64–390

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–619

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

MAY 16, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SKEEN, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4461]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

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

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2001.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FY 2000

appropriation 1

FY 2001

estimates

FY 2001

recommendation

FY 2001 recommendation compared with

FY 2000

appropriation

FY 2001

estimates

Title I—Agricultural Programs ............................ $35,436,305,000 $34,740,299,000 $34,483,976,000 ¥$952,329,000 ¥$256,323,000

Title II—Conservation Programs ............................ 804,158,000 878,010,000 812,811,000 +8,653,000 ¥65,199,000

Title III—Rural Economic

and Community Development Programs .......... 2,187,507,000 2,587,610,000 2,407,744,000 +220,237,000 ¥179,866,000

Title IV—Domestic Food

Programs ....................... 35,044,106,000 36,264,658,000 35,230,359,000 +186,253,000 ¥1,034,299,000

Title V—Foreign Assistance

and Related Programs .. 1,055,669,000 1,090,765,000 1,049,364,000 ¥6,305,000 ¥41,401,000

Title VI—FDA and Related

Agencies ........................ 1,112,011,000 1,283,255,000 1,171,255,000 +59,244,000 ¥112,000,000

Title VII—General Provisions .............................. 2,250,000 0 119,000,000 +116,750,000 +119,000,000

2

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued

FY 2000

appropriation 1

FY 2001

estimates

FY 2001

recommendation

FY 2001 recommendation compared with

FY 2000

appropriation

FY 2001

estimates

Title VIII .............................. 8,670,540,000 0 0 ¥8,670,540,000 0

Total ...................... 84,312,546,000 76,844,597,000 75,274,509,000 ¥9,038,037,000 ¥1,570,088,000

1 Includes impact of 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to P.L. 106–113.

For discretionary programs the Committee provides $14,491,000,000, which is $545,910,000 more than the amount

available in fiscal year 2000 and $1,026,071,000 less than the

budget request.

In this report, all references to enacted fiscal year 2000 appropriations levels represent the amounts enacted in Public Law 106–

78, as reduced by 0.38 percent pursuant to Public Law 106–113.

The Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2001 assume

enactment of fiscal year 2000 supplemental funding for Agriculture

programs and activities, as contained in House action on the bill

H.R. 3908 as passed the House of Representatives on March 30,

2000.

INTRODUCTION

The programs funded in this legislation improve the lives of

every American, every day. The Department of Agriculture administers nutrition and feeding programs for millions of Americans.

USDA is also responsible for the safety of our meat and poultry

supply.

This bill provides funding for research to strengthen our Nation’s

food supply, to make American exports competitive in world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure food safety.

Funds in this bill make it possible for less than two percent of the

population to provide a wide variety of safe, nutritious, and affordable food for nearly 275 million Americans and many more people

overseas.

Food safety remains one of the Committee’s highest priorities.

The bill provides funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of the Chief

Economist, the Economic Research Service, the Food and Nutrition

Service, the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative

State Research, Education and Extension Service for food safety related activities.

The rural development programs funded in this bill provide basic

housing, safe water, and opportunities for economic growth in rural

America. Conservation and environmental programs preserve lands

and watersheds for use by future generations.

In addition, this bill provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration which oversees the safety of an enormous range of

food, drugs, and medical devices and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which regulates an increasingly complex market in

commodity trading.

To establish priorities for funding for so many diverse and critical activities is never easy and the task will be more difficult as

the effort to preserve the budget surplus continues. There are very

3

few program increases in this bill. Many of the accounts are at current levels of spending or decreased from the previous fiscal year.

In setting program levels the Committee was constrained by allocations for budget authority and outlays in comparison with fiscal

year 2000. The Committee’s recommended program levels are

based upon appropriated funds as well as limitations on mandatory

programs.

Program Priorities/Loan Targeting.—The Committee will expect

the Department to focus exclusively on economic need when attempting to target increased lending under various farm loan and

rural housing loan and assistance programs.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

(4)

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2000 appropriation 1 .............................................................................. $2,835,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 2,914,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 2,836,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +1,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥78,000

1 Excludes $12,600,000 for development and implementation of a common computing environment which is shown under ‘‘Common Computing Environment’’.

