Initiative ...................................................................................................................... 2,000 

Native Plant Initiative (LA) .................................................................................................................................. 500 

Operation Oak Program ........................................................................................................................................ 100 

Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain (VT) ................................................................................................... 179 

Prairie Biomass (IA) ............................................................................................................................................. 100 

Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Initiative (NH) ............................................................................................. 282 

Riparian Restoration (NM) ................................................................................................................................... 200 

Soil Survey (RI) .................................................................................................................................................... 134 

Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts ................................................................ 545 

Upper Cedar River Watershed Coalition (IA) ....................................................................................................... 150 

Watershed Demonstration Project (IA) ................................................................................................................. 134 

Watershed Planning Staff (HI) ............................................................................................................................. 500 

West Virginia Conservation Initiative .................................................................................................................. 1,000 

Total, Conservation Operations .............................................................................................................. 17,171 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,394,000 

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 

566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States and 

their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or rivers and 

streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization, 

and disposal of water. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility for administration of activities, which include cooperation 

with local sponsors, State, and other public agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve, develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works of improvement for flood prevention, including the development of recreational facilities and the 

improvement of fish and wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help finance the local share of the cost of carrying out 

planned watershed and flood prevention works of improvement. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,394,000 for 

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. The Committee encourages NRCS to fund the highest ranked projects identified in 

State priority lists and work to complete the final phase of multipurpose structures. 

The following is a list of congressionally designated projects: 
55 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE—WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION 

OPERATIONS—CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Cooper Mine Brook Watershed (CT) ..................................................................................................................... 330 

Dunloup Creek (WV) ............................................................................................................................................. 1,500 

Lahaina Watershed (HI) ....................................................................................................................................... 4,000 

Lake County Watershed (IL) ................................................................................................................................. 350 

Lower Hamakua (HI) ............................................................................................................................................ 1,800 

Missouri Watershed projects (MO) ....................................................................................................................... 2,000 

North Fork of Elkhorn Creek (WV) ........................................................................................................................ 300 

Pocasset River (RI) .............................................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Southeast Quadrant Drainage and Flood Provention Project (AL) ...................................................................... 350 

Upcountry Maui (HI) ............................................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Wailuku-Alenaio (HI) ............................................................................................................................................ 250 

Total, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................................................................... 14,880 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $40,161,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 40,497,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,497,000 

The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 4, 1954 (16 

U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by section 313 of 

Public Law 106–472, November 9, 2000, and by section 2803 of 

Public Law 110–246. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,497,000 for 

the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. 

The Committee directs that funding under this program be provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of high priority need in order to protect property and ensure public safety. 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $50,730,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,730,000 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for developing overall 

work plans for resource conservation and development projects in 

cooperation with local sponsors; to help develop local programs of 

land conservation and utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting such work on private lands; and to make loans to project sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to individual 

operators for establishing soil and water conservation practices. 
56 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,730,000 for 

Resource Conservation and Development. 
(57) 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished 

the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced 

those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural 

Business—Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and 

placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural 

Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of State, district, and county offices. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $895,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 920,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 904,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted 

by the Congress with respect to the Department’s rural economic 

and community development activities. The Office has oversight 

and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing Service, 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development. 

Regional Innovation Initiative.—The Committee recognizes the 

potential for rural development synergies stemming from regional 

planning and coordination. Authority is provided to reserve up to 

5 percent of selected Rural Development programs for projects in 

areas engaged in strategic regional planning. The Secretary is directed to develop and utilize empirical performance measures to 

gauge program success. Fiscal year 2011 accomplishments will impact deliberations on potential increases for fiscal year 2012. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

2010 recommendation 

appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Appropriation ........................................................................................ 201,987 232,257 237,507 
58 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 2010 recommendation appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 468,593 454,383 454,383 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account ....................................................................................... 39,959 38,374 38,374 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account ....................... 4,941 5,046 5,046 

Total RD salaries and expenses ............................................ 715,480 730,060 735,310 

These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs 

of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service, including reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and to assist in extending other 

Federal programs to people in rural areas. 

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan 

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $735,310,000 for salaries and expenses of Rural Development, which includes $12,000,000 for the 

Common Computing Environment. 

The Committee rejects the proposal to reduce efforts toward 

‘‘maintaining portfolio compliance, safety and soundness.’’ In the 

face of expanding reliance on guaranteed lending, and recent exposure of private mortgage and financial industry weaknesses, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to ensure proper lender monitoring and underwriting standards are maintained. Now is not the 

time to relax Agency oversight responsibilities. Further, the Committee rejects the proposal to implement a ‘‘direct endorsement’’ 

model for the section 502 guaranteed single family housing loan 

program. If the Secretary wishes to pursue this option in the future, the Secretary should submit a report to the Committee detailing the costs and benefits of direct endorsement, and articulating 

procedures that would ensure portfolio quality would be protected 

while continuing to reach targeted rural households. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994. 

The mission of the Rural Housing Service is to improve the quality of life in rural America by assisting rural residents and communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and access to 

needed community facilities. The goals and objectives of the Service 

are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural communities; (2) assure that benefits 
59 

are communicated to all program eligible customers with special 

outreach efforts to target resources to underserved, impoverished, 

or economically declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective 

programs that work in partnership with State and local governments and the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits through the use of low-cost credit programs. 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010 (budget authority) ............................................. $707,501,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 (budget authority) ........................................... 581,714,000 

Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 573,037,000 

This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant 

to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 

517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure or guarantee 

rural housing loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative 

housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are made to 

construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and essential 

farm service buildings that are modest in size, design, and cost. 

Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals, corporations, 

associations, trusts, or partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental 

housing and related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. 

These loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years. Loan programs 

are limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and other 

places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not part of 

an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a population 

in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the area is not included 

in a standard metropolitan statistical area and has a serious lack 

of mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $573,037,000 for 

the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF]. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated 

with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in 

2011, as well as for administrative expenses. The following table 

presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2010 levels and 

the 2011 budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan Levels: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 1,121,488 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing Repair (sec. 504) .......................................................... 34,412 34,004 34,004 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 69,512 95,236 69,512 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 129,090 129,133 129,133 

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. 5,045 5,052 5,052 

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 11,448 11,449 11,449 
60 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 4,970 4,966 4,966 

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 13,375,965 13,479,840 25,454,116 

Loan Subsidies: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct .................................................................................. 40,710 75,120 75,120 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 172,800 .......................... ..........................

Housing Repair (sec. 504) .......................................................... 4,422 6,437 6,437 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 18,935 32,123 23,446 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 1,485 12,513 12,513 

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. .......................... 294 294 

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 556 556 556 

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ .......................... 288 288 

Total, loan subsidies .............................................................. 238,908 127,331 118,654 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 468,593 454,383 454,383 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 707,501 581,714 573,037 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $980,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 965,635,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 971,593,000 

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 

U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to be 

administered through the rural housing loans program. The objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families 

living in Rural Housing Service financed rental projects and farm 

labor housing projects. Under this program, low-income tenants 

will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly income; or (3) designated housing 

payments from a welfare agency. 

Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the 

difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental 

rate established for the unit. 

The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 

Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing programs 

and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority is given to 

existing projects for units occupied by rent over-burdened low-income families and projects experiencing financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any remaining authority will be used 

for projects receiving new construction commitments under sections 

514, 515, or 516 for very low-income families with certain limitations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $971,593,000 for 

the Rental Assistance Program. 

Rental Assistance.—The Committee provides funding to meet the 

needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for section 
61 

515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The Committee includes statutory language requiring rental assistance to be held in 

514/516 projects for a minimum period of time. 

Rental assistance contracts are funded for 1 year durations. One 

year contract durations enable the Department to provide more accurate estimates of contract cost increases and the number of contracts expiring and requiring renewal. 

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $43,191,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 18,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,055,000 

The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the 

Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income 

families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural 

areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental 

housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent 

prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in existing projects or move to other rental housing. 

The Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes funding for housing vouchers, a multi-family revolving loan program, 

and a program for the preservation and revitalization of affordable 

multi-family housing projects. Rural Development’s multi-family 

housing portfolio faces dual pressures for loan prepayments and repair/rehabilitation stemming from inadequate reserves resulting in 

deferred property maintenance. 

Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished more 

economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather than 

funding new construction. The Multi-family Housing Revitalization 

Program includes revitalization tools for maintenance of existing 

units and vouchers to protect tenants in those projects that prepay. 

Flexibility is provided to allow Rural Development to utilize funding among vouchers and the two programs to meet the most urgent 

local needs for tenant protection and project revitalization. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,055,000 for 

the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including 

$16,400,000 for vouchers, $2,655,000 for revolving loan funds, and 

$25,000,000 for a housing preservation demonstration program. 

The Committee is aware of the large and growing demand for 

housing vouchers to protect multi-family housing residents from 

substantial rent increases if owners pre-pay their loans and leave 

the multi-family housing program. Sufficient funding is provided 

for expiring vouchers and new vouchers anticipated to be issued in 

fiscal year 2011. 

The President’s budget states, ‘‘The rural development vouchers 

program is designed to provide a maximum of 36 monthly payments in rent assistance to eligible tenants, subject to annual appropriations.’’ The Secretary is directed to submit a report to the 

Committee detailing the number and amount of initial obligations 

and renewal history of all vouchers issued over the life of the pro-
62 

gram, including identifying the number that have been terminated 

after 36 monthly payments. The report shall also indicate how recipients are advised of the 36 month term limit. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $41,864,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,864,000 

The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are made to local 

organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help 

programs under which groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their 

own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to 

pay the cost of construction supervisors who work with families in 

the construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of 

the organizations providing the self-help assistance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,864,000 for 

Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants. 

The Committee is aware that in the decade prior to the recession, a period of high land value appreciation, self-help builders, 

and other nonprofits acquired land in order to provide future housing opportunities for low- and very low-income families. This effort 

was intended to keep land costs down, a key factor in providing affordable housing. 

Now, in many communities, particularly in Western States, land 

values have plummeted. This has impacted self-help organizations 

to the degree that many are now producing at less than 50 percent 

of their capacity to provide affordable housing. 

The Committee believes that self-help housing is an essential 

tool to improve homeownership opportunities in rural America. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report articulating options to assist self-help housing organizations encountering falling 

land values. These options should include a shared appreciation 

demonstration project. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $45,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 40,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,500,000 

The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates 

funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of 

housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial 

assistance to applicant needs. 

Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.—The Very Low-Income 

Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of 

title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair grant 

program is carried out by making grants to very low-income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in order to make 

such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove hazards to the health 

of the occupants, their families, or the community. 
63 

These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or 

additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens, 

repairing or providing structural supports or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A 

grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair loan. 

No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of $27,500, 

and grant assistance is limited to persons, or families headed by 

persons who are 62 years of age or older. 

Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and 

technical assistance grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the 

Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to very low-income 

families in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent or more 

of the population resides in substandard housing. In fiscal year 

1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented under 

this authority. This program provides low-income individuals and 

families education and counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining 

occupancy of adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to 

become successful homeowners. 

Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502 

borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay claims of owners 

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until 

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued. 

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made 

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date financial assistance was granted. 

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation 

grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act 

of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the Rural Housing Service to 

administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very lowincome people. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,500,000 for 

the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program. 

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2010 levels and the 

budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 31,600 31,000 31,600 

Compensation for construction defects ............................................... 500 .......................... 500 
64 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 9,400 9,400 9,400 

Grants authorized by section 14204 of Public Law 110–246 ............ 4,000 .......................... ..........................

Total ........................................................................................ 45,500 40,400 41,500 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $19,746,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 20,346,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,346,000 

The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized under 

section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor housing 

grant program is authorized under section 516 of the Housing Act 

of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and contracts are made to 

public and private nonprofit organizations for low-rent housing and 

related facilities for domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not 

exceed 90 percent of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may 

be used for construction of new structures, site acquisition and development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and purchase of 

furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining halls, community 

rooms, and infirmaries. 

Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with loan 

programs are appropriated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,346,000 for 

the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants. 

The following table compares the loan and grant levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2010 levels and the 

budget request: 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 2011 request Committee recommendation 

Direct loan level ................................................................................... 27,319 27,288 27,288 

Direct loan subsidy .............................................................................. 9,873 10,473 10,473 

Grants .................................................................................................. 9,873 9,873 9,873 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $54,993,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 41,717,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 56,580,000 

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development 

Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a variety of rural 

community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including 

certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 
65 

public and quasi-public agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or 

otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services 

to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall community development, such as fire and rescue 

services, healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community, 

social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open country and 

rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 people. 

Healthcare and fire and rescue facilities are the priorities of the 

program and receive the majority of available funds. 

The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104–127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community facilities, 

such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are 

targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have 

lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 

percent of the cost of developing the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,580,000 for 

the Rural Community Facilities Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Loan levels: 

Community facilities direct loans .................................................... 294,962 295,038 295,038 

Community facilities guaranteed loans ........................................... 206,417 206,405 206,405 

Total loan levels ........................................................................... 501,379 501,443 501,443 

Budget authority: 

Community facility direct loans ....................................................... 3,864 3,924 3,924 

Community facility guaranteed loans .............................................. 6,626 8,153 8,153 

Community facility grants ................................................................ 20,373 29,640 20,373 

Economic impact initiative grants ................................................... 13,902 ........................ 13,902 

Rural community development initiative .......................................... 6,256 ........................ 6,256 

Tribal college grants ......................................................................... 3,972 ........................ 3,972 

Total budget authority .................................................................. 54,993 41,717 56,580 

Consideration to Applications.—Community Facilities loans and 

grants provide financial assistance to construct, enlarge, or otherwise improve essential community facilities for health care, public 

safety and other essential public services. The Committee has been 

made aware of and encourages the Department to give consideration to applications relating to essential community facilities for 

the following: Alaskan Native Green House Assisted Living Home 

(Alaska); Ashmun Bay Boat Access and Channel Dredging Project 

(Michigan); Bethel Police Station (Alaska); City of Belleview Municipal Complex Development Project (Florida); City of Helena-West 

Helena GIS Mapping System (Arkansas); Curry County Adult and 
66 

Juvenile Detention Center Renovations and Improvements (Mew 

Mexico); Dowling Park Library (Florida); Duncan Township Hall 

Improvements and Historic Preservation (Michigan); Duncan 

Township Office, Fire Hall Construction (Michigan); Gallup Regional Judicial Complex (New Mexico); Germfask Township Community/Senior Center (Michigan); Hagerman Town Hall Renovation 

(New Mexico); Ketchikan Gateway Borough Acquisition (Alaska); 

Les Cheneaux Emergency Response Vehicle (Michigan); 

Meadowview Subdivision Road Upgrade (Alaska); Miller County 

Conservation District Facility Renovation (Arkansas); Nome Public 

Safety Building (Alaska); Old Forge Arts & Science Center (New 

York); Quay County Courthouse (New Mexico); Rural Hawaii Community Facilities (Hawaii); San Miguel County Courthouse/Public 

Works Facility Project (New Mexico); Santaquin Agricultural and 

Equestrian Heritage Center (Utah); Seaside School District Relocation (Oregon); Shiawassee Performing Arts Center (Michigan); 

South County Community & Fitness Center Renovation (Michigan); 

Togiak Old School Rehabilitation into Community Center (Alaska); 

Waianae Intergenerational Community Service Center, the Hawaii 

Slaughter-Processing Network, and the Ka Mahi’ai’Ihi O Wailea 

(the Sacred Farm of Wailea) (Hawaii); and, Wasilla Library Relocation (Alaska). 

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established 

review process. 

RURAL BUSINESS—COOPERATIVE SERVICE

The Rural Business—Cooperative Service [RBS] was established 

by Public Law 103–354, Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 

13, 1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural 

Development Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service. 