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 of 1944

(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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $2,836,000, an increase of $1,000 above the amount

available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $78,000 below the

budget request.

Administrative Provision.—The Committee is concerned that the

Department continues to establish programs that are not requested

in the budget or described in any communication to Congress. Programs described as ‘‘outreach’’ and ‘‘community food security’’ have

been established with no explanation to the Committees on Appropriations. Of further concern is the use of the salaries and expenses

accounts of the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources and

Conservation Service and the Rural Development missions to fund

these programs with no request or notice of reprogramming to the

Committees.

In addition, the Committee has received reports from USDA employees that personnel on the Department payroll are being temporarily assigned outside the Department to duties that do not support USDA missions. Questions on these issues that were submitted to the Department on February 16 have gone unanswered.

5

In most cases, the Committee has not provided the requested increases in salary and expense accounts. This is due mainly to a

very tight budget situation. However, the Committee will not be

able to support any increases in salary and expense accounts until

the Department answers the questions submitted by the Committee and addresses the Committee’s concerns about diversion of

funds from core mission areas.

State Office Colocation.—The Committee considers any reallocation of resources related to the colocation of state offices scheduled

for 2001 to be subject to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures.

Trade Adjustment Package for Lamb.—On January 13, 2000, the

Administration announced a trade adjustment package for lamb.

The Committee directs the Secretary to report on the progress of

implementing the provisions of this trade adjustment package not

later than January 13, 2001, which will be one year from the date

the package was announced.

The Committee directs the Secretary to work with other agencies

of the Federal Government, including the Departments of Defense,

Interior, Energy, and Transportation, the Environmental Protection

Agency and the General Services Administration to maximize the

use of ethanol, biodiesel and other agricultural-based fuels.

The Committee expects the Department to integrate various

agency research, food safety, and regulatory functions to develop a

unified effort to respond to consumer safety and environmental

concerns while providing sufficient information that would allow

consumers to make informed choices about the production and consumption of bioengineered foods. Any regulatory decision should be

based on sound, verifiable science. The Committee also expects the

Department to coordinate its activities with those of the Food and

Drug Administration to provide a unified approach across agency

jurisdictions.

The Committee has received several requests for some of the programs that were highlighted in the President’s farm safety net proposal including the farmland protection program, wildlife habitat

incentives program, environmental quality incentives program, and

the wetlands reserve program. The administration did not submit

any legislative proposal to reauthorize these programs until May 3,

2000. The Committee will be in a better position to deal with these

requests for funds when the authorizing committee has had an opportunity to act on the administration’s proposed farm safety net

program.

The Committee is concerned about the number of ongoing business process reengineering projects currently underway and projected to be started in fiscal year 2001. The Committee notes that

the Department is spending more than $20,000,000 on such

projects. The Committee encourages the Department to focus their

efforts on projects that show the most value to the county-based

agencies.

The Committee is concerned about rising numbers of criminal

acts targeting animal and plant research facilities. The Secretary

is directed to report to the Committee on the extent of animal and

plant terrorism incidents at USDA funded facilities, the consequence of these activities on research, recommendations for imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
6

proving security at federally funded facilities, and guidance on the

appropriate federal role in response to such criminal activities.

This report shall be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations

and the Committee on Agriculture of both the House and Senate

by March 31, 2001.

The Committee shares the concern expressed by African-American producers that programs of research, extension, marketing,

rural development, and international trade have not adequately responded to the unique needs of these producers. Recognizing that

there are many opportunities to link African-American farmers

with other farmers in Africa, and to establish long-term cooperative

relationships in addition to project specific research activities between the 1890 Colleges and Tuskegee Institute with their counterparts in Africa, the Committee directs the Secretary to develop a

comprehensive report to be submitted to the Committee no later

than February 1, 2001, detailing outreach efforts by the agencies

of the Department to these two producer groups, and describing

what additional resources may be necessary to develop and maintain such cooperative programs. This report shall also detail whatever opportunities may exist for the provision of assistance to these

cooperative programs through the monetization of necessary food

assistance provided to the people of Africa through governments or

Private Voluntary Organizations, as appropriate.