The mission of the Rural Business—Cooperative Service is to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by assisting new and 

existing cooperatives and other businesses through partnership 

with rural communities. The goals and objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in rural America through financial assistance, sound business planning, technical assistance, 

appropriate research, education, and information; (2) support environmentally sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the 

entire community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are 

available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis on 

those most in need. 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $97,116,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 81,526,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,689,000 

The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by 

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural 

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural Development 
67 

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business and industrial 

loans are made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 

purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, 

and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include financing business and 

industrial acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 

Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the Rural 

Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies and 

nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small and 

emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the acquisition and development of land; the construction of buildings, plants, 

equipment, access streets and roads, parking areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital. 

Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under section 

306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 

as amended. Grants may be made to public bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations or entities. Grants are 

made to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use 

local rural economic and human resources: to identify, train, and 

provide technical assistance to rural entrepreneurs and managers; 

to establish business support centers; to conduct economic development planning and coordination, and leadership development; and 

to establish centers for training, technology, and trade that will 

provide training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive 

communications technologies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $86,689,000 for 

the Rural Business Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Committee recommendations 

Loan levels: 

Business and Industry guaranteed loans loan levels ...................... 993,002 941,963 993,000 

Budget authority: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ........................................ 52,927 40,316 42,500 

Business enterprise grants ............................................................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 

Business opportunity grants ............................................................. 2,483 2,483 2,483 

Delta Regional Authority grants ....................................................... 2,979 ........................ 2,979 

Total budget authority .................................................................. 97,116 81,526 86,689 

Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends 

$500,000 for transportation technical assistance. 
68 

The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended for 

grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 

$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and assistance 

initiative. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Estimated loan level ............................................................................ 33,536 36,376 33,533 

Direct loan subsidy .............................................................................. 8,464 14,034 12,937 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 4,941 5,046 5,046 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 13,405 19,080 17,983 

The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 

was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by 

the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 99– 

425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986. 

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 

groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, community development corporations, private nonprofit organizations, 

public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business, 

industry, community facilities, and employment opportunities and 

diversification of the economy in rural areas. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the program 

account. Appropriations to this account will be used to cover the 

lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 

2011, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,983,000 for 

the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Estimated loan level ............................................................................ 33,077 33,077 33,077 

The Rural Economic Development Loans program was established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law 

100–203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Act 

of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313. This section 

of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion 

of credits payment program and created the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under 

the act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero interest 

loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose 

of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects, 

including funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other 
69 

reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a loan program level of $33,077,000, 

to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of Credit and fees on 

guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant to section 313A of 

the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $34,854,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 40,054,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,560,000 

Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 

as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative development with their primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 

rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75 

percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative 

costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from nonFederal sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on 

specific selection criteria. 

Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 

2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 

primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, organizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives. 

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to 

any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, and 

other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in 

rural areas. 

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 

program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. The 

program provides information and technical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices that are 

environmentally friendly and lower production costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,560,000 for 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants. 

Of the funds recommended, $2,800,000 is for the Appropriate 

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate Technology. 

The Committee has included language in the bill that not more 

than $3,463,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance 

to small, minority producers. 

Value Added.—The Committee recommends $20,373,000 for 

value-added agricultural product market development grants. 
70 

RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 7,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,350,000 

This program, authorized by section 379E of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.), provides 

micro-entrepreneurs with the skills necessary to establish new 

rural microenterprises, as well as support these types of businesses 

with technical and financial assistance. The program provides 

loans and grants to intermediaries that assist micro-entrepreneurs. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes available 

$4,000,000 of mandatory funding for fiscal year 2011. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,350,000 for 

the Rural Microenterprise Investment Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 level 2011 request Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 11,832 23,523 12,019 

Loan subsidy .............................................................................................. 2,500 6,850 3,500 

Grants ........................................................................................................ 2,500 850 850 

BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $17,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Biorefinery Assistance program, authorized by section 9003 

of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, assists in the 

development of new and emerging technologies for the development 

of advanced biofuels. The program authorizes grants for development and construction of demonstration-scale biorefineries, and 

guaranteed loans for development, construction or retrofitting commercial-scale biorefineries. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation of discretionary funds for the Biorefinery Assistance Program. The Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provided $75,000,000 in no 

year mandatory funding in fiscal year 2009, and $245,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2010. Little of this funding has been obligated and the 

bulk will be carried over and remain available in fiscal year 2011. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $39,340,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 39,340,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,340,000 
71 

The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(7 U.S.C. 8107). This program may fund energy audits, direct 

loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and small 

rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy systems and 

for energy efficiency improvements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,340,000 for 

the Rural Energy for America Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

level 2011 request Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 144,209 11,519 11,519 

Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... 19,670 5,340 5,340 

Grants ........................................................................................................ 19,670 34,000 34,000 

Consideration to Applications: Rural Business and Renewable 

Energy Programs.—The Committee has been made aware of and 

encourages the Department to give consideration to applications for 

rural business and renewable energy programs for the following: 

Agricultural Processing and Product Development Center (Alaska); 

Biorefinery Development Using Multiple Feedstocks (Louisiana); 

Biotechnology Asset Inventory (North Carolina); Blue Mountain 

Station Product Development Market Center (Washington); Coffman Cove Marine Repair and Storage Project (Alaska); Cooperative 

Biofuel Supply Chain Development (Minnesota); Development of 

Fish Disease Laboratory and Bio-secure Fish Hatchery (Michigan); 

Economic Development Charette (Mississippi); Idaho Rural Partnership (Idaho); Integrated Bio-refinery for Multiple Biomass Feed 

Stocks (New Mexico); Mississippi Rural Economic Development Initiative (Mississippi); National Rural Development Fellows (Mississippi); Northeast Oregon Grown Meat Processing Development 

Plan (Oregon); Revitalizing the I–95 Corridor with Biotechnology, 

South Carolina Research Authority (South Carolina); San Joaquin 

County Agricultural Center Solar Energy Project (California); and, 

WNC Regional Livestock Center (North Carolina). 

In addition, the Committee encourages the Department to consider applications for grants to rural public television broadcasting 

systems. 

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established 

review process. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), October 13, 1994. 

RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of the former 
72 

Rural Electrification Administration and the water and waste programs of the former Rural Development Administration. 

The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in improving 

the quality of life in rural America by administering its electric, 

telecommunications, and water and waste programs in a service 

oriented, forward looking, and financially responsible manner. All 

three programs have the common goal of modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides funding and support service 

for utilities serving rural areas. The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local utilities assist rural communities in 

modernizing local infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, resulting in the creation of new sources of employment. 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $568,730,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 534,414,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 582,851,000 

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections 

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste development 

costs. Development loans are made to associations, including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities and similar 

organizations, generally designated as public or quasi-public agencies, that propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, 

purification, and distribution of domestic water or the collection, 

treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not 

exceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects and can 

supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay 

development costs. 

The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 

310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating pollution of water 

resources and for improving the planning and management of solid 

waste disposal facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $582,851,000 for 

the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account. 

The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for water and waste 

disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native 

Alaskans, the Colonias, and residents of Hawaiian Home Lands. 

The Committee recognizes the special needs and problems for delivery of basic services to these populations. In addition, the Committee makes up to $15,000,000 available for the circuit rider program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 
73 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Loan levels and budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

appropriation 

2011 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 1,022,162 1,036,294 1,022,156 

Direct loans authorized by Public Law 83–566 ................... ............................ ............................ 40,000 

Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Total loan levels ............................................................... 1,097,162 1,111,294 1,137,156 

Budget authority: 

Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 77,071 88,914 87,701 

Direct loans authorized by Public Law 83–566 ................... ............................ ............................ 3,432 

Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 469,228 440,510 469,228 

Solid waste management grants ......................................... 3,441 3,500 3,500 

Water well system grants ..................................................... 993 993 993 

Water and waste water revolving funds .............................. 497 497 497 

High energy cost grants ....................................................... 17,500 ............................ 17,500 

Total budget authority ...................................................... 568,730 534,414 582,851 

Water and Waste Technical Assistance and Training Grants.— 

The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to provide support for the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse through the 

water and waste technical assistance and training grant program. 

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established 

review process. 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the program account. An appropriation to this account 

will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the 

direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in fiscal year 

2011, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for 

the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared 

to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5 percent ................................................................ 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Direct FFB .......................................................................... 6,500,000 4,000,000 6,500,000 

Guaranteed underwriting ................................................... 500,000 .......................... 500,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 7,100,000 4,100,000 7,100,000 
74 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5 percent ......................................................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Direct, Treasury rate ................................................................... 250,000 250,000 250,000 

Direct, FFB .................................................................................. 295,000 295,000 295,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................. 690,000 690,000 690,000 

Total, loan authorizations ...................................................... 7,790,000 4,790,000 7,790,000 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 39,959 38,374 38,374 

The Committee rejects the administration’s proposal to place further restrictions on eligible projects under the electric program. 

Rural areas face ever increasing requirements for electricity while 

facilities are typically 20 to 30 years old. Substantial demands exist 

for comprehensive emissions control upgrades and increased peaking capacity. Diminishing rural electric cooperatives’ access to 

Rural Utilities Service loan programs will further disadvantage 

rural residents by raising user rates and undermining service reliability. The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to fund 

program authorities, and not to attempt to implement the proposed 

program restrictions through the apportionment process. 

The Committee recommendation includes a general provision authorizing a pilot program for the construction of not more than 

three facilities for the generation of electricity in rural America. 

The Committee is growing increasingly concerned that many current generation facilities in rural America are coming to the end 

of their operational capabilities while energy consumption is near 

capacity and expected to exceed current availability. This pilot program will help rural electric customers acquire an adequate supply 

of electricity at reasonable rates which will otherwise rise to 

unsustainable levels, particularly when compared to non-rural 

areas where investor owned utilities provide options not available 

in rural areas. Because it could take as long as 12 years to build 

an electric generation facility, the Committee believes that this 

issue should be dealt with during fiscal year 2011 to avoid rural 

area power shortages in the near and long term. The recommendation does not discriminate based on fuel input as long as emissions 

are no greater than emissions for natural gas facilities. While addressing the energy needs of rural America, the pilot project will 

also allow the Rural Utilities Service to establish program subsidy 

scores by giving the agency experience with the risks and benefits 

of financing contemporary baseload generation facilities. 
75 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANTS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2010 level 2011 request 

Loan and grant levels: 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program: 

Grants ................................................................................ 37,755 30,000 37,755 

Broadband program: 

Treasury rate loans ..................................................................... 400,000 400,000 400,000 

Treasury rate loans budget authority ......................................... 28,960 22,320 22,320 

Grants ......................................................................................... 17,976 17,976 17,976 

Total DLT and Broadband program level ............................... 455,731 447,976 455,731 

Total DLT and Broadband budget authority .......................... 84,691 70,296 78,051 

The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program is 

authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 

of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– 

127). This program provides incentives to improve the quality of 

phone services, to provide access to advanced telecommunications 

services and computer networks, and to improve rural opportunities. 

This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural 

education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other 

facilities providing rural residents access to better health care 

through technology and increasing educational opportunities for 

rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,051,000 for 

the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. The 

Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for public broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert from 

analog to digital operations. 

The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet 

health needs in the Mississippi Delta. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical health care 

needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 

The Committee continues its support for extending high speed 

broadband service to the most remote, un-served areas of rural 

America. Substantial funds have been made available in annual 

appropriations bills, and an unprecedented investment of 

$2,500,000,000 in budget authority was provided through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5). All Recovery Act funds, supporting both loans and grants, 

were to be obligated by October 2010. 

The Secretary is directed to analyze and report to the Committees implications of the Recovery Act investments toward extending 

high speed broadband access to remote underserved and un-served 
76 

rural areas. This report should include lessons learned and suggestions on improving effectiveness of the regular broadband program, 

including the need for loan/grant combinations in developing successful projects with regular program funding. The Secretary is directed to utilize preliminary information provided under the National Broadband Map initiative mandated by the Recovery Act, 

and submit the report no later than 30 days after issuance of the 

map. 

Broadband Grants.—In addition, of the funds recommended, 

$17,976,000 in grants shall be made available to support 

broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for 

rural areas. 

Consideration to Applications: Rural Utilities Service Programs.—The Committee has been made aware of and encourages 

the Department to give consideration to applications for: Batesville 

Water Storage Tank (Arkansas); Bayou Meto (Arkansas); 

Campbellton Wastewater Treatment and Bio-solids Recycling 

Project (Florida); Cattaraugus County Residential Wireless 

Broadband Internet Service (New York); Cedar Glades Park Municipal Water Supply (Arkansas); City of Barry Water Improvement 

Initiative (Illinois); City of Dundee Wastewater Project (Michigan); 

City of Lawtey Hydro-Pneumatic Potable Water Tank Replacement 

(Florida); City of Riddle Wastewater Plant Upgrade (Oregon); 

Crossroads Sewer/Water Project (New York); Ekwok Landfill Relocation (Alaska); Elk County Rural Water District #2 (Kansas); 

Estancia Valley Broadband Feasibility (New Mexico); Grand Prairie (Arkansas); Green Township Phase I Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Ohio); Gretna Wastewater System Improvements (Florida); 

GRWA Water System Improvements Lake Source (Michigan); Harrison County/Cadiz Village Wastewater Plant/Biodiesel Facility 

(Ohio); Hubbard Creek Impoundment Improvement (Oregon); Hubbard Creek Water Distribution Improvement Project (Oregon); 

JCJC Broadband Connect (Mississippi); Jemez Pueblo Drinking 

Water Project (New Mexico); Keystone Regional Water Reclamation 

Facility & Wastewater Collection System (California); Mammoth 

Community Water District Drinking and Wastewater Improvements (California); New Straitsville State Route 93/State Route 216 

Waterline Replacement (Ohio); Northern New Mexico Solid Waste 

Automation Project (New Mexico); Partridge Creek Diversion 

Project (Michigan); Perry City Fiber Optic Network (Utah); Saline 

Watershed Alliance Water Supply (Arkansas); Sewer System Improvements, City of Georgiana (Alabama); Shoshone County Renewable Energy Project (Idaho); Spalding Avenue Sewage Pump 

Station (Oregon); Tremonton City Fiber-Optic Network (Utah); 

Tulare County Community Water System (California); Village of 

Dunkirk Combined Sewer Elimination Project (Ohio); and, Village 

of Richmond Sanitary Sewer Elimination Project (Ohio). 

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established 

review process. 
(77) 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $813,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 836,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 821,000 

The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out 

the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s 

nutrition assistance activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $821,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer 

Services. 

Nutrition Services Incentive Program.—The Committee is aware 

that the Nutrition Services Incentive Program [NSIP] is eligible to 

receive bonus commodities and has received such commodities in 

the past. Commodities from USDA are a significant component of 

Federal nutrition programs for the elderly, including Meals on 

Wheels that is provided through NSIP and administered by the 

Agency on Aging. However, the Department has determined that 

the Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP], the National 

School Lunch Program [NSLP], and the Commodity Supplemental 

Food Program [CSFP] will be given priority for bonus commodities 

and bonus commodities will not be provided to NSIP. The Department is directed to review and reconsider this decision and report 

back to the Committee within 120 days of the enactment of this 

act. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate 

diet for families and persons with low incomes and encourage better eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs 

include: 

Child Nutrition Programs.—The National School Lunch and 

School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 

Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools of high 

school grades and under, to children of preschool age in child care 
78 

centers, and to children in other institutions in order to improve 

the health and well-being of the Nation’s children, and broaden the 

markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Special 

Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase 

the consumption of fluid milk by children. Funds for this program 

are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and children 

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The delivery of 

supplemental foods may be done through health clinics, vouchers 

redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved methods which 

a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—This program 

seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable them to 

obtain a better diet by increasing their food purchasing capability, 

usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic access to 

funds. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto 

Rico. 

The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian reservations 

who choose not to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–246, provides that $246,500,000 in fiscal year 2011 from funds 

appropriated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

account be used to purchase commodities for The Emergency Food 

Assistance Program [TEFAP]. 

Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides 

funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], 

the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP. 

CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up to 

age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women 

with low incomes, and who reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons. 

TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies 

to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities. 

Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents of 

the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Cash 

assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them in 

meeting administrative expenses incurred. It also provides funding 

for use in non-presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds 

for this program are provided by direct appropriation. 
79 

Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal 

operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service are funded 

from this account. Also included is the Center for Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and serves as the focal point 

for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education 

policy to improve the health of all Americans. 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation Section 32 transfers Total 

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................... 9,865,930 6,989,899 16,855,829 

Budget estimate, 2011 ............................................................ 18,158,393 .............................. 18,158,393 

Committee recommendation .................................................... 18,161,143 .............................. 18,161,143

The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79–396) and the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–642), provide Federal 

assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and commodities 

for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals to children while 

they are attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in other organized activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to help maintain the health and proper 

physical development of America’s children. Milk is provided to 

children either free or at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS provides cash subsidies to States for administering 

the programs and directly administers the program in the States 

which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 

training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under 

current law, most of these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to lunches and 

breakfasts actually served by the States. The reimbursement rates 

are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price 

Index for food away from home. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $18,161,143,000 for the Child Nutrition Programs. 

The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following annual rates for the child nutrition programs. 

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Child nutrition programs 2010 estimate 2011 budget Committee 

recommendation 

School Lunch Program ......................................................................... 9,967,068 10,589,998 10,589,998 

School Breakfast Program ................................................................... 2,920,391 3,117,863 3,117,863 

Child and Adult Care Food Program ................................................... 2,640,923 2,728,754 2,728,754 

Summer Food Service Program ............................................................ 387,264 397,226 397,226 

Special Milk Program ........................................................................... 12,673 10,597 10,597 

State administrative expenses ............................................................ 193,258 208,653 208,653 

Commodity procurement and computer support ................................. 695,401 1,049,290 1,049,290 

Team Nutrition ..................................................................................... 15,016 15,046 15,046 

Food safety education .......................................................................... 2,510 2,517 2,517 

Coordinated review .............................................................................. 5,751 5,833 5,833 
80 

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Child nutrition programs 2010 estimate 2011 budget Committee 

recommendation 

CACFP training and technical assistance ........................................... 3,537 3,567 3,567 

Child Nutrition Program Studies and Evaluations .............................. 3,000 19,711 19,711 

Hunger-Free Community Grants .......................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 

Healthier U.S. School Challenge .......................................................... 699 .......................... ..........................

School community garden pilot ........................................................... 1,000 .......................... ..........................

Farm to school tactical team .............................................................. .......................... 2,000 2,000

Payment Accuracy ................................................................................ 2,338 2,338 2,338 

Financial Management Systems Modernization .................................. .......................... 3,500 1,750 

IT Modernization and Support ............................................................. .......................... 2,000 1,000 

The Committee recommends $15,046,000 for TEAM nutrition. Included in this amount is $5,500,000 for food service training grants 

to States; $3,000,000 for technical assistance materials; $800,000 

for National Food Service Management Institute cooperative agreements; $1,000,000 for print and electronic food service resource systems; $1,500,000 to assist USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion in development and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials in support of nutrition education for 

program participants and their families; and $3,246,000 for other 

activities including FNS’ support of the McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program under 

section 3107 (g) of Public Law 107–171. 

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service 

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education program. 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.—Section 4304 of the Food, 

Conservation and Energy Act provided $150,000,000 for a Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Program to be made available on July 1, 2011. 

Of this amount, the Committee has included a general provision to 

delay availability of $113,000,000 of these funds until October 1, 

2011. The Committee notes that this general provision does not 

lower the funding amount provided in the Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, but simply 

delays a portion of the funding until the beginning of fiscal year 

2012. The full funding amount of $150,000,000 will be available for 

the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for the school year beginning July 1, 2011, as specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act. 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN [WIC]

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $7,252,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 7,603,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,252,000,000 

The special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, 

and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant, 

breast-feeding and post-partum women and infants, and children 

up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. 
81 

The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 

which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 

WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 

foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice 

which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter. 

There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods: 

(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods 

through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is 

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet. 

The food is free of charge to all participants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,252,000,000 

for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC]. The Committee notes that $125,000,000 in 

contingency funds will be available in fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC participation in fiscal year 2011 and makes significant program improvements. The Committee recommendation includes $80,000,000 

for breastfeeding support initiatives, $60,000,000 for State management information systems, and $14,000,000 for infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Committee recommendation maintains funding for fruit and vegetable vouchers for all women as 

well as implements fruit and vegetable vouchers for children up to 

the Institute of Medicine recommendation, per the budget request. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars] 

Expenses Amount in 

reserve 

Puerto Rico and 

American 

Samoa 

TEFAP 

commodity 

purchases 

Total 

Appropriations, 2010 ................................. 53,276,816 3,000,000 1,753,365 248,000 58,278,181 

Budget estimate, 2011 .............................. 61,217,446 5,000,000 1,742,844 246,500 68,206,790 

Committee recommendation ...................... 61,220,196 5,000,000 1,742,844 246,500 68,209,540 

The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year 

2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

[SNAP] in the The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible households receive 

SNAP benefits with which they can purchase food through regular 

retail stores. 

Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance 

Program, and the Community Food Projects program. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently in 

operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food benefits, 

the value of which is determined by household size and income. 

The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises 
82 

household benefit allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the 

thrifty food plan. 

Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative 

costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of benefits, 

quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the 

Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis. 

State Antifraud Activities.—Under the provisions of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be reimbursed for 50 

percent of the costs of their fraud investigations and prosecutions. 

States are required to implement an employment and training 

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that 

will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a grant program to 

States to assist them in providing employment and training services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $68,209,540,000 

for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The Committee recommendation includes $1,750,000 for financial management systems modernization and $1,000,000 for information technology modernization and support. Of the amount recommended, 

$5,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency reserve. The 

Committee recommendation includes language that permits the 

Food and Nutrition Service to conduct studies and evaluations consistent with the budget request. 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of bison 

from producer-owned and Native American owned cooperatives for 

the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Although 

funding is not provided specifically for bison purchase, historically 

these purchases have been important for the Native American population both economically and nutritionally. 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $247,979,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 249,619,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 261,619,000 

The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 

through The Emergency Food Assistance Program. 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].—Authorized by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection 

Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public 

Law 97–98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and 

children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breastfeeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved 

project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 years 

of age or older. 
83 

The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The authorized 

commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula, rice cereal, 

cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, 

canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut butter and dry beans. Elderly 

participants may receive all commodities except iron-fortified infant 

formula and rice cereal. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].—Authorized 

by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et 

seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to 

low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 

through the distribution of commodities to low-income households 

for home consumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to 

State agencies for distribution through State-established networks. 

State agencies make the commodities available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their use in providing nutrition assistance 

to those in need. 

Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies 

which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the 

funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’ 

unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below 

the poverty level. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes 

$246,500,000 available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities in 

fiscal year 2011. In addition to the commodities purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under agriculture support 

and surplus removal programs are donated to States for distribution through TEFAP. 

Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.—This program provides 

funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 

commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding for 

use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’ administrative costs in connection with relief for all disasters. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible participants 

with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods, such 

as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets. This benefits both 

participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use 

of farmers’ markets by low-income households. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $261,619,000 for 

the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues to 

encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Program funds equitably among the States, based on an assessment 

of the needs and priorities of each State and the State’s preference 

to receive commodity allocations through each of the programs 

funded under this account. 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The Committee recommends $176,788,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. 
84 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee is aware 

that the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program provides fresh fruits 

and vegetables to low-income mothers and children, benefiting not 

only WIC participants, but local farmers as well. Therefore, the 

Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to obligate these funds 

within 45 days. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides $246,500,000 for TEFAP 

commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. The Committee recommendation includes 

$56,000,000 for TEFAP administrative funding and $6,000,000 for 

infrastructure grants. In addition, the Committee recommendation 

grants the Secretary authority to transfer up to an additional 10 

percent from TEFAP commodities for this purpose. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $147,801,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 172,087,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 166,587,000 

The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation provides 

for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; Special 

Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program; and Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and Pacific Island 

and Disaster Assistance. 

The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is to 

efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to 

State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and 

other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and 

other advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing 

the progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and 

(4) carrying out regular staff support functions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $166,587,000 for 

Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee recommendation includes increases of $5,170,000 for improved program administration, and $9,000,000 to develop and promote dietary guidelines. 
(85) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

Appropriations, 2010 ........................................................................... 180,367 6,465 186,832 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................ 258,780 6,525 265,305 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 219,780 6,525 226,305 

The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established March 

10, 1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1. 

Public Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricultural attache ́s from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm products, improve world 

trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade 

in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 97 offices around 

the world where they provide expertise in agricultural economics 

and marketing, as well as provide attache ́ services. 

FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter 

the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S. 

agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement Program uses CCCowned commodities as export bonuses to provide export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in 

conjunction with nonprofit agricultural associations and private 

firms financed through reimbursable CCC payments. 

The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section 

5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15 

U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including facilities financing guarantees, (2) Food for Peace, (3) section 416b Overseas 

Donations Program, (4) Market Access Program, and (5) programs 

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to encourage and 

enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $226,305,000 for the Foreign Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $219,780,000. 
86 

The Committee recommendation includes increases of $3,430,000 

for International Cooperative Administrative Support Services, 

$4,004,000 for overseas information technology support, $4,500,000 

for the National Export Initiative, $1,500,000 for the Borlaug and 

Cochran Fellowship programs, $14,600,000 for stabilization and reconstruction activities, and $10,000,000 for international food security. 

Borlaug Fellows Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural 

Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides 

training for international scientists and policymakers from selected 

developing countries. The fellows work closely with U.S. specialists 

in their fields of expertise and apply that knowledge in their home 

countries. The Committee recognizes the importance of this program in helping developing countries strengthen their agricultural 

practices and food security. 

Cochran Fellowship Program.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $4,500,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional 

support for the program through the Commodity Credit Corporation Emerging Markets Program. 

Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.—The Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market Development 

Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 2010 level. 

International Food Security.—The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 for the Secretary to provide technical assistance in the 

establishment and growth of sustainable food production and marketing systems in developing countries. This appropriation should 

be considered to provide funding apart and different from funding 

provided for provincial reconstruction team activities in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

While the Committee acknowledges the importance of emergency 

food assistance, there is an equally important role for the United 

States and the Department of Agriculture to play in assisting developing countries achieve higher levels of self-sufficiency in order 

to overcome chronic and acute hunger. Agricultural systems in 

many parts of the world face challenges that stand in stark contrast to those found in this country where advanced technologies, 

a network of extension and land grant services, an expansive transportation network, and other resources provide protection to American farmers from problems that bring risk of total failure to crop 

and livestock operations in much of the world. 

The Secretary has available authorities under the Borlaug and 

Cochran fellowships, as well as other existing programs to provide 

meaningful leadership toward the goal of global food security. The 

Department is home to leading experts in the fields of crop and 

livestock production, conservation of land and water resources, 

market development, and other elements of a stable agriculturalbased economy. In addition, the Department has working relationships with the Nation’s land grant system and veterinary community that has fostered a vast pool of resources that could provide 

relief to many of the challenges facing developing countries. The 

Committee feels this expertise can provide substantial benefit to 
87 

help overcome world hunger and help support national and international security and stability. 

In implementing this directive, the Secretary should give consideration to a range of activities including opportunities for individuals from developing countries to participate in educational and 

professional experiences in the United States and, conversely, for 

U.S. experts in the field of agricultural development to provide 

training and other assistance in developing countries. In addition, 

the Secretary should provide grants and cooperative agreements to 

land grant institutions, non-governmental organizations, and others with expertise in the field of agricultural development. The Secretary should also employ reimbursable agreements in order for 

USDA personnel to provide on-site assistance in developing countries. The Committee strongly feels these efforts should be focused 

on specific areas so that the actual establishment of sustainable 

systems can be a measurable outcome of this effort. 

The Committee notes the historic role of the State Department 

and the United States Agency for International Development 

(USAID) in setting the priorities of international assistance. The 

Secretary is directed to coordinate any efforts under this specific 

appropriation with the Secretary of State for purposes of determining the specific locations where USDA assistance would be 

most beneficial. However, the Committee expects USDA, in consultation with USAID, to determine the best approaches to food 

system development in those locations. In addition, the Secretary 

is directed to provide a report to the Committee by March 1, 2011, 

on the approach and status of implementing these activities and a 

final report by September 30, 2011. 

Market Access Program.—The Committee continues the full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C. 

5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $2,812,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,846,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,846,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,846,000 for 

administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for 

Peace title I agreements. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,690,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,690,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,690,000,000 

The Committee recognizes the important mission of the Food for 

Peace Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote broadbased equitable and sustainable development; expand international 
88 

trade; develop and expand export markets for U.S. agricultural 

commodities; and to foster and encourage the development of private enterprise and democratic participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly supports the continued efficient operation of this important program. 

Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 

(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without 

cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to 

meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are 

also supplied for nonemergencies through public and private agencies, including intergovernmental organizations. The Commodity 

Credit Corporation pays ocean freight on shipments under this 

title, and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency 

situations. The funds appropriated for title II are made available 

to private voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 

organizations in meeting administrative and related costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,690,000,000 

for Food for Peace title II grants. The Committee does not support 

the President’s proposal to reduce the amount available for direct 

food assistance to cover administrative costs instead of providing 

for those costs through the Commodity Credit Corporation as is the 

current practice. Instead, the Committee believes it is more important to provide a higher level of direct humanitarian assistance to 

help meet the world’s growing hunger crisis. 

The Committee notes that funds provided earlier in response to 

the earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010 were intended to provide 

reimbursement for food assistance diverted from other recipients in 

order to meet the immediate crisis in Haiti and were not intended 

to be limited only to prospective requirements on that island. 

Therefore, funds appropriated at that time may be used to reimburse obligations incurred for the purposes provided herein prior to 

enactment of this act. 

MC GOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $209,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 209,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 209,500,000 

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program helps support education, child development, and 

food security for some of the world’s poorest children. The program 

provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal 

and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries 

that are committed to universal education. Commodities made 

available for donation through agreements with private voluntary 

organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and 

foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or for local 

sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding and nutrition 

projects. 
89 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,500,000 for 

the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM–102)

[In thousands of dollars] 

Guaranteed loan 

levels 1

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 1

Administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,500,000 11,130 6,820 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................ 5,500,000 18,480 6,884 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 5,500,000 18,480 6,884 

1 No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority. 

In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted the 

Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments 

due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales contracts (up to 

36 months) for defaults due to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the date of export to the 

end of the deferred payment period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that portion of the payments agreed to in the 

assurance agreement. Operation of this program is based on criteria which will assure that it is used only where it is determined 

that it will develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 

program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide financing 

to those areas where the institutions would be unwilling to provide 

financing in the absence of the CCC guarantees. CCC also provides 

facilities financing guarantees. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the program 

account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee programs 

are exempt from the requirement of advance appropriations of 

budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508. Appropriations to this 

account will be used for administrative expenses. 
(90) 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the public 

health and safety of Americans. FDA’s work is a blend of science 

and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 

2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110–85) reaffirmed the responsibilities 

of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective products reach the market 

to a timely way, and to monitor products for continued safety after 

they are in use. In addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical 

functions in the Nation’s war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of all regulated products, including food, and improving 

the availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 

by biological, chemical or nuclear agents. 

The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients and 

dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and 

honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are safe and properly 

labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown 

dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as 

emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in production and processing, have developed. This program plays a major role in keeping the United States food supply 

among the safest in the world. 

The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate areas, 

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and Biologics. FDA 

is responsible for the life cycle of products, including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human and animal drugs, 

medical devices and biological products to ensure their safety and 

effectiveness. FDA is responsible for the life cycle of the product, 

including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, 

animal and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. 

For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products 

used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are safe 

and effective. Additional procedures include the review of investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market applications for 

new and generic drugs, labeling and composition of prescription 

and over-the-counter drugs; monitoring the quality and safety of 

products manufactured in, or imported into, the United States; 

and, regulating the advertising and promotion of prescription 

drugs. The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe 

and beneficial veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or 
91 

prevention of diseases in animals and the improved production of 

food-producing animals, are approved for marketing. 