The Committee is aware of interest in providing programs similar to the school lunch program and the WIC program in needy

areas around the world. The Committee applauds the efforts of the

Department, in the use of Section 416(b) and Food for Progress,

and its partners, including the U.N. World Food Program in providing such assistance where appropriate. The Committee directs

the Department to develop a report detailing where such efforts

currently occur, the level of assistance provided at each location by

the United States (either through the Department or the Agency

for International Development) and other donors, and on the feasibility of conducting pilot projects in those countries which might be

able to sustain such a program after a reasonable period of support

from the United States and other donors. This report should indicate what level of assistance would be needed in addition to other

demands for Section 416(b) and PL 480 Title II commodities.

The Committee is concerned that extensive use of contracting

outside the Department for administrative and core mission activities may not yield the best cost benefit or the best customer benefit

in terms of dealing with experienced career federal personnel. Customers of federal programs such as those administered by the

Rural Development Services and the Farm Service Agency often

have needs and circumstances that are not dealt with in the private sector. The Committee directs the Department to make cost

comparisons of the use of private contractors with federal employee

performance and to employ the most efficient organization process

as described in OMB Circular A–76. The Committee also directs

the Department to solicit input from federal employees in agencies

affected by contracting out in order to ensure the expertise of those

employees is a part of any decision made by management. The

Committee also directs the Department to report on its contracting

7

out policies, including the agency budgets for contracting out, with

its annual budget submission for fiscal year 2002.

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

Executive Operations was established as a result of the reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for USDA

policy officials and selected department-wide services. Activities

under Executive Operations include the Office of the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office of Budget and

Program Analysis.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,408,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 8,612,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,408,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥2,204,000

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, energy

and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and

international food and agriculture, 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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $6,408,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $2,204,000 below the budget request.

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $11,707,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 12,610,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 11,718,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +11,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥892,000

The National Appeals Division conducts administrative hearings

and reviews 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 PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $11,718,000, an increase of $11,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $892,000

below the budget request.

The Committee is very concerned by the disproportionate share

of regional hearing officer decisions favoring producers that are

overturned by the Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD).

8

Recent evidence suggests that Director Review Determinations that

support the Department position far outpace those that support the

producer position. The Committee is further concerned by media

reports that the Department may have resisted efforts to bring this

information to light and make it available to the public. The actions of the NAD have called into question the integrity of the appeals process and raised concerns about the possibility of bias

against producers. Therefore, the Committee directs NAD to track

and make available to the public information about Director Review Determinations. The information should indicate whether the

request for Director Review was submitted by the appellant or the

head of an agency, and should indicate the number of Director Review Determinations that are made in favor of the Department and

the number that are made in favor of the producer. The Committee

directs the USDA to submit a report of this information to the

Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and

the Senate no later than February 1, 2001.

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,581,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,765,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,581,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥184,000

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 decision-making process; and provides department-wide 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 coordination of the preparation and processing of regulations

and legislative programs and reports.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee provides an appropriation of $6,581,000, the same as the amount

available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $184,000 below the

budget request.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,046,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 14,680,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,051,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,005,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,629,000

Section 808 of P.L. 104–208 required the establishment of a

Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. Pursuant to

this Act, the Office of the Chief Information Officer was established

9

in August 1996, to provide policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and direction to the Department’s information management

and information technology investment activities in support of

USDA program delivery. The Office provides long-range 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.

The Office also provides telecommunications and ADP services to

USDA agencies through the National Information Technology Center with locations in Ft. Collins, Colorado and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Executive

Operations.

Additionally, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for certain activities under the Department’s Working

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $10,051,000, an increase of $4,005,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of

$4,629,000 below the budget request.cc

The Committee is concerned that USDA’s computer systems

could be vulnerable to computer hackers that could expose farmers,

ranchers, and/or homeowners who interact with USDA electronically or whose personal/business information is contained in an

electronic USDA database as well as the more than 400,000 federal

employees who are part of USDA’s payroll system to become victims of computer crime. As a result, the Committee has provided

an increase of $4,005,000 to alleviate some of those concerns.