The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent, 

safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood 

banks and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms collecting 

human source plasma, evaluates and licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization, blood 

products, and other biologics. 

The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 

and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 

human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 

and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces quality 

standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (Public 

Law 108–365). Medical devices include thousands of products from 

thermometers and contact lenses to heart pacemakers, hearing 

aids, and MRIs. Radiological products include items such as microwave ovens and video display terminals. 

FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, 

Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting peer-review 

scientific research that provides the basis for FDA to make sound 

science-based regulatory decisions through its premarket review 

and postmarket surveillance. The research is designed to define 

and understand the biological mechanisms of action underlying the 

toxicity of products and lead to developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation User fees Total 

Appropriations, 2010 ....................................................................................... 2,344,656 922,280 3,266,936 

Budget estimate, 2011 .................................................................................... 2,503,849 1,233,480 3,737,329 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................ 2,503,849 1,233,480 3,737,329 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,503,849,000 

for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 

$667,057,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $61,860,000 in Medical Device User Fee and Modernization 

Act user fee collections; $19,448,000 in Animal Drug User Fee Act 

user fee collections; $5,397,000 in Animal Generic Drug User Fee 

Act user fee collections; $450,000,000 in Tobacco Product User 

Fees; $19,318,000 in Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections; and $10,400,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the President’s budget. The Committee recommendation 

includes bill language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 

U.S.C. 9701. 

The Committee recommendation does not include proposed language regarding generic drug review user fees, reinspection user 

fees, export certification user fees, or food inspection and facility 
92 

registration user fees. None of these user fee proposals have been 

authorized by Congress. The Committee will continue to monitor 

any action by the Congress regarding these proposed user fees. 

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as 

compared to the fiscal year 2010 and budget request levels: 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2010 enacted 2011 request 

Centers and related field activities: 

Foods ........................................................................................... 782,915 856,383 856,383 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 236,418 261,510 261,510 

Field Activities ................................................................... 546,497 594,873 594,873 

Human Drugs .............................................................................. 464,814 484,169 489,169 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 336,588 352,132 357,132 

Field Activities ................................................................... 128,226 132,037 132,037 

Biologics ...................................................................................... 206,438 215,026 215,026 

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 166,182 173,875 173,875 

Field Activities ................................................................... 40,256 41,151 41,151 

Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 135,475 140,673 140,673 

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 82,452 86,538 86,538 

Field Activities ................................................................... 53,023 54,135 54,135 

Medical and radiological devices ............................................... 315,377 325,726 325,726 

Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH] ........ 234,974 243,255 243,255 

Field Activities ................................................................... 80,403 82,471 82,471 

National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] ................... 58,745 60,975 60,975 

Other Activities .................................................................................... 143,712 161,659 156,659 

Rent and related activities .................................................................. 91,158 105,239 105,239 

Rental payments to GSA ...................................................................... 146,022 153,999 153,999 

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 2,344,656 2,503,849 2,503,849 

The Committee recommendation includes the following increases 

in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities, as requested in the budget: $10,896,000 for cost-of-living adjustments; 

$83,000,000 for food safety investments; $43,323,000 for investments relating to safer drugs, biologics, and medical devices; and 

$20,000,000 for regulatory science. Of the increases provided, $83,000,000 will be used for food safety investments. This includes funding for FDA to develop guidances 

and regulations to serve as a foundation for prevention-oriented 

food safety. FDA will also begin work on a modern import safety 

system, which will include standards for evaluating food safety systems in foreign countries, third-party certification, and an importer 

registry. This funding will also allow FDA to conduct additional audits of regulatory and public health partners, including foreign reg-
93 

ulatory bodies. FDA will add State liaisons to facilitate timely communication, and will develop a national work plan for inspecting 

food manufacturing and distribution facilities. FDA will expand its 

capacity to identify products at highest risk for contamination, to 

better target and prioritize food safety efforts. Finally, FDA will 

hire nearly 100 new food safety inspectors, increase laboratory capacity, and undertake pilot programs using track and trace technology. Of the increases provided, $43,323,000 will be used for activities 

related to drug, device, and biologics safety. This includes funding 

to increase foreign and domestic inspections of the most critical and 

high-risk facilities and allow FDA to work more closely with regulatory authorities in foreign countries. FDA will also launch an 

electronic drug registration and listing system that will permit efficient screening of drug imports at the border, start to build a National Medical Device Registry to link unique identifiers for medical devices, and expand postmarket surveillance systems so the 

agency can better assess the safety of medical products. Further, 

FDA will more closely monitor the blood and human tissue supply 

and will improve the safety of vaccines through the development of 

biological markers to evaluate the safety of vaccine components. Of the increases provided, $20,000,000 will be used to advance 

regulatory science to help FDA build its scientific infrastructure, 

develop standards for new and emerging technologies, modernize 

standards for evaluating products, and accelerate the development 

of essential medical therapies. During recent decades, there have 

been revolutionary developments in biomedical sciences, and FDA’s 

scientific expertise and infrastructure have not kept pace with 

these advances. These funds will address that gap. These funds 

will be used by FDA to strengthen its scientific leadership, including creating an Office of Science and Innovation. FDA will also increase and improve its scientific workforce, build core scientific capacity and expertise in revolutionary new fields such an nanotechnology, recruit additional scientists in areas where FDA expertise 

is lacking, address science issues for creating a National Medical 

Device Registry, and promote scientific collaboration and exchange. 

Finally, FDA plans to update and review standards and provide 

regulatory pathways for new technologies, including biosimilars. 

The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects, activities, 

and programs as included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, 

unless otherwise specified. 

Antibiotics in Shrimp.—The Committee is concerned about the 

contamination of farm-raised shrimp imports with banned antibiotics. The Food and Drug Administration currently inspects less 

than 2 percent of imported shrimp. The Committee strongly encourages FDA to develop, in cooperation with State testing programs, a program for increasing the inspection of imported shrimp 

for banned antibiotics. 

Antibiotic Development.—The Committee continues to be concerned about unresolved scientific issues regarding clinical development in the antibacterial drug arena, which has been identified as 

a serious impediment to new antibacterial development. In its report last year, the Committee directed FDA to issue clinical trial 

guidance for several serious indications. The Committee directs 
94 

FDA to report to by December 3, 2010, on its progress, including 

the status of FDA’s work toward a final guidance on communityacquired bacterial pneumonia as well as how FDA plans to address 

guidance for multi-drug and pan-resistant organisms. 

The Committee last year also encouraged FDA to identify ways 

to promote the development and/or appropriate use of priority antibacterial drugs for humans for which current market incentives are 

inadequate, by working with other governmental entities and interested parties to begin this work. The Committee directs FDA to address these issues in its December 2010 report, as well. 

Antimicrobial Resistance.—Antimicrobial resistance, and the resulting failure of antimicrobial therapies in humans, is a mounting 

public health concern. To address this problem, the Committee recommends that FDA conduct, and make public, an overall review of 

the use of antibacterial drugs in food-producing animals and antimicrobial resistance. In addition, the Committee recommends that 

FDA examine the antibacterial drugs currently approved for use in 

food-producing animals and identify mechanisms for assuring that 

such products are aligned with current safety standards. FDA 

should conduct post market safety reviews to assure that current 

uses of animal drug products are used in a manner consistent with 

the standards currently used in premarket safety evaluations. The 

Committee directs the FDA to report on the progress of this effort 

within 1 year of the enactment of this act. 

Budget Justification.—The Committee directs the agency to submit the fiscal year 2012 budget request in a format that follows the 

same account structure as the fiscal year 2011 budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee. 

Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.—The Committee recommendation includes $22,450,000 for the critical path initiative, 

including not less than $6,000,000 for critical path partnerships as 

authorized by section 566 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FD&C Act). The Committee expects that this funding will be 

used to further FDA’s work on critical path opportunities and to 

promote collaborations with other Government agencies, academia, 

patient groups, and other interested parties such as the Critical 

Path Institute and the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education. The Committee is also interested in Critical 

Path activities that advance safety testing, patient reported outcomes and accelerating therapies for serious diseases. Wherever 

possible, external awards should be competitive. 

Worldwide, almost 2 million people die from tuberculosis [TB] 

and more than 9 million people develop active disease every year. 

The rise of drug resistant TB can result in a global, untreatable 

epidemic. The Committee believes that more effective combinations 

of treatment are needed. Of the $6,000,000 provided for critical 

path partnerships, not less than $2,000,000 shall be used to support a research partnership to advance the prevention, diagnosis 

and treatment of TB. The Committee directs FDA to report on critical path spending semi-annually. 

Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device Availability.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for 

Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device Availability, 

as authorized by the Food and Drug Amendments Act of 2007. 
95 

E-Pedigree.—The Committee believes that a full electronic track 

and trace system for prescription drugs is critical to improve the 

security of the drug supply chain from counterfeit or other substandard products, and to protect consumers. A full electronic track 

and trace system would include the serialization, authentication, 

and recording the distribution history (also known as the pedigree) 

documenting all parties involved in the prior sale, purchase or 

trade of the prescription drug beginning with the manufacturer. 

The Committee directs FDA to provide a report to the Committee 

by March 1, 2011, that describes the status of developing standards 

for track and trace and authentication; the status of FDA’s consideration of technologies for track and trace and authentication; efforts to harmonize, to the extent practical, with international 

standards and efforts; updates of international efforts for serialization, track and trace, and authentication; and all other activities 

planned or undertaken with the funding provided in fiscal year 

2010 and 2011 for policy development related to the importation of 

prescription drugs. 

Food Labeling.—The Committee is pleased that FDA recognizes 

that importance of accurate food labeling in helping consumers follow a healthy diet, and is working to ensure that nutritional claims 

by food manufacturers are accurate. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,400,000, as requested, for FDA to 

use data from well-designed studies to support a modernized food 

label to encourage Americans to eat healthier diets and potentially 

reduce the prevalence of obesity and its associated health care costs 

in the United States. In undertaking this effort, the Committee encourages FDA to consider concerns addressed to the Committee regarding false or misleading structure/function claims, ingredient 

lists that are difficult to read or may not contain a declaration of 

the percentage of key ingredients, exaggerated representations regarding whole grain content, and a lack of information regarding 

caffeine and sugar. 

Generic Drugs.—The Committee recommendation includes no 

less than $96,966,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of 

which $55,545,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs. Total funding 

for the Office of Generic Drugs is an increase of $4,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 level, and $2,000,000 above the budget request. 

The President’s budget proposal acknowledges that generic drugs 

now account for 70 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the 

United States, an increase of 20 percent in 4 years. Further, annual generic drug application submissions have nearly tripled since 

2001. Although the Committee has provided substantial funding increases for generic drug review, and remains firmly committed to 

supporting these activities, the demand continues to outpace staffing. The administration’s proposals for user fees for generic drug 

applications have not yet been authorized by the Congress, but 

could provide a significant increase in funding levels for this important program. The Committee encourages FDA to continue to work 

with the generic drug industry and the Congress on this issue. 

H1N1 Emergency Use Authorizations.—In response to the 2009 

H1N1 influenza pandemic, the FDA issued several Emergency Use 

Authorizations (EUAs). The Committee directs FDA to submit a report to Congress by March 1, 2011, regarding the use of EUA au-
96 

thorities over the past 24 months, the number of EUA declarations 

issued and whether they remain in effect, and FDA’s assessment 

of whether the EUA authority is sufficient, including an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of using EUAs. 

Mammography.—The Committee is aware that the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA] has resulted in improved 

quality of mammography to make mammograms a more reliable 

tool to detect breast cancers. Appropriated funds pay for inspections in Government entities and in facilities where at least 50 percent of mammograms performed are funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer 

Early Detection Program, as well as other important activities. The 

Committee recommends no less than $6,918,000 in appropriated 

funds, as well as $19,318,000 in user fee collections, for activities 

related to MQSA. 

Nanotechnology.—The Committee supports the budget increase of $7,300,000 to expand upon current research in nanotechnology. 

The Committee is pleased that FDA has established a Nanotechnology Core Facility at the National Center for Toxicological Research, and encourages FDA to design this center to support nanotechnology toxicity studies, develop analytical tools to quantify 

nanomaterials in complex matrices, and develop procedures for 

characterizing nanomaterials in FDA regulated products. 

Orphan Product Development Grants.—The Committee is interested in making every tool available to FDA to get new products 

to those who suffer from rare diseases, and the Committee has 

been encouraged by the success of the orphan product grant program. FDA has approved 44 products that received development 

support from orphan products grants. However, because the cost of 

clinical trials continues to increase far faster than the rate of inflation, FDA’s funds are covering less and less of the true cost of conducting clinical trials. Therefore, the Committee recommendation 

includes $16,035,000 for orphan product development grants within 

the budget for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. This 

represents an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request and 

is the first substantial increase in funding for these grants since 

fiscal year 2005. 

Office of Women’s Health.—The Committee believes that it is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are safe and 

effective for women as well as men. The Committee recommendation includes $6,040,000 for the Office of Women’s Health. The 

Committee encourages FDA to ensure that the Office of Women’s 

Health is sufficiently funded to carry out its activities, and to enhance its funding if necessary. 

Rare Diseases.—The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000 for the office of the Associate Director for Rare 

Diseases in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER]. 

The Associate Director coordinates the development of policies and 

procedures for the review and approval of treatments for rare diseases throughout CDER, ensures appropriate training of staff, establishes consistent processes for providing advice to sponsors, and 

oversees the development of products for rare diseases across multiple scientific disciplines. In conjunction with the Office of Orphan 
97 

Products Development, the Associate Director supports collaboration among scientists and clinicians throughout FDA, promoting 

scientific and regulatory innovations to help facilitate timely development and approval of new treatments for patients with rare diseases. The Committee expects the Associate Director to use these 

funds to hire additional staff with specific expertise in facilitating 

the development of drugs to treat rare diseases. 

Seafood Economic Integrity.—The Committee recognizes the importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that FDA 

does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species, weights, country of 

origin, and treatment. The Committee encourages FDA to work 

with States to more aggressively combat fraud in parts of the seafood industry. 

Seafood Safety.—The Committee is supportive of the current 

MOU between NOAA and FDA and encourages both agencies, the 

Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of HHS to continue to 

work together to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety, seafood 

labeling, and seafood fraud. The agreements should focus on coordination of testing seafood imports, inspection of imported seafood at 

both domestic and international facilities, data standardization and 

collection, joint training and outreach for testing facilities, and information sharing. The Committee encourages an increase in the 

use of NOAA laboratory testing and the commissioning of NOAA 

officers by the Secretary of HHS as needed in order to increase capacity for seafood inspection and testing. In addition, the Secretaries are encouraged to share information with the Federal Trade 

Commission as appropriate on consumer protection issues with respect to fraud in seafood marketing and labeling. 

Standards of Identity.—The Committee recognizes that honey is 

produced in the United States, traded internationally,and consumed as both a packaged food and as a food ingredient. However, 

there have been instances where manufacturers have been marketing products illegally as ‘‘honey’’ or ‘‘pure honey′′ that contain 

other ingredients. FDA has been in receipt of a citizen petition regarding a proposed standard of identity for honey for a significant 

and unacceptable length of time, and is directed to respond to this 

citizen petition within 6 months, and provide monthly status reports to the Committee on this effort until a response has been provided. Further, FDA is directed to work to find ways to protect consumers from misbranded honey and honey-derived products that 

are currently entering the U.S. market. 

Traceability.—The Committee directs FDA to initiate one or 

more traceability projects on food products and/or ingredients 

known to be linked to foodborne disease outbreaks, or that have 

significant potential to cause serious adverse health consequences. 

When designing traceability projects, FDA should consider the 

challenges identified during previous outbreaks or build on previous efforts to improve product tracing along the supply chain. To 

prevent duplication of efforts and to more rapidly implement these 

pilot projects, the Committee encourages FDA to consider pilot 

projects already under way, either within the United States or the 

European Union, when implementing this directive. The Committee directs FDA to begin implementation of this project within 
98 

1 year, and to report back to the Committee upon the conclusion 

of the projects. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $12,433,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 12,433,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,433,000 

FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological 

Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to 

preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing 

program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,433,000 for 

FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to upgrade 

FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently below public 

safety standards and incapable of performing agency requirements. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCY 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2010 ..................................................................................... $54,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 59,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,400,000 

The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the 

examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other 

institutions of the Farm Credit System. 

Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain actions of the institutions. 

The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction 

now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of 

1971, Public Law 92–181, effective December 10, 1971. Public Law 

99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave 

the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers. 

The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to 

make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers 

and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associations and other entities upon which farming operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and 

future rural credit needs. 

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the formation of 

the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation [FAMC] to operate 

a secondary market for agricultural and rural housing mortgages. 
99 

The Farm Credit Administration, under section 8.11 of the Farm 

Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is assigned the responsibility of 

regulating this entity and assuring its safe and sound operation. 

Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions and by 

assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation of $59,400,000 on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA]. 
(100) 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommends the following provisions: 

Section 701. This section makes funds available for the purchase, 

replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702. This section gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in the bill 

to 1 year, unless otherwise specified. 

Section 704. This section limits negotiated indirect costs on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture and 

nonprofit organizations to 10 percent. 

Section 705. This section makes appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed loans available until expended to disburse obligations for certain Rural Development programs. 

Section 706. This section makes funds available for the expenses 

and activities of certain advisory committees, panels, commissions, 

and task forces at the Department of Agriculture. 

Section 707. This section prohibits the use of funds to establish 

an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture. 

Section 708. This section requires Department of Agriculture 

agencies to provide reimbursement to other Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for longer than 30 days. 

Section 709. This section prohibits the Department of Agriculture 

and the Department of Health and Human Services from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees. 

Section 710. This section prohibits the purchase of new information technology equipment and equipment in excess of $25,000 

without the prior approval of the Chief Information Officer. 

Section 711. This section prohibits the reprogramming of funds 

for programs, projects, or activities in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior notification of the Committee on Appropriations. 

Section 712. This section prohibits the use of funds for user fee 

proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget impact information. 

Section 713. This section places conditions on the closing or relocation of Rural Development State Offices. 

Section 714. This section prohibits the closing of the Food and 

Drug Administration’s St. Louis, Missouri laboratory. 

Section 715. This section limits the amount of funding available 

to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the release of 

commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 
101 

Section 716. This section provides funding for the National Center for Natural Products Research to construct and/or renovate facilities to enhance the research conducted on botanicals and dietary 

supplements at the National Center in conjunction with FDA’s 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. This research aids 

FDA’s regulatory mission in ensuring the safety and effectiveness 

of dietary supplements by identifying, isolating, and analyzing specific components of botanicals and dietary supplements. 

Section 717. This section makes funds for certain conservation 

programs available until expended to disburse certain obligations 

made in the current fiscal year. 

Section 718. This section prohibits funds to carry out certain sections of Public Law 110–246. 

Section 719. This section makes certain former Rural Utilities 

Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic Development 

loan and grant program. 

Section 720. This section provides funding to continue development of a sterile fruit fly facility. 

Section 721. This section makes selected communities eligible for 

certain Rural Development programs, pending receipt of the 2010 

Census. 

Section 722. This section provides funding for section 6402 of the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, to support development and expansion of the specialty cheese industry. 

Section 723. This section authorizes certain watershed projects. 

Section 724. This section modifies matching requirements for certain research grants. 

Section 725. This section provides funds for Rural Development 

and the Farm Service Agency information technology expenses. 

Section 726. This section provides funding for the Geographically 

Disadvantaged Farmers Program and the Durum Wheat Quality 

Program as authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 

of 2008. 

Section 727. This section provides funding to carry out a pilot 

program for hardwood trees. 

Section 728. This section includes language regarding reconstituted infant formula. 

Section 729. This section includes language regarding pandemic 

emergencies. 

Section 730. This section includes language regarding school 

equipment. 

Section 731. This section includes language regarding the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 732. This section includes language for the establishment 

of a fee under section 502(h)(8) of the Housing Act of 1949. 

Section 733. This section includes language for the establishment 

of a fee under the business and industry loan program. 

Section 734. This section includes language regarding the disbursement of obligations under the Rural Electrification Act of 

1936. 

Section 735. This section rescinds funds for Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities that are complete or have 

not received any appropriated funding in any of the previous 3 fiscal years. 
102 

Section 736. This section provides for the rescission of funds. 

Section 737. This section includes language regarding acquisition 

workforce capacity. 

Section 738. This section includes language regarding the Rural 

Innovation Initiative. 

Section 739. This section includes language regarding the conveyance of land. 

Section 740. This section includes language regarding baseload 

generation. 

Section 741. This section includes language regarding rare and 

neglected diseases. 
(103) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2011, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 

of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides 

the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, 

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ 

shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in 

the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the accompanying Senate Report. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2011 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified 

in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2011 

budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies, 

as modified by congressional action, and in addition: 

For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include 

specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes 

and lines of research specifically identified in the reports of the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition 

shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in 

the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed 

projects as summarized in the notes. 

For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include individual, regional, State, district, and county offices. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended 

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not 

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2011: 

Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004: 

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program 

State Administrative Expenses 

Summer Food Service Program 

WIC Infrastructure, MIS, Special Nutrition Education 
104 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC 

School Meals Program—Commodity Funding 

State Mediation Grants 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 15, 2010, the 

Committee ordered reported en bloc an original bill (S. 3606) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes; an original bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011 and for other 

purposes; and an original bill making appropriations military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with each subject to amendment and subject to the Committee Spending Guidance, and authorized the chairman of the 

committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of 

the Senate-reported bill as a committee amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote 

of 17–12, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Leahy Mr. Bond 

Mr. Harkin Mr. McConnell 

Ms. Mikulski Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Kohl Mr. Gregg 

Mrs. Murray Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Dorgan Mrs. Hutchison 

Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Durbin Mr. Alexander 

Mr. Johnson Ms. Collins 

Ms. Landrieu Mr. Voinovich 

Mr. Reed Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Specter 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 
105 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italics; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 8A—SLUM CLEARANCE, URBAN RENEWAL, AND FARM

HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 1472. Loans for housing and buildings on adequate farms 

(a) Terms of loan 

* * * * * * * 

(h) Doug Bereuter section 502 single family housing loan 

guarantee program 

(1) Short title 

* * * * * * * 

(8) Guarantee fee 

With respect to a guaranteed loan under this subsection, 

the Secretary may collect from the lender at the time of 

issuance of the guarantee a fee equal to not more than ø1¿ 3.5 

percent of the principal obligation of the loan. In addition, the 

Secretary may collect from the lender an annual fee not to exceed 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance of the loan 

for the life of the loan. 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106–387 

APPENDIX—H.R. 5426 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

øSEC. 739. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of the 

Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee collected by the 

Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a guaranteed loan under 

such section 502(h) at the time of the issuance of such guarantee 

may be in an amount equal to not more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan.¿ 
106 

FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT, 2008 

TITLE XIV—MISCELLANEOUS 

CHAPTER 2—OTHER PROVISIONS 

Subtitle C—Other Miscellaneous Provisions 

SEC. 14222. DOMESTIC FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

(a) DEFINITION OF SECTION 32.— * * * 

(b) TRANSFER TO FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Amounts made available for a fiscal year 

to carry out section 32 in excess of the maximum amount calculated under paragraph (2) shall be transferred to the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, to be used to carry out the Richard B. Russell 

National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) except section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 

et seq.), except sections 17 and 21. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

guidance 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee spending 

guidance to its subcommittees for 2011: Subcommittee on 

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ NA 109,217 NA 2 101,226 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 22,838 22,838 NA 2 24,480 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2011 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 104,776 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,393 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,863 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 298 

2015 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 209 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2011 ......................................................................................... NA 33,914 NA 35,728 

1 There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee for fiscal year 2011. 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING 

ITEMS 

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse. 

The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the 

decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. 

As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the 

term ‘‘congressional directed spending item’’ means a provision or 

report language included primarily at the request of a Senator, pro-
107 

viding, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, 

or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific 

State, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. 

For each item, a Member is required to provide a certification 

that neither the Member nor the Senator’s immediate family has 

a pecuniary interest in such congressionally directed spending 

item. Such certifications are available to the public on the website 

of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 

(www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm). 

Following is a list of congressionally directed spending items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this report, 

along with the name of each Senator who submitted a request to 

the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified. Neither 

the Committee recommendation nor this report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV. 
108 

PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture.

SRG ............................................................... Global Change/UVB Radiation ............................................................................... $1,750,000 The President 

National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture.

SRG ............................................................... Minor Use Animal Drugs ........................................................................................ $429,000 The President 

Rural Development ............. Rural coop grants ........................................ Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, Montana. $2,800,000 Baucus, Feinstein, Harkin, Johnson, Lincoln, Pryor, Specter, The 

President, and Tester 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Agency Account Project Funding Member 

Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD ........................................... $3,000,000 Mikulski Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Agricultural Research Center, Pullman, WA ............................................. $5,000,000 Cantwell and Murray Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT ................................................. $6,000,000 Bennett and Hatch Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT ................................................ $3,000,000 Baucus and Tester Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV ..................................... $1,500,000 Rockefeller Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. ARS Biotechnology Lab, Lorman, MS ........................................................ $2,000,000 Cochran Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. ARS Research and Development Center, Auburn, AL ............................... $6,000,000 Shelby Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. ARS Waste Management Research Facility, Bowling Green, KY .............. $5,000,000 McConnell Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center, Prairie du Sac, WI ............... $1,000,000 Kohl Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. National Cold Water Marine Aquaculture Center, Orono, ME ................... $1,500,000 Collins and Snowe Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI ............................... $5,000,000 Akaka and Inouye Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, LA ............................................ $1,000,000 Landrieu and Vitter Agricultural Research Service ............................ Building and facilities .............. Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE ....................................... $4,000,000 Nelson, Ben Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Aquaculture Fisheries Center, ARS, Stuttgart, AR .................................... $519,000 Lincoln and Pryor Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Biomass Crop Production, ARS, Brookings, SD ........................................ $1,250,000 Johnson and Thune Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Bioremediation Research, ARS, Beltsville, MD ......................................... $111,000 Merkley and Wyden Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Biotechnology Research and Development Center, ARS, Washington, DC $3,500,000 Durbin Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Computer Vision Engineer, ARS, Kearneysville, WV .................................. $400,000 Rockefeller Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Dairy Forage Research Center, ARS, Marshfield, WI ................................ $2,500,000 Kohl Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, ARS, Booneville, AR ........ $1,805,000 Lincoln and Pryor Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA ................... $623,000 Landrieu Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Endophyte Research, ARS, Booneville, AR ................................................ $994,000 Lincoln, Merkley, Pryor, and Wyden 
109 

Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus Disease Management, ARS, 

Prosser, WA.

$200,000 Cantwell 

Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Formosan Subterranean Termites Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA ........ $3,490,000 Landrieu Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Human Nutrition Research, Boston, MA; Houston, TX; Kannapolic, NC ... $1,650,000 Burr, Hagan, Hutchison, and Kerry Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. National Center for Agricultural Law, ARS, Beltsville, MD ...................... $654,000 Harkin, Lincoln, and Pryor Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, ARS, Mandan, ND .............. $543,000 Conrad and Dorgan Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, ARS, Corvallis, OR ............ $275,000 Crapo, Merkley, Risch, and Wyden Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Phytoestrogen Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA ....................................... $1,750,000 Landrieu Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, MD ............................................................... $408,000 Mikulski Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Sorghum Research, ARS, Little Rock, AR ................................................. $135,000 Lincoln and Pryor Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Technology Transfer, ARS, Washington, DC .............................................. $250,000 Cochran Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Water Management Research Laboratory, ARS, Brawley, CA ................... $340,000 Boxer and Feinstein Agricultural Research Service ............................ Salaries and expenses .............. Water Use Reduction, ARS, Dawson, GA .................................................. $1,200,000 Chambliss and Isakson Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, Delaware Department of 

Agriculture.

$69,000 Carper and Kaufman 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Arthropod damage control Nevada, APHIS NV .......................................... $1,000,000 Reid Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station. $1,500,000 Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont ................... $240,000 Leahy Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Blackbird management, APHIS LA ............................................................ $94,000 Landrieu Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Bovine tuberculosis eradication Michigan, Michigan Department of Agriculture. $248,000 Levin and Stabenow Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Brucellosis eradication in the Greater Yellowstone area states, Idaho 

Department of Agriculture, Montana Department of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board.

$650,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, 

Risch, and Tester 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and Agriculture. $619,000 Boxer and Feinstein Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture .................... $208,000 Cochran Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

$223,000 Specter 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Cormorant control, APHIS MI .................................................................... $139,000 Levin and Stabenow Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Cormorant control, APHIS MS ................................................................... $223,000 Cochran Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. $103,000 Leahy Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Database of North Carolina’s agricultural industry for rapid response, 

North Carolina Depart of Agriculture.

$208,000 Burr and Hagan 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ..... $69,000 Landrieu Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Genetically modified products, Iowa State University .............................. $259,000 Grassley and Harkin Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Giant Salvinia control, Northwestern State University ............................. $500,000 Landrieu Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Hawaii interline, APHIS HI ........................................................................ $3,000,000 Akaka and Inouye 
110 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Agency Account Project Funding Member 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Hawaii wildlife services activities, APHIS HI ............................................ $2,230,000 Akaka and Inouye Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee, University of Tennessee ................. $1,250,000 Alexander Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Integrated predation management activities, APHIS WV ......................... $280,000 Rockefeller Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Invasive aquatic species, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, Vermont. $94,000 Leahy Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University ........... $750,000 Brownback and Roberts Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico State University. $404,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe ......................................... $176,000 Crapo and Risch Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Noxious weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture ............. $235,000 Reid Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Technology to combat asian long-horned beetles in New York forests, 

SUNY–College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

$500,000 Gillibrand and Schumer 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, MT and WY ............................... $926,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, and 

Risch 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Varroa mite suppression, APHIS HI .......................................................... $469,000 Akaka and Inouye Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Wildlife management and control, APHIS MS .......................................... $496,000 Cochran Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..... Salaries and expenses .............. Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks.

$519,000 Johnson 

General Provision ................................................ ................................................... Agricultural pest facility, APHIS HI ........................................................... $2,600,000 Akaka and Inouye General Provision ................................................ ................................................... Market Development, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and Markets. $1,000,000 Leahy General Provision ................................................ ................................................... Market Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection.

$2,000,000 Kohl 

General Provision ................................................ ................................................... Phase II construction, National Center for Natural Products Research, 

Oxford, MS.

$8,000,000 Cochran and Wicker 

General Provision ................................................ ................................................... Speciality Markets, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection.

$350,000 Kohl 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Childhood Farm Safety, Urbandale, IA ..................................................... $75,000 Grassley and Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin Extension .... $376,000 Kohl National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Dairy Education, Iowa State University .................................................... $175,000 Grassley and Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... E-commerce, Mississippi State University ................................................ $231,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX. $475,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, and Hutchison National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University ................................... $173,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Food Production Education, Vermont Community Foundation, 

Middlebury, VT.

$116,000 Sanders 
111 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Health Education Leadership, University of Kentucky Research Foundation. $300,000 McConnell National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Wisconsin-Madison .. $400,000 Kohl National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach, Ducks Unlimited ................. $147,000 Levin and Stabenow National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Iowa Vitality Center, Iowa State University .............................................. $250,000 Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program, Maine Department of Agriculture. $700,000 Collins National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College .... $150,000 Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Northeast Energy and Environmental Dairy System, PA .......................... $305,000 Specter National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Nutrition Enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public Institutions. $950,000 Kohl National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH .................. $700,000 Brown, Sherrod and Voinovich National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Pilot Technology Transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State 

University.

$209,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Potato Integrated Pest Management—Late Blight, University of 

Maine.

$450,000 Collins and Snowe 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Range Improvement, New Mexico State University .................................. $200,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Urban Horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing 

Power.

$376,000 Kohl 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ Extension ................................... Urban Horticulture and Marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, 

IL.