The Committee supports USDA’s request of $1,392,000 for a central cyber-security program as well as $1,280,000 to strengthen the

information risk management program. The balance of the increase, $1,333,000, is to fund an information and telecommunications security architecture to ensure the protection of USDA’s

vast information resources. The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer to keep the Committee updated, on a routine basis,

as these programs are implemented.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,783,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,465,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,783,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,682,000

Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the continued direction and oversight

of the Department’s financial management operations and systems.

The Office supports the Chief Financial Officer in carrying out the

dual roles of the Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and

the Chief Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and misVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
10

sion area heads. The Office provides leadership, expertise, coordination, and evaluation in the development of Department and

agency programs for financial management, accounting, travel,

Federal assistance, and performance measurements. It is also responsible for the management and operation of the National Finance Center. The Office also provides budget, 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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,783,000, the same as the amount

available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $1,682,000 below

the budget request.

The Committee has included bill language that directs the Chief

Financial Officer to actively market the cross-servicing activities of

the National Finance Center.

The Committee recommends language that allows the Secretary

to transfer funds provided in this Act and other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture, with the approval

of the agency administrator, to the Working Capital Fund for the

acquisition of plant and capital equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and information technology services of the National Finance Center in New Orleans, LA, and the

National Information Technology Center in Kansas City, MO and

Ft. Collins, CO.

COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

2000 appropriation 1 ........................................................................... $12,600,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 75,000,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 25,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +12,400,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥50,000,000

1 In FY 2000, funding for the Common Computing Environment was included in the ‘‘Office of the Secretary’’.

The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and use computer

systems in a manner that enhances efficiency, productivity, and client services, and that promotes computer information sharing

among agencies of the Department. Section 808 of P.L. 104–208 requires USDA to maximize the value of information technology acquisitions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USDA programs. Since its beginning in 1996, the USDA Service Center Modernization initiative has been working to restructure county field

offices, modernize and integrate business approaches and replace

the current, aging information systems with a modern Common

Computing Environment that optimizes information sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Common Computing Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of $25,000,000, an increase of $12,400,000

11

above the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of

$50,000,000 below the budget request.

The Committee directs the Department to report to the Committee on Appropriations on a quarterly basis on the implementation of the Common Computing Environment beginning in January

2001.

The CCE plan for fiscal year 2000 included $3,000,000 to address

Farm Service Agency connectivity issues. The Committee notes

that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental appropriations bill included $38,500,000 to address Farm Service Agency

computer problems including funds to address the connectivity

issue. The Committee directs the Department to ensure that any

funds obligated out of the CCE account for FSA connectivity should

be reimbursed.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $613,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 629,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 613,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥16,000

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration directs

and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in carrying out

the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real and personal

property management, ethics, personnel management, equal opportunity and civil rights programs, and other general administrative

functions. Additionally, 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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the

Committee provides an appropriation of $613,000, the same as the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $16,000

below the budget request.

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $140,343,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 182,747,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 150,343,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +10,000,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥32,404,000

Rental Payments.—Annual appropriations are made to agencies

of the Federal government so that they can pay the General Services Administration (GSA) fees for rental of space and for related

services.

The requirement that GSA charge commercial rent rates to agencies occupying GAS-controlled space was established by the Public

Buildings Amendments of 1972. The methods used to establish

commercial rent rates in GSA space follow commercial real estate

appraisal practices. Appeal and rate review procedures are in place

to assure that agencies have an opportunity to contest rates they

12

feel are incorrect. The cost of newly leased space reflects current

private sector market rates. The leases are competitively acquired

in close coordination with USDA and other customer agencies.

Building Operations and Maintenance.—On October 1, 1984,

GSA delegated the operations and maintenance functions for the

buildings in the D.C. complex to the Department. This activity provides departmental staff and support services to operate, maintain,

and repair the buildings in the D.C. complex. Since 1989, when the

GSA delegation expired, USDA has been responsible for managing,

operating, maintaining, repairing, and improving the headquarters

complex, which encompasses 14.1 acres of ground and four buildings containing approximately three million square feet of space occupied by approximately 8,000 employees. In fiscal year 1998,

USDA began operations of the Beltsville Office Facility.

Strategic Space Plan.—The Department’s headquarters staff is

presently housed in a four-building government-owned complex in

downtown Washington, D.C. and in leased buildings in the metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, USDA initiated a plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to the American people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority goal

in the Secretary’s plan is to improve the operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To implement this

goal, a strategy for efficient re-allocation of space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has

been proposed. This USDA Strategic Space Plan will correct serious

problems USDA has faced in its facility program, including the inefficiencies of operating out of scattered leased facilities and serious

safety hazards which exist in the huge Agriculture South Building.

During FY 1998, the Beltsville Office Facility was completed. This

facility was constructed with funds appropriated to the Department

and is located on Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland.

Occupancy of the George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville,

Maryland, was substantially completed during 1999. By summer

2000, the center will be fully occupied, housing about 1,200 employees.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments to

GSA, the Committee provides an appropriation of $150,343,000, an

increase of $10,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2000 and a decrease of $32,404,000 below the budget request.

Included in this amount is $125,542,000 for rental payments to

GSA. The Committee includes language permitting the Secretary of

Agriculture to transfer not more than five percent of this appropriation to or from another agency’s appropriation. The Committee

expects that such a transfer will be proposed only when a move

into GSA space is vacated in favor of commercial space. This flexibility is provided to allow for incremental changes in the amount

of GSA space and is not intended merely to finance changes in GSA

billing.

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

13

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

[In thousands of dollars]

2000 estimate 2001 budget

request

Committee recommendation

Rental Payments ......................................... $115,542 $125,542 $125,542

Building Operations .................................... 24,801 31,205 24,801

Strategic Space Plan ................................... .................... 26,000 ....................

Total .................................................. 140,343 182,747 150,343

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $15,700,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 30,073,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 15,700,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,373,000

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

covered by the Department or within departmental jurisdiction.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $15,700,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $14,373,000 below the budget

request.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $34,708,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 40,740,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 34,708,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥6,032,000

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

coordination of the Department. These activities include department-wide programs for human resource management, management improvement, occupational safety and health management,

real and personal property management, procurement, contracting,

motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply management, civil

rights, equal opportunity and ethics, participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and

ranchers in the Department’s program activities, emergency preparedness, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the Administrative Law Judges, Judicial Officer, and Board of Contract Appeals.

Departmental Administration is also responsible for representing

USDA in the development of government-wide policies and initiatives; analyzing the impact of government-wide trends and develVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
14

oping appropriate USDA principles, policies, and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages in strategic planning

and evaluating programs to ensure Department-wide compliance

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $34,708,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $6,032,000 below the budget request.

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,000,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,000,000

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

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥7,000,000

This program is authorized under section 2501 of title XXV of the

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Grants are

made to eligible community-based organizations with demonstrated

experience in providing education or other agriculturally related

services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in their

area of influence. Also eligible are the 1890 land-grant colleges,

Tuskegee University, Indian tribal community colleges, and Hispanic serving post-secondary education facilities.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and

Ranchers Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$3,000,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000

and a decrease of $7,000,000 below the budget request.

The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2000, the Department

provided $5,200,000 from the Fund for Rural America for the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers program. The Department has informed the Committee that funds have been obligated

in prior years from the Natural Resources Conservation Service,

the Rural Development mission area and the Farm Service Agency

for outreach activities such as those conducted by this program.

The Department has also informed the Committee that the Department has authority to make further obligations from these agencies

for outreach activities.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,568,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,778,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,568,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥210,000

15

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

maintains 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.