$175,000 Durbin 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Ag-based Industrial Lubricants, University of Northern Iowa .................. $405,000 Grassley and Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Agriculture Development in the American Pacific, University of Hawaii. $400,000 Akaka and Inouye National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Agriculture Technology Innovation, Maryland Technology Development 

Corporation, MD.

$150,000 Cardin 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Agriculture Waste Utilization, West Virginia State University .................. $500,000 Rockefeller National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State University. $350,000 Boxer and Feinstein National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Biofuels Research, Vermont Technical College ........................................ $100,000 Sanders National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS .............................. $480,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Center for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. $340,000 Specter National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Clemson University Veterinary Institute, SC ............................................. $1,000,000 Graham National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Converting Agricultural Waste to Energy, Kansas Livestock Foundation. $2,000,000 Brownback National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Cotton Research, Texas Tech University ................................................... $200,000 Cornyn and Hutchison National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Council for Agriculture Science and Technology, Ames, IA ...................... $110,000 Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Development of Biobased Chemicals and Materials from Agriculture 

Raw Materials, Michigan Biotechnology Institute.

$125,000 Levin and Stabenow 
112 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Agency Account Project Funding Member 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD ..................................... $500,000 Cardin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University ................................... $152,000 Brown, Sherrod National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of Central 

Florida.

$285,000 Nelson, Bill 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... International Center for Food Technology Development to Expand Markets, Purdue University. $450,000 Lugar National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Kansas Advanced Biofueld Development, Kansas Alliance for Biorefining and Bioenergy. $2,000,000 Brownback National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Kansas Center for Advanced Plant Design, Kansas Wheat Commission. $2,000,000 Brownback National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa 

State University.

$95,000 Harkin 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Mississippi Valley State University ........................................................... $1,002,000 Cochran National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the University 

of Vermont, and the University of Maine.

$295,000 Collins and Snowe 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS .................................... $2,350,000 Brownback National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Rural Systems, Jackson State University, MS .......................................... $215,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Shrimp Aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi ......................... $300,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Law Center, Vermont 

Law School.

$343,000 Leahy 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH ......................... $500,000 Brown, Sherrod and Voinovich National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ RE/FA ......................................... Water Pollutants, Marshall University, WV ............................................... $500,000 Rockefeller National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Advanced Genetic Technologies, University of Kentucky Research Foundation. $650,000 McConnell National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX ............................... $300,000 Hutchison National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Aegilops Cylindrica (Jointed Goatgrass/Biomass), Washington State 

University.

$200,000 Cantwell and Murray 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Agricultural Diversification, University of Hawaii ..................................... $153,000 Akaka and Inouye National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Agricultural Science, The Ohio State University ....................................... $450,000 Brown, Sherrod and Voinovich National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, College 

Station, TX.

$300,000 Cornyn and Roberts 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State University, Kansas State University. $1,000,000 Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor, and Roberts National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center ................... $150,000 Landrieu and Vitter National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station .. $337,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Avian Bioscience, University of Delaware ................................................. $150,000 Carper and Kaufman 
113 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University of 

Idaho.

$500,000 Baucus, Crapo, Risch, and Tester 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Biodesign and Bioprocessing, Virginia Tech University ........................... $211,000 Warner and Webb National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration, University of Tennessee. $500,000 Alexander National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Biomass-based Energy Research, Oklahoma State University, Mississippi State University. $839,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Bioresource Land Use Planning Project, University of Kentucky .............. $671,000 McConnell National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, 

New Mexico State University.

$168,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Center for Food, Nutrition, and Obesity, West Virginia University ........... $550,000 Rockefeller National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Center for One Medicine, IL ...................................................................... $500,000 Burris and Durbin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Center for Multi-Functional Prairie Agriculture, SD ................................. $700,000 Johnson and Thune National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Center for Rural Studies, University of Vermont College of Agriculture 

and Life Sciences.

$350,000 Leahy 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Childhood Obesity and Nutrition, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. $250,000 Leahy National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University 

of Idaho, Washington State University.

$350,000 Cantwell, Conrad, Dorgan, and 

Murray 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia ...... $346,000 Chambliss and Isakson National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts ................................... $152,000 Kerry National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Cranberry/Blueberry Disease & Breeding, Rutgers, The State University 

of New Jersey.

$522,000 Lautenberg and Menendez 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Crop Diversification and Biofuel Research and Education , University 

of Kentucky.

$525,000 McConnell 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Dairy and Meat Goat Research, Prairie View A&M University ................. $200,000 Hutchison National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Dairy Farm Profitability, Pennsylvania State University ........................... $372,000 Casey and Specter National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Delta Revitalization Project, Mississippi State University ........................ $176,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Drought Mitigation, University of Nebraska ............................................. $600,000 Nelson, Ben National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX. $575,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, Hutchison, and Udall, Tom National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Emerald Ash Borer, The Ohio State University ......................................... $522,000 Brown, Sherrod National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Environmentally Safe Products, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. $250,000 Leahy National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Floriculture, University of Hawaii .............................................................. $300,000 Akaka and Inouye National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute ....................................... $1,213,000 Bond, Harkin, and Reid National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University ........................................... $298,000 Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Forages for Advancing Livestock Production, University of Kentucky ...... $473,000 McConnell National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California ................................ $750,000 Boxer and Feinstein 
114 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Agency Account Project Funding Member 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for 

Southern Crop Stress and Disease, Mississippi State University.

$797,000 Cochran and Wicker 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Grain Sorghum, Kansas State University ................................................. $1,250,000 Brownback and Roberts National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture, Oregon 

State University, Washington State University.

$142,000 Cantwell, Merkley, Murray, and 

Wyden 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Human Nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton 

Rouge, LA.

$526,000 Landrieu 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Illinois Plant Breeding Center, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. $617,000 Durbin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Inland Marine Aquaculture, Virginia Tech University ............................... $380,000 Warner and Webb National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University .......................... $617,000 Bennet and Udall, Mark National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Institute for Food Science and Engineering, University of Arkansas ....... $500,000 Lincoln and Pryor National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems, Purdue University. $188,000 Lugar National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Leopold Center Hypoxia Project, Iowa State University ............................ $100,000 Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Livestock & Dairy Policy, Cornell University, NY ...................................... $180,000 Gillibrand and Schumer National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Maple Research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life 

Sciences.

$165,000 Leahy 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University ...................... $188,000 Lugar National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Midwest Poultry Consortium, Iowa State University ................................. $250,000 Franken, Harkin and Klobuchar National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Milk Safety, Pennsylvania State University .............................................. $780,000 Casey and Specter National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, Colorado State 

University, Cornell University, University of Georgia.

$655,000 Bennet and Chambliss 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... National Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability, University of 

Arkansas.

$175,000 Lincoln and Pryor 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri-Columbia. $690,000 Bond National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Native Grassland and Sustainability, Kansas State University ............... $1,000,000 Brownback National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, New Mexico State University. $199,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative, University of Nevada Reno .............. $500,000 Reid National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... New Century Farm, Iowa State University ................................................ $350,000 Grassley and Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, Mississippi State University. $654,000 Cochran and Wicker National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Organic Cropping, Oregon State University .............................................. $142,000 Merkley and Wyden National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Organic Cropping, Washington State University ...................................... $264,000 Cantwell and Murray 
115 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Pierce’s Disease and Invasive Pest Research, University of California .. $2,000,000 Boxer and Feinstein National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, 

TX.

$200,000 Hutchison 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Preharvest Food Safety, Kansas State University ..................................... $500,000 Brownback and Roberts National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Protein Utilization, Iowa State University ................................................. $500,000 Grassley and Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics, University of Idaho ............................ $300,000 Crapo and Risch National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University ............ $1,000,000 Conrad and Dorgan National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Rural Policies Research Institute ............................................................. $755,000 Harkin National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Russian Wheat Aphid, Colorado State University ..................................... $237,000 Bennet and Udall, Mark National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Small Fruit Research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, 

Washington State University.

$285,000 Cantwell, Crapo, Merkley, Murray, 

Risch, and Wyden 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico 

State University.

$178,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State University .. $350,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Soybean Cyst Nematode, University of Missouri ...................................... $556,000 Bond National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, Virginia 

Tech.

$237,000 Warner and Webb 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Sustainable Food and Bio-Energy Systems, Montana State University ... $305,000 Tester National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Sustainable Production and Processing Research for Lowbush Specialty 

Crops, University of Maine.

$200,000 Collins and Snowe 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Sustainable Wheat Production and Food Security, South Dakota State 

University.

$600,000 Johnson and Thune 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management, Louisiana State University ..... $180,000 Landrieu National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Tropical and Subtropical Research/T STAR, University of Hawaii ........... $800,000 Akaka and Inouye National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project, Missouri Botanical Garden. $588,000 Bond National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars, Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State University. $247,000 Cantwell and Murray National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Viticulture Consortium, University of California ....................................... $1,000,000 Boxer National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Water Conservation, Kansas State University .......................................... $600,000 Brownback and Roberts National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Wetland Plants, Louisiana State University ............................................. $200,000 Landrieu and Vitter National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Wheat Genetic Research, Kansas State University .................................. $1,250,000 Brownback and Roberts National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, WY .............................. $300,000 Barrasso National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........ SRG ........................................... Wood Utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, WV) ................... $4,841,000 Burr, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, 

Franken, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Merkley, Murkowski, Risch, Rockefeller, Snowe, Stabenow, Wicker, and Wyden 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey, NRCS Wyoming ................................... $200,000 Barrasso 
116 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Agency Account Project Funding Member 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, Hawaii RC&D 

Councils.

$1,400,000 Akaka and Inouye 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, MS ......................................... $939,000 Cochran Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Center for Invasive Species Eradication, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX. $1,000,000 Hutchison Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture, Iowa 

Soybean Association.

$288,000 Grassley and Harkin 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Conservation Enhancements, Lancaster County Conservation Districts, 

PA.

$200,000 Specter 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Conservation Internships, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association. $120,000 Kohl Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS NJ .......................................... $236,000 Lautenberg and Menendez Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS TN .......................................... $1,000,000 Alexander Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin ..................... $516,000 Kohl Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Cover Crop Program, MD .......................................................................... $1,000,000 Cardin and Mikulski Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Delta Conservation Demonstration, Washington County, MS ................... $376,000 Cochran Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Delta Water Study, NRCS Mississippi ....................................................... $235,000 Cochran Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Farm Viability Program, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board ....... $300,000 Leahy Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, NRCS WI ....................................... $732,000 Kohl Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Great Basin Plant Materials Center, NV ................................................... $269,000 Reid Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, 

Great Lakes Commission.

$404,000 Brown, Sherrod, Durbin, Levin, 

Schumer, Stabenow, and Voinovich 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Hungry Canyons Alliance, IA ..................................................................... $282,000 Grassley and Harkin Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Illinois Conservation Initiative, Illinois Department of Natural Resources. $1,126,000 Durbin Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Kentucky Soil Erosion Control, NRCS KY .................................................. $724,000 Bunning and McConnell Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Mississippi Conservation Initiative, NRCS MS ......................................... $2,000,000 Cochran Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Native Plant Initiative, McNeese State University, LA .............................. $500,000 Landrieu Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Operation Oak Program, National Wild Turkey Federation ....................... $100,000 Chambliss, Cochran, and Graham Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Phosophorous Loading in Lake Champlain, Poultney Conservation District, VT. $179,000 Leahy Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Prairie Biomass, Central College, IA ........................................................ $100,000 Grassley and Harkin Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Initiative, Society for the Protection 

of New Hampshire Forests.

$282,000 Shaheen 
117 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Riparian Restoration, New Mexico Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. $200,000 Bingaman Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Soil Surveys, NRCS RI ............................................................................... $134,000 Reed Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts, 

Kentucky Division of Conservation.

$545,000 Bunning and McConnell 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Upper Cedar River Watershed Coalition, Trees Forever ............................ $150,000 Grassley and Harkin Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Watershed Demonstration Project, Iowa Soybean Association ................. $134,000 Harkin Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... Watershed Planning Staff, NRCS Pacific Island Area .............................. $500,000 Akaka and Inouye Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Conservation Operations ........... West Virginia Conservation Initiative, NRCS WV ...................................... $1,000,000 Rockefeller Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Copper Mine Brook Watershed, Bristol, CT ............................................... $330,000 Dodd and Lieberman Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Dunloup Creek Watershed Project, NRCS WV ........................................... $1,500,000 Rockefeller Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Lahaina Watershed, NRCS HI ................................................................... $4,000,000 Akaka and Inouye Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Lake County Watershed, IL ....................................................................... $350,000 Durbin Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, NRCS HI ............................................. $1,800,000 Akaka and Inouye Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Missouri Watershed Projects, NRCS MO ................................................... $2,000,000 Bond Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. North Fork of the Elkhorn Creek, NRCS WV .............................................. $300,000 Rockefeller Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Pocasset River, NRCS RI ........................................................................... $2,000,000 Reed and Whitehouse Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Southeast Quadrant Drainage and Flood Prevention Project, Foley, AL .. $350,000 Sessions Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Upcountry Maui Watershed, NRCS HI ....................................................... $2,000,000 Akaka and Inouye Natural Resources Conservation Service ........... Watershed/Flood Prevention Operations. Wailuku-Alenaio, NRCS HI ......................................................................... $250,000 Akaka and Inouye 
118 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

Production, Processing, and Marketing 

Office of the Secretary ............................................................................................................................................... 5,285 5,936 5,338 ∂53 ¥598 Office of Tribal Relations ........................................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,025 1,010 ∂10 ¥15 Healthy Food Financing Initiative .............................................................................................................................. ............................ 35,000 15,000 ∂15,000 ¥20,000 Executive Operations: 

Office of Chief Economist ................................................................................................................................. 13,032 13,175 13,100 ∂68 ¥75 National Appeals Division ................................................................................................................................. 15,254 15,424 15,424 ∂170 ............................Office of Budget and Program Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9,436 9,547 9,547 ∂111 ............................Office of Homeland Security ............................................................................................................................. 1,859 1,876 1,876 ∂17 ............................Office of Advocacy and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 1,700 7,009 1,709 ∂9 ¥5,300 Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. 61,579 63,719 63,719 ∂2,140 ............................Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................ 6,566 6,632 6,632 ∂66 ............................

Total, Executive Operations .......................................................................................................................... 109,426 117,382 112,007 ∂2,581 ¥5,375 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ..................................................................................................... 895 907 907 ∂12 ............................Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 23,922 24,133 24,133 ∂211 ............................Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................................................................................ 806 828 814 ∂8 ¥14 Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments ........................................................................................ (293,093 ) (277,937 ) (269,191 ) (¥23,902 ) (¥8,746 ) 

Payments to GSA ............................................................................................................................................... 184,812 178,470 178,470 ¥6,342 ............................Department of Homeland Security .................................................................................................................... 13,500 13,800 13,800 ∂300 ............................Building operations and maintenance .............................................................................................................. 94,781 85,667 76,921 ¥17,860 ¥8,746 

Hazardous materials management ............................................................................................................................ 5,125 5,139 5,139 ∂14 ............................Departmental Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 41,319 30,706 28,706 ¥12,613 ¥2,000 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ................................................................................. 3,968 4,081 4,008 ∂40 ¥73 Office of Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 9,722 9,839 9,839 ∂117 ............................Office of the Inspector General .................................................................................................................................. 88,725 90,300 89,744 ∂1,019 ¥556 Office of the General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 43,551 45,654 44,104 ∂553 ¥1,550 Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .................................................................. 895 920 904 ∂9 ¥16 
119 

Economic Research Service ........................................................................................................................................ 82,478 87,171 83,671 ∂1,193 ¥3,500 National Agricultural Statistics Service ..................................................................................................................... 161,830 164,721 163,721 ∂1,891 ¥1,000 

Census of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................ (37,908 ) (33,494 ) (33,494 ) (¥4,414 ) ............................

Agricultural Research Service: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,179,639 1,199,669 1,216,825 ∂37,186 ∂17,156 Buildings and facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 70,873 ............................ 44,000 ¥26,873 ∂44,000 

Total, Agricultural Research Service ............................................................................................................ 1,250,512 1,199,669 1,260,825 ∂10,313 ∂61,156 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 

Research and education activities ................................................................................................................... 788,243 838,729 780,720 ¥7,523 ¥58,009 Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ................................................................................................ (11,880 ) (11,880 ) (11,880 ) ............................ ............................Extension activities ........................................................................................................................................... 494,923 479,203 491,231 ¥3,692 ∂12,028 Integrated activities .......................................................................................................................................... 60,022 24,874 38,577 ¥21,445 ∂13,703 Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Endowment Fund .................................................... ............................ (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................

Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture ........................................................................................ 1,343,188 1,342,806 1,310,528 ¥32,660 ¥32,278 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................... 895 920 904 ∂9 ¥16 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 904,953 870,576 926,609 ∂21,656 ∂56,033 Buildings and facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4,712 4,712 4,712 ............................ ............................

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..................................................................................... 909,665 875,288 931,321 ∂21,656 ∂56,033 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ............................................................................................................................................ 91,148 97,255 96,955 ∂5,807 ¥300 (Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ......................................................................... (64,583 ) (60,947 ) (60,947 ) (¥3,636 ) ............................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section 32): 

Permanent, Section 32 ............................................................................................................................. 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 ¥100,000 ............................Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from section 32) ............................................................... 20,056 20,283 20,283 ∂227 ............................Commodity purchases support system .................................................................................................... (10,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥10,000 ) ............................

Payments to States and Possessions ............................................................................................................... 1,334 2,634 2,484 ∂1,150 ¥150 

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ........................................................................................ 1,487,121 1,381,119 1,380,669 ¥106,452 ¥450 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 41,964 44,192 44,192 ∂2,228 ............................Limitation on inspection and weighing services .............................................................................................. (42,463 ) (45,041 ) (50,000 ) (∂7,537 ) (∂4,959 ) 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........................................................................................................... 813 836 821 ∂8 ¥15 
120 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Food Safety and Inspection Service ........................................................................................................................... 1,018,520 1,036,900 1,047,200 ∂28,680 ∂10,300 

Lab accreditation fees ...................................................................................................................................... (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing .............................................................................................. 6,850,135 6,722,462 6,773,749 ¥76,386 ∂51,287 

Farm Assistance Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services .............................................................. 895 920 904 ∂9 ¥16 Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,253,777 1,364,673 1,343,350 ∂89,573 ¥21,323 (Transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480) ............................................................................................. (2,812 ) (2,846 ) (2,846 ) (∂34 ) ............................(Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (355 ) (359 ) (359 ) (∂4 ) ............................(Transfer from ACIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (313,173 ) (318,200 ) (313,173 ) ............................ (¥5,027 ) 

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (316,340 ) (321,405 ) (316,378 ) (∂38 ) (¥5,027 ) Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ (1,570,117 ) (1,686,078 ) (1,659,728 ) (∂89,611 ) (¥26,350 ) 

State mediation grants ..................................................................................................................................... 4,369 4,369 4,369 ............................ ............................Grassroot source water protection program ..................................................................................................... 5,000 ............................ 6,000 ∂1,000 ∂6,000 Dairy indemnity program ................................................................................................................................... 930 876 876 ¥54 ............................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ..................................................................................................................... 1,264,076 1,369,918 1,354,595 ∂90,519 ¥15,323 

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (650,000 ) (475,000 ) (650,000 ) ............................ (∂175,000 ) Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (2,150,000 ) (1,975,000 ) (2,150,000 ) ............................ (∂175,000 ) 
121 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (1,000,000 ) (900,000 ) (1,190,000 ) (∂190,000 ) (∂290,000 ) Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,650,000 ) (∂150,000 ) (∂150,000 ) Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... (170,000 ) (144,035 ) (170,000 ) ............................ (∂25,965 ) 

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (2,670,000 ) (2,544,035 ) (3,010,000 ) (∂340,000 ) (∂465,965 ) 

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ................................................................................................ (3,940 ) (2,000 ) (3,940 ) ............................ (∂1,940 ) Conservation loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (75,000 ) ............................ ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (75,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (150,000 ) (150,000 ) (150,000 ) ............................ ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .......................................................................................... (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) ............................ ............................Boll weevil eradication loans .......................................................................................................... (100,000 ) (60,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ (∂40,000 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (5,083,940 ) (4,741,035 ) (5,423,940 ) (∂340,000 ) (∂682,905 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 26,520 32,870 44,980 ∂18,460 ∂12,110 Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. 5,550 5,700 5,700 ∂150 ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 32,070 38,570 50,680 ∂18,610 ∂12,110 

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 47,400 54,540 72,100 ∂24,700 ∂17,560 Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 35,100 34,950 38,450 ∂3,350 ∂3,500 Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... 23,902 19,920 23,511 ¥391 ∂3,591 

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 106,402 109,410 134,061 ∂27,659 ∂24,651 

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Conservation loans .......................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 1,065 2,243 2,243 ∂1,178 ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. 278 285 285 ∂7 ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 1,343 2,528 2,528 ∂1,185 ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .......................................................................................... 793 214 214 ¥579 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 140,608 150,722 187,483 ∂46,875 ∂36,761 
122 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

ACIF administrative expenses: 

Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA) .......................................................................................... 313,173 318,200 313,173 ............................ ¥5,027 Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................. 7,920 7,920 7,920 ............................ ............................

Total, ACIF expenses ................................................................................................................... 321,093 326,120 321,093 ............................ ¥5,027 Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund .................................................................................. 461,701 476,842 508,576 ∂46,875 ∂31,734 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (5,083,940 ) (4,741,035 ) (5,423,940 ) (∂340,000 ) (∂682,905 ) 

Total, Farm Service Agency ........................................................................................................ 1,725,777 1,846,760 1,863,171 ∂137,394 ∂16,411 

Risk Management Agency, Administrative and operating expenses ......................................................................... 80,325 83,064 83,064 ∂2,739 ............................

Total, Farm Assistance Programs ................................................................................................................. 1,806,997 1,930,744 1,947,139 ∂140,142 ∂16,395 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 

Federal crop insurance corporation fund .......................................................................................................... 6,455,278 7,613,232 7,613,232 ∂1,157,954 ............................

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ............................................................................................................ 15,079,163 13,925,575 13,925,575 ¥1,153,588 ............................Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ................................................................................. (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Corporations ........................................................................................................................................ 21,534,441 21,538,807 21,538,807 ∂4,366 ............................Total, Title I, Agricultural Programs ............................................................................................................. 30,191,573 30,192,013 30,259,695 ∂68,122 ∂67,682 

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (316,340 ) (321,405 ) (316,378 ) (∂38 ) (¥5,027 ) (Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (5,083,940 ) (4,741,035 ) (5,423,940 ) (∂340,000 ) (∂682,905 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (112,046 ) (110,988 ) (115,947 ) (∂3,901 ) (∂4,959 ) 
123 

TITLE II— CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ................................................................... 895 920 904 ∂9 16 Office of Ecosystem Services Management ............................................................................................................... ............................ 2,021 ............................ ............................ ¥2,021 Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Conservation operations .................................................................................................................................... 887,629 923,729 928,979 ∂41,350 ∂5,250 Watershed and flood prevention operations ..................................................................................................... 30,000 ............................ 24,394 ¥5,606 ∂24,394 Watershed rehabilitation program .................................................................................................................... 40,161 40,497 40,497 ∂336 ............................Resource conservation and development .......................................................................................................... 50,730 ............................ 50,730 ............................ ∂50,730 

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................................................................ 1,008,520 964,226 1,044,600 ∂36,080 ∂80,374 Total, Title II, Conservation Programs .......................................................................................................... 1,009,415 967,167 1,045,504 ∂36,089 ∂78,337 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ............................................................................................... 895 920 904 ∂9 ¥16 Rural Development: 

Rural development expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................. 201,987 232,257 237,507 ∂35,520 ∂5,250 (Transfer from RHIF) ................................................................................................................................ (468,593 ) (454,383 ) (454,383 ) (¥14,210 ) ............................(Transfer from RDLFP) .............................................................................................................................. (4,941 ) (5,046 ) (5,046 ) (∂105 ) ............................(Transfer from RETLP) .............................................................................................................................. (39,959 ) (38,374 ) (38,374 ) (¥1,585 ) ............................

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ....................................................................................... (513,493 ) (497,803 ) (497,803 ) (¥15,690 ) ............................Total, Rural development expenses ..................................................................................................... (715,480 ) (730,060 ) (735,310 ) (∂19,830 ) (∂5,250 ) 

Rural Housing Service: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) ....................................................................................................... (1,121,488 ) (1,200,000 ) (1,200,000 ) (∂78,512 ) ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (12,000,000 ) (12,000,000 ) (24,000,000 ) (∂12,000,000 ) (∂12,000,000 ) 

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... (13,121,488 ) (13,200,000 ) (25,200,000 ) (∂12,078,512 ) (∂12,000,000 ) 

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... (34,412 ) (34,004 ) (34,004 ) (¥408 ) ............................Rental housing (Sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. (69,512 ) (95,236 ) (69,512 ) ............................ (¥25,724 ) Site loans (Sec. 524) ...................................................................................................................... (5,045 ) (5,052 ) (5,052 ) (∂7 ) ............................Multifamily housing guarantees (Sec. 538) ................................................................................... (129,130 ) (129,133 ) (129,133 ) (∂3 ) ............................Multifamily housing credit sales .................................................................................................... (1,448 ) (1,449 ) (1,449 ) (∂1 ) ............................
124 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Single family housing credit sales ................................................................................................. (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) ............................ ............................Self-help housing land develop (Sec. 523) .................................................................................... (4,970 ) (4,966 ) (4,966 ) (¥4 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (13,376,005 ) (13,479,840 ) (25,454,116 ) (∂12,078,111 ) (∂11,974,276 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Single family direct (Sec. 502) ....................................................................................................... 40,710 75,120 75,120 ∂34,410 ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 172,800 ............................ ............................ ¥172,800 ............................

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... 213,510 75,120 75,120 ¥138,390 ............................

Housing repair (Sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... 4,422 6,437 6,437 ∂2,015 ............................Rental housing (Sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. 18,935 32,123 23,446 ∂4,511 ¥8,677 Multifamily housing guarantees (Sec. 538) ................................................................................... 1,485 12,513 12,513 ∂11,028 ............................Site development loans (Sec. 524) ................................................................................................. ............................ 294 294 ∂294 ............................Multifamily housing credit sales .................................................................................................... 556 556 556 ............................ ............................Self-help land dev housing loans (Sec. 523) ................................................................................. ............................ 288 288 ∂288 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 238,908 127,331 118,654 ¥120,254 ¥8,677 

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ....................................................................................... 468,593 454,383 454,383 ¥14,210 ............................

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program ................................................................................... 707,501 581,714 573,037 ¥134,464 ¥8,677 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (13,376,005 ) (13,479,840 ) (25,454,116 ) (∂12,078,111 ) (∂11,974,276 ) 

Rental assistance program: 

Rental assistance (Sec. 521) ................................................................................................................... 968,612 959,635 959,635 ¥8,977 ............................Eligible households (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)) ................................................................................................... 5,958 ............................ 5,958 ............................ ∂5,958 New construction (Sec. 515) .................................................................................................................... 2,030 3,000 3,000 ∂970 ............................New construction (Farm Labor Housing) ................................................................................................. 3,400 3,000 3,000 ¥400 ............................

Total, Rental assistance program ....................................................................................................... 980,000 965,635 971,593 ¥8,407 ∂5,958 
125 

Rural housing voucher program ....................................................................................................................... 16,400 18,000 16,400 ............................ ¥1,600 Multifamily housing revitalization program ...................................................................................................... 25,000 ............................ 25,000 ............................ ∂25,000 Multifamily housing preservation revolving loans ............................................................................................ 1,791 ............................ 2,655 ∂864 ∂2,655 

Total, Multifamily housing revitalization ...................................................................................................... 43,191 18,000 44,055 ∂864 ∂26,055 

Mutual and self-help housing grants ............................................................................................................... 41,864 37,000 41,864 ............................ ∂4,864 Rural housing assistance grants ...................................................................................................................... 45,500 40,400 41,500 ¥4,000 ∂1,100 Farm labor program account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (27,319 ) (27,288 ) (27,288 ) (¥31 ) ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 9,873 10,473 10,473 ∂600 ............................Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 9,873 9,873 9,873 ............................ ............................

Total, Farm Labor Program Account .................................................................................................... 19,746 20,346 20,346 ∂600 ............................

Rural community facilities program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Community facility: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (294,962 ) (295,038 ) (295,038 ) (∂76 ) ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. (206,417 ) (206,405 ) (206,405 ) (¥12 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations ................................................................................................. (501,379 ) (501,443 ) (501,443 ) (∂64 ) ............................

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Community facility: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 3,864 3,924 3,924 ∂60 ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. 6,626 8,153 8,153 ∂1,527 ............................Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 20,373 29,640 20,373 ............................ ¥9,267 

Rural community development initiative ........................................................................................ 6,256 ............................ 6,256 ............................ ∂6,256 Economic impact initiative grants .................................................................................................. 13,902 ............................ 13,902 ............................ ∂13,902 Tribal college grants ....................................................................................................................... 3,972 ............................ 3,972 ............................ ∂3,972 

Total, RCFP Loan subsidies and grants ..................................................................................... 54,993 41,717 56,580 ∂1,587 ∂14,863 Subtotal, grants and payments .................................................................................................. 162,103 139,463 160,290 ¥1,813 ∂20,827 Total, Rural Housing Service ...................................................................................................... 1,892,795 1,704,812 1,748,975 ¥143,820 ∂44,163 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (13,904,703 ) (14,008,571 ) (25,982,847 ) (∂12,078,144 ) (∂11,974,276 ) 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: 

Rural Business Program Account: 

(Guaranteed business and industry loans) ............................................................................................. (993,002 ) (941,963 ) (993,000 ) (¥2 ) (∂51,037 ) 
126 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ................................................................................... 52,927 40,316 42,500 ¥10,427 ∂2,184 Grants: 

Rural business enterprise ...................................................................................................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 ............................ ............................Rural business opportunity .................................................................................................... 2,483 2,483 2,483 ............................ ............................Delta regional authority ......................................................................................................... 2,979 ............................ 2,979 ............................ ∂2,979 

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants .............................................................................. 97,116 81,526 86,689 ¥10,427 ∂5,163 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (33,536 ) (36,376 ) (33,533 ) (¥3 ) (¥2,843 ) Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 8,464 14,034 12,937 ∂4,473 ¥1,097 Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ................................................................................................ 4,941 5,046 5,046 ∂105 ............................

Total, Rural Development Loan Fund .................................................................................................. 13,405 19,080 17,983 ∂4,578 ¥1,097 

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (33,077 ) (33,077 ) (33,077 ) ............................ ............................Limit cushion of credit interest spending ............................................................................................... (44,463 ) (103,000 ) (103,000 ) (∂58,537 ) ............................

(Rescission) ..................................................................................................................................... ¥44,463 ¥103,000 ¥103,000 ¥58,537 ............................

Rural cooperative development grants: 

Cooperative development ......................................................................................................................... 7,924 13,424 8,924 ∂1,000 ¥4,500 Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas ...................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 2,800 ............................ ............................Cooperative research agreement .............................................................................................................. 300 ............................ ............................ ¥300 ............................Value-added agricultural product market development .......................................................................... 20,367 20,367 20,373 ∂6 ∂6 Grants to assist minority producers ........................................................................................................ 3,463 3,463 3,463 ............................ ............................

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ..................................................................................... 34,854 40,054 35,560 ∂706 ¥4,494 

Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (11,832 ) (23,523 ) (12,019 ) (∂187 ) (¥11,504 ) Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 2,500 6,850 3,500 ∂1,000 ¥3,350 
127 

Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 850 850 ¥1,650 ............................

Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment ............................................................................................. 5,000 7,700 4,350 ¥650 ¥3,350 

Renewable energy program (Rural Energy for America): 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (144,209 ) (11,519 ) (11,519 ) (¥132,690 ) ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 19,670 5,340 5,340 ¥14,330 ............................Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 19,670 34,000 34,000 ∂14,330 ............................

Total, Renewable energy program ....................................................................................................... 39,340 39,340 39,340 ............................ ............................