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

CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

2000

enacted

2001

estimate

Committee

provision

Headquarters Activities ........................................................................................... $857 $983 $857

Intergovernmental Affairs ....................................................................................... 470 483 470

Subtotal ..................................................................................................... 1,327 1,466 1,327

Agricultural Marketing Service ............................................................................... 176 181 176

Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................. 129 133 129

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ......................................................... 101 104 101

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ............................ 120 124 120

Farm Service Agency ............................................................................................... 355 366 355

Food and Nutrition Service ..................................................................................... 270 279 270

Food Safety and Inspection Service ....................................................................... 309 319 309

Foreign Agricultural Service .................................................................................... 183 189 183

Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................................ 148 153 148

Risk Management Agency ....................................................................................... 109 112 109

Rural Business-Cooperative Service ....................................................................... 52 54 52

Rural Housing Service ............................................................................................ 147 152 147

Rural Utilities Service ............................................................................................. 142 146 142

Subtotal ..................................................................................................... 2,241 2,312 2,241

Total ........................................................................................................... 3,568 3,778 3,568

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Rela- tions, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,568,000, the

same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease

of $210,000 below the budget request. The Committee includes language allowing the transfer of not less than $2,241,000 to agencies

funded in this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level.

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $8,138,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,031,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,138,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥893,000

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 representing America’s food, fiber, and

environmental interests.

16

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $8,138,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $893,000 below the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $65,097,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 70,214,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 65,097,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥5,117,000

The Office of the Inspector General was established October 12,

1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978. This reaffirmed and expanded the Office established by Secretary’s Memorandum No.

1915, dated March 23, 1977.

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, analysis and coordination of program-related

audit and investigation activities performed by other Department

agencies, and review of existing and proposed legislation and regulations regarding the impact such initiatives will have on the economy and efficiency of the Department’s programs and operations

and the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs. 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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Inspector General, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $65,097,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $5,117,000 below the budget

request.

The Inspector General is directed to undertake an investigation

of the adequacy of Food Safety and Inspection Service financial

management and project management, as well as the adequacy of

management controls in those areas. The Committee directs the Inspector General to provide a preliminary report no later than

March 1, 2001. The investigation should ascertain what deficiencies

resulted in recent inspector shortages and why Anti-Deficiency Act

violations occurred over the last two years.

17

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $29,194,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 32,881,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 29,194,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,687,000

The Office of the General Counsel, originally known as the Office

of the Solicitor, was established in 1910 as the law office of the Department of Agriculture, and manages all of the legal work arising

from the activities of the Department. The General Counsel represents the Department on administrative proceedings for the promulgation of rules and regulations having the force and effect of

law; in quasi-judicial hearings held in connection with the administration of various programs and acts; and in proceedings involving

freight rates and practices relating to farm commodities. Counsel

serves as General Counsel for the Commodity Credit Corporation

and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and reviews criminal

cases arising under the programs of the Department for referral to

the Department of Justice.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $29,194,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $3,687,000 below the budget

request.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $540,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,356,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 540,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥816,000

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; Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service; Economic Research Service; and National

Agricultural Statistics Service. The Under Secretary serves as

chair of the Biobased Products and Bioenergy Coordinating Council

of the Department, which is responsible for developing a list of

biobased products to be considered for environmental preferability.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$540,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000

and a decrease of $816,000 below the budget request.

The Committee does not recommend providing funds for developing a list of biobased products.

18

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2000 appropriation 1 ........................................................................... $65,363,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 55,424,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 66,419,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,056,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. +10,995,000 1Does not reflect the transfer of $1 million to FPA in the Food and Nutrition Service.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic and

other social science information and analysis for public and private

decisions on agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural America. ERS produces such information 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 PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $66,419,000, an increase of $1,056,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of

$10,995,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided

$12,195,000 for studies and evaluations work under the Food and

Nutrition Service. Included in this total is $5,700,000 for food

stamp, $3,000,000 for child nutrition, and $3,495,000 for WIC studies and evaluations. This work is to be carried out within the Food

and Consumer Economics Division which conducts research and

analysis on food programs and food policy issues. The Committee

expects ERS to consult and work with the staff at the Food and

Nutrition Service as well as other agencies to assure that all studies and evaluations are meeting the needs of the Department. The Committee has provided $1,056,000 to address structural

changes and concentration in food and agriculture and to improve

the efficiency of the agriculture sector. The Committee has maintained Estimating the Benefits of Increased Food Safety at the fiscal year 2000 level.

In House Report 106–157, the Committee expressed concern over

the rise in the cost of infant formula since the WIC rebate program

began, and in the decline in the number of infant formula suppliers. The Committee directs the Economic Research Service to

provide a report by April 15, 2001, on the number of suppliers of

infant formula in each state, and to compare the cost of formula

that is included in the WIC rebate program versus the cost of formula that is not in the WIC rebate program.

The Committee supports efforts of the Economic Research Service to study the economic impact of market concentration. The

Committee encourages the Service to work with the Anti-Trust Division at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission as they conduct pre-merger reviews and antitrust investigations into agribusiness mergers. ERS should share its knowledge and expertise on agribusiness and the effects of concentration

on small farms and rural communities.

The Committee strongly encourages the Department to conduct

a study of the need for more substantial physician education in

breast-feeding techniques in order to increase the incidence of

breast-feeding, particularly within the WIC population.

19

The Committee directs the Department to conduct a study of

plate waste in the school nutrition programs and the factors associated with it, including ‘‘offer v. serve’’ in both elementary and secondary schools, scheduling of lunch hours (are they too short, are

there competing activities that interfere with lunch time e.g. recreation time after a meal versus before a meal) quality and condition

of food.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $99,333,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 100,615,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 100,851,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,518,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. +236,000

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) administers

the Department’s program of collecting and publishing current national, state, and county agricultural statistics, which are essential

for making effective policy, production, and marketing decisions.

These statistics provide accurate and timely estimates of current

agricultural production and measures of the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural sector. NASS also provides statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support of

their missions, and provides consulting, technical assistance, and

training to developing countries.

Beginning with the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, funding has

been provided to NASS for the Census of Agriculture which has

been transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture to consolidate the activities of the two agricultural statistics programs. The Census of Agriculture is taken every

five 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. It provides national, state, and county data as well as selected data for Puerto

Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $100,851,000, an increase of

$1,518,000 above the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and

236,000 above the budget request. Included in this amount is

$15,000,000 for the Census of Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture collects and provides comprehensive data every five years

on all aspects of the agricultural economy.

Information security is vital to maintain the credibility of NASS

given the market sensitivity of agency reports released to the public, as well as the confidential nature of the data collected by NASS

from farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses. The Committee recommends a $1,400,000 increase that was included in the budget request that will allow the agency to establish a computer security

architecture that will simultaneously address the technical, managerial, and administrative issues associated with NASS information

security.

20

The Committee includes an increase of $800,000 for pesticide use

surveys to address existing data gaps to more accurately assess the

impact of chemical use as required by the Food Quality Protection

Act.

The Committee recommends an increase of $572,000 for a

monthly hog survey required by Livestock Mandatory Reporting.

The monthly survey responds to the industry’s need for more timely information on hog supplies. Prior to the passage of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting amendment, NASS reported a hog survey on a quarterly basis. The Committee has provided $236,000 to develop and implement

a weekly cream or milkfat price survey by surveying the major

buyers or end-users of milkfat. The weekly publication of this information will benefit all segments of the dairy industry by making

publicly available an accurate measure of the value of milkfat.

The Committee assumes all savings included in the budget request under NASS.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $830,384,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 894,258,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 850,384,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +20,000,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥43,874,000

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was established by the

Secretary of Agriculture on November 2, 1953, under the authority

of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 133z–15), Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. Pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.

6912), ARS includes functions previously performed by the Human

Nutrition Information Service and the National Agricultural Library. ARS conducts basic and applied research in the fields of animal sciences, plant sciences, entomology, soil, water and air

sciences, agricultural engineering, utilization and development,

human nutrition and consumer use, marketing, development of integrated farming systems, and development of methods to eradicate

narcotic-producing plants.

ARS also directs research beneficial to the United States which

can be advantageously conducted in foreign countries through

agreements with foreign research institutions and universities,

using foreign currencies for such purposes. This program is carried

out under the authority of sections 104(b) (1) and (3) of Public Law

480, and the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act

of 1954, as amended.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Salaries and expenses.—For salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$850,384,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $43,874,000 below the

budget request.