Biorefinery Assistance Program: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. ............................ (49,856 ) ............................ ............................ (¥49,856 ) Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ 17,300 ............................ ............................ ¥17,300 

Total, Biorefinery Assistance Program ................................................................................................. ............................ 17,300 ............................ ............................ ¥17,300 Total, Rural Business Cooperative Service .......................................................................................... 145,252 102,000 80,922 ¥64,330 ¥21,078 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (1,215,656 ) (1,096,314 ) (1,083,148 ) (¥132,508 ) (¥13,166 ) 

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural water and waste disposal program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Direct ............................................................................................................................................... (1,022,162 ) (1,036,294 ) (1,022,156 ) (¥6 ) (¥14,138 ) Public Law 83–566 loans ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (40,000 ) (∂40,000 ) (∂40,000 ) Guaranteed ...................................................................................................................................... (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (75,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Loan authorization ............................................................................................................ 1,097,162 1,111,294 1,137,156 ∂39,994 ∂25,862 

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Direct subsidy .................................................................................................................................. 77,071 88,914 87,701 ∂10,630 ¥1,213 Public Law 83–566 loans ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 3,432 ∂3,432 ∂3,432 Water and waste grants ................................................................................................................. 469,228 440,510 469,228 ............................ ∂28,718 Solid waste management grants .................................................................................................... 3,441 3,500 3,500 ∂59 ............................Water and waste financing revolving fund .................................................................................... 497 497 497 ............................ ............................Water well system grants ............................................................................................................... 993 993 993 ............................ ............................High-energy cost grants .................................................................................................................. 17,500 ............................ 17,500 ............................ ∂17,500 Rural water and waste disposal ..................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Water loan subsidies and grants ..................................................................................... 568,730 534,414 582,851 ∂14,121 ∂48,437 
128 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (6,500,000 ) (4,000,000 ) (6,500,000 ) ............................ (∂2,500,000 ) Guaranteed underwriting ........................................................................................................ (500,000 ) ............................ (500,000 ) ............................ (∂500,000 ) 

Subtotal, Electric ............................................................................................................... (7,100,000 ) (4,100,000 ) (7,100,000 ) ............................ (∂3,000,000 ) 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (145,000 ) (145,000 ) (145,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (295,000 ) (295,000 ) (295,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... (690,000 ) (690,000 ) (690,000 ) ............................ ............................Total, Loan authorizations ................................................................................................. (7,790,000 ) (4,790,000 ) (7,790,000 ) ............................ (∂3,000,000 ) 

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .................................................................................... 39,959 38,374 38,374 ¥1,585 ............................

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account .................................. 39,959 38,374 38,374 ¥1,585 ............................

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (7,790,000 ) (4,790,000 ) (7,790,000 ) ............................ (∂3,000,000 ) 

Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Broadband telecommunications ...................................................................................................... (400,000 ) (400,000 ) (400,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (400,000 ) (400,000 ) (400,000 ) ............................ ............................

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 37,755 30,000 37,755 ............................ ∂7,755 
129 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 28,960 22,320 22,320 ¥6,640 ............................Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 17,976 17,976 17,976 ............................ ............................

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ..................................................................................... 84,691 70,296 78,051 ¥6,640 ∂7,755 Total, Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................................. 693,380 643,084 699,276 ∂5,896 ∂56,192 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................. (9,287,162 ) (6,301,294 ) (9,327,156 ) (∂39,994 ) (∂3,025,862 ) 

Total, Title III, Rural Development Programs .................................................................... 2,934,309 2,683,073 2,767,584 ¥166,725 ∂84,511 

(By transfer) .............................................................................................................. (513,493 ) (497,803 ) (497,803 ) (¥15,690 ) ............................(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................. (24,407,521 ) (21,406,179 ) (36,393,151 ) (∂11,985,630 ) (∂14,986,972 ) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services .............................................................. 813 836 821 ∂8 ¥15 Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ................................................................................................................................... 9,859,930 18,153,393 18,156,143 ∂8,296,213 ∂2,750 

Competitive grants ................................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 ............................ ............................Nutrition education ................................................................................................................................... 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................Transfer from section 32 ......................................................................................................................... 6,989,899 ............................ ............................ ¥6,989,899 ............................

Total, Child nutrition programs ........................................................................................................... 16,855,829 18,158,393 18,161,143 ∂1,305,314 ∂2,750 

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children [WIC] ......................................... 7,252,000 7,478,000 7,252,000 ............................ ¥226,000 

Reserve [WIC] ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ 125,000 ............................ ............................ ¥125,000 

Total, WIC program .............................................................................................................................. 7,252,000 7,603,000 7,252,000 ............................ ¥351,000 

Supplemental nutrition assistance program: 

(Food stamp program) ............................................................................................................................. 58,278,181 68,206,790 68,209,540 ∂9,931,359 ∂2,750 

Commodity assistance program: 

Commodity supplemental food program .................................................................................................. 171,409 176,788 176,788 ∂5,379 ............................Farmers market nutrition program .......................................................................................................... 20,000 20,000 20,000 ............................ ............................Emergency food assistance program ....................................................................................................... 49,500 50,000 56,000 ∂6,500 ∂6,000 Emergency food program infrastructure grants ...................................................................................... 6,000 ............................ 6,000 ............................ ∂6,000 Pacific island and disaster assistance ................................................................................................... 1,070 1,081 1,081 ∂11 ............................IT modernization and support .................................................................................................................. ............................ 1,750 1,750 ∂1,750 ............................

Total, Commodity assistance program ................................................................................................ 247,979 249,619 261,619 ∂13,640 ∂12,000 
130 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Nutrition programs administration ................................................................................................................... 147,801 172,087 166,587 ∂18,786 ¥5,500 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ................................................................................................................. 82,781,790 94,389,889 94,050,889 ∂11,269,099 ¥339,000 Total, Title IV, Domestic Food Programs ...................................................................................................... 82,782,603 94,390,725 94,051,710 ∂11,269,107 ¥339,015 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 180,367 258,780 219,780 ∂39,413 ¥39,000 

(Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (6,465 ) (6,525 ) (6,525 ) (∂60 ) ............................

Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ 186,832 265,305 226,305 ∂39,473 ¥39,000 

Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program Account, Administrative Expenses: 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and expenses: 

(transfer to FSA) ....................................................................................................................................... 2,812 2,846 2,846 ∂34 ............................

Food for Peace Title II Grants: 

Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 ............................ ............................

Total, Food for Peace (Public Law 480) ....................................................................................................... 1,692,812 1,692,846 1,692,846 ∂34 ............................

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses): 

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans): 

General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS) ................................................................................................ 6,465 6,525 6,525 ∂60 ............................Farm Service Agency S&E (transfer to FSA) ............................................................................................ 355 359 359 ∂4 ............................

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ......................................................................................... 6,820 6,884 6,884 ∂64 ............................

McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition program grants ............................................. 209,500 209,500 209,500 ............................ ............................
131 

Total, Title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ........................................................................... 2,089,499 2,168,010 2,129,010 ∂39,511 ¥39,000 

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (6,465 ) (6,525 ) (6,525 ) (∂60 ) ............................

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ............................................................................................................. 2,344,656 2,503,849 2,503,849 ∂159,193 ............................

Prescription drug user fees ............................................................................................................................... (578,162 ) (667,057 ) (667,057 ) (∂88,895 ) ............................Medical device user fees .................................................................................................................................. (57,014 ) (61,860 ) (61,860 ) (∂4,846 ) ............................Animal drug user fees ...................................................................................................................................... (17,280 ) (19,448 ) (19,448 ) (∂2,168 ) ............................Generic animal drug user fees ......................................................................................................................... (5,106 ) (5,397 ) (5,397 ) (∂291 ) ............................Tobacco product user fees ................................................................................................................................ (235,000 ) (450,000 ) (450,000 ) (∂215,000 ) ............................

Subtotal (including user fees) ...................................................................................................................... (3,237,218 ) (3,707,611 ) (3,707,611 ) (∂470,393 ) ............................

Mammography user fees ................................................................................................................................... (19,318 ) ............................ ............................ (¥19,318 ) ............................Export certification user fees ............................................................................................................................ (10,400 ) ............................ ............................ (¥10,400 ) ............................FDA New User Fees (Leg proposals): 

Generic drug review user fees ................................................................................................................. ............................ (38,015 ) ............................ ............................ (¥38,015 ) Reinspection fees ..................................................................................................................................... ............................ (27,296 ) ............................ ............................ (¥27,296 ) Food and Feed Export Certification user fees ......................................................................................... ............................ (4,385 ) ............................ ............................ (¥4,385 ) Food Facility Registration and Inspection fees ....................................................................................... ............................ (220,200 ) ............................ ............................ (¥220,200 ) 

Subtotal, FDA New User fees ............................................................................................................... ............................ (289,896 ) ............................ ............................ (¥289,896 ) 

Buildings and facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 12,433 12,433 12,433 ............................ ............................

Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) ............................................................................................. (3,279,369 ) (4,009,940 ) (3,720,044 ) (∂440,675 ) (¥289,896 ) Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) ......................................................................................................... (3,279,369 ) (3,720,044 ) (3,720,044 ) (∂440,675 ) ............................Total, FDA (excluding user fees) .................................................................................................................. 2,357,089 2,516,282 2,516,282 ∂159,193 ............................

INDEPENDENT AGENCY 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................... (54,500 ) (59,400 ) (59,400 ) (∂4,900 ) ............................

Total, Title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................................................... 2,357,089 2,516,282 2,516,282 ∂159,193 ............................
132 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Rural Community Out Migration (Sec. 716) .............................................................................................................. 499 ............................ ............................ ¥499 ............................National Center for Natural Products Research (Sec. 718) ...................................................................................... 3,497 ............................ 8,000 ∂4,503 ∂8,000 Limit Wetlands reserve ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥142,000 ¥75,000 ¥75,000 ∂67,000 Limit Conservation stewardship ................................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥2,000 ............................ ............................ ∂2,000 Limit Grasslands reserve ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥14,000 ¥14,000 ¥14,000 ............................Limit Farmland protection .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥15,000 ¥15,000 ¥15,000 ............................Limit Agriculture management assistance (Sec. 1524) ............................................................................................ ............................ ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ............................Limit Environmental Quality Incentives program (Sec. 721) .................................................................................... ¥270,000 ¥380,000 ¥270,000 ............................ ∂110,000 Limit Dam Rehab (Sec. 721) ..................................................................................................................................... ¥165,000 ¥165,000 ¥165,000 ............................ ............................Limit Wildlife habitat incentives ................................................................................................................................ ............................ ¥12,000 ............................ ............................ ∂12,000 Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 721) .......................................................................................................... ¥76,000 ............................ ¥113,000 ¥37,000 ¥113,000 Section 32 (rescission) (Sec. 721) ............................................................................................................................. ¥52,470 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ∂2,470 ............................Hawaii APHIS facility (Sec. 723) ................................................................................................................................ 2,600 ............................ 2,600 ............................ ∂2,600 Food Aid Products (Sec. 724) .................................................................................................................................... 4,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000 ............................Hunger Fellowships (Sec. 727) .................................................................................................................................. 3,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 ............................Market development (WI, VT) (Sec. 728) ................................................................................................................... 3,000 ............................ 3,000 ............................ ∂3,000 Specialty market (Sec. 728) ....................................................................................................................................... 350 ............................ 350 ............................ ∂350 Carbon Inventory and Accounting System (Sec. 728) ............................................................................................... 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................International Food Protection Training Institute (Sec. 728) ...................................................................................... 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................Foodborne Illness Health Registry (Sec. 728) ............................................................................................................ 200 ............................ ............................ ¥200 ............................At-risk supper program (Sec. 730) ............................................................................................................................ 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................Methamphetamine inhibitor grant program (Sec. 735) ............................................................................................ 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation (Sec. 738) ............................................................................................................. 250 ............................ ............................ ¥250 ............................Hardwood Trees (Sec. 739) ........................................................................................................................................ 800 ............................ 800 ............................ ∂800 Geographic Disadvantaged (Sec. 741) ...................................................................................................................... 2,600 ............................ 2,600 ............................ ∂2,600 Durum Wheat (Sec. 741) ............................................................................................................................................ 3,000 ............................ 3,000 ............................ ∂3,000 Product Access (Sec. 745) ......................................................................................................................................... 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 ............................Rural Utilities Service baseload generation .............................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training (rescission) (Sec. 742) ............................. ¥11,000 ............................ ............................ ∂11,000 ............................
133 

Dairy (Sec. 748) ......................................................................................................................................................... 350,000 ............................ ............................ ¥350,000 ............................H1N1 program (Sec. 746) .......................................................................................................................................... 2,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 ............................Child Nutrition Reauthorization (Sec. 749) (outlays) ................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and facilities (rescission) ........................................................................ ............................ ¥75,500 ¥10,066 ¥10,066 ∂65,434 Rural Business program (rescission) ......................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥20,070 ¥20,070 ¥20,070 ............................Departmental Administration acquisition workforce .................................................................................................. ............................ 6,500 1,000 ∂1,000 ¥5,500 Broadband loan balances (rescission) ...................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥15,000 ¥15,000 ¥15,000 ............................

Total, Title VII, General provisions ............................................................................................................... ¥193,674 ¥889,070 ¥715,786 ¥522,112 ∂173,284 

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS 

DIVISION B—OTHER MATTERS (PUBLIC LAW 111–118) 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Supplemental nutrition assistance program (Sec. 1001) (emergency) ..................................................................... 400,000 ............................ ............................ ¥400,000 ............................

Total, Public Law 111–118 (emergency) ...................................................................................................... 400,000 ............................ ............................ ¥400,000 ............................Total, Other appropriations ........................................................................................................................... 400,000 ............................ ............................ ¥400,000 ............................Grand total .................................................................................................................................................... 121,570,814 132,028,200 132,053,999 ∂10,483,185 ∂25,799 

Appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (121,278,747 ) (132,291,770 ) (132,252,135 ) (∂10,973,388 ) (¥39,635 ) Emergency Appropriations .......................................................................................................... (400,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥400,000 ) ............................Rescissions ................................................................................................................................. (¥107,933 ) (¥263,570 ) (¥198,136 ) (¥90,203 ) (∂65,434 ) 

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (836,298 ) (825,733 ) (820,706 ) (¥15,592 ) (¥5,027 ) (Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (29,491,461 ) (26,147,214 ) (41,817,091 ) (∂12,325,630 ) (∂15,669,877 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (166,546 ) (170,388 ) (175,347 ) (∂8,801 ) (∂4,959 ) 

RECAPITULATION 

Title I—Agricultural programs ................................................................................................................................... 30,191,573 30,192,013 30,259,695 ∂68,122 ∂67,682 

Mandatory .......................................................................................................................................................... (22,855,427 ) (22,759,966 ) (22,759,966 ) (¥95,461 ) ............................Discretionary ...................................................................................................................................................... (7,336,146 ) (7,432,047 ) (7,499,729 ) (∂163,583 ) (∂67,682 ) 

Title II—Conservation programs (discretionary) ....................................................................................................... 1,009,415 967,167 1,045,504 ∂36,089 ∂78,337 Title III—Rural development programs (discretionary) ............................................................................................. 2,934,309 2,683,073 2,767,584 ¥166,725 ∂84,511 Title IV—Domestic food programs ............................................................................................................................ 82,782,603 94,390,725 94,051,710 ∂11,269,107 ¥339,015 

Mandatory .......................................................................................................................................................... (75,128,010 ) (86,360,183 ) (86,365,683 ) (∂11,237,673 ) (∂5,500 ) Discretionary ...................................................................................................................................................... (7,654,593 ) (8,030,542 ) (7,686,027 ) (∂31,434 ) (¥344,515 ) 

Title V—Foreign assistance and related programs (discretionary) .......................................................................... 2,089,499 2,168,010 2,129,010 ∂39,511 ¥39,000 
134 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 appropriation Budget estimate 

Title VI—Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration (discretionary) ...................................................... 2,357,089 2,516,282 2,516,282 ∂159,193 ............................Title VII—General provisions (discretionary) ............................................................................................................. ¥193,674 ¥889,070 ¥715,786 ¥522,112 ∂173,284 Other appropriations (discretionary) .......................................................................................................................... 400,000 ............................ ............................ ¥400,000 ............................

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 121,570,814 132,028,200 132,053,999 ∂10,483,185 ∂25,799 

Æ