Continuing Programs.—The Committee recognizes the importance of ongoing research projects in addressing increasing probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
21

lems faced by the Nation’s food and fiber producers. In this regard,

the Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the following areas of research in fiscal year 2001 at

the same funding level provided in fiscal year 2000: Comparative

Textural Analysis of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables;

Ecologically-Based Technologies for Controlling Ixodes Scapularis

and Reducing Lyme Disease; Physiology of Strawberry, Blueberry,

and Other Small Fruit Crops in Sustainable Production Systems;

Improving Quality of Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce by Preventing

Deterioration in Cold Storage; National Turfgrass Evaluation Program; Alternative Crops Research; Lyme Disease at Yale University; Floriculture and Nursery Crop Research; Fish Diseases; Developing Integrated Weed Management Systems for Efficient and

Sustainable Sugarcane Production; Disease and Insect Control

Mechanisms for the Enhancement of Sugarcane Germplasm Resistance; Formosan Subterranean Termite Control and Research Demonstration Program; Improving Sugarcane Productivity by Conventional and Molecular Approaches to Genetic Development; Small

Fruit Cultural and Genetic Research in the Mid-South; Small

Fruits Research; Development of Value-Added Products from Seed

Proteins; Biotechnology Research and Development Corp. (BRDC);

New Crops for Industrial Products; Thermomechanical Processing

of Natural Polymers; Animal Health Consortium; Soybean Diseases; Genetics of Host Resistance to Pathogens in Cereal Crops;

Risk Assessment for BT Crops Research; Postharvest Handling and

Mechanization to Minimize Damage for Fruits; Germplasm Evaluation and Genetic Improvement of Oats and Wild Rice; Wild Rice

Breeding and Germplasm Improvement; Plant Genetics Research;

Mid-West/Mid-South Irrigation Research; Watershed Research; Development of Soybean Germplasm and Production Systems for

High Yield and Drought Prone Environments; New England Plant,

Soil, and Water Research; Golden Nematode Research; Grape

Rootstock Research; Animal Vaccines Research; Aquaculture Systems (Rainbow Trout) Research; Biological Control of Yellow

Starthistle and Other Non-indigenous Plant Pests in the Western

US; Sustainable Vineyard Practices Research; Irrigation Water and

Crop Management to Sustain Productivity and Protect Water Quality; Greenhouse Lettuce Germplasm; Lettuce Genetics/Breeding Research; Organic Minor Crop Research; Post-Harvest and Controlled

Atmosphere Chamber (Lettuce) Research; Development of Genetically Enhanced Fish and Feeds for Aquaculture Utilizing Specialized Grains; Germplasm Resources Genetics and Physiology of

Grass and Legume Seed for Sustainable Cropping Systems; Hops

Genetics and Breeding for Improved Flavor, Agronomic Performance and Pest Resistance; Physiology, Biochemistry and Genetic

Improvement of Horticultural Crop Productivity and Product Quality; Characterization, Detection and Control of Viruses Infecting

Small Fruit Crops; Biology and Management of Foliage and Fruit

Diseases of Horticultural Crops; Biology and Control of Insect Pests

of Horticultural Crops; Preservation of Clonal Genetic Resources of

Temperate Fruit, Nut, and Specialty Crops; Residue Management

and Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture;

Small Fruit and Nursery Research; Viticulture Research; Genetics

and Germplasm Enhancement of Cool Season Food Legumes; Root

22

Diseases of Wheat/Barley Research; Potato Research Enhancement;

Temperate Fruit Flies Research; Behavioral Ecology and Management of Crop Insect Pests with Semiochemicals; Biological Controls

and Agricultural Research; Asian Bird Influenza Research; Control

of Fungal Pathogens of Small Grains; Evaluation of Temperate

Legumes and Warm-Season Grass Mixtures in Sustainable Production Systems; Improved Peanut Product Quality and Bioactive Nutrient Composition with Genetic Resources; Peanut Quality Research; Research/Evaluation for Registration of Chemicals and Approvals of New Animal Drugs for Aquaculture; Rice Research;

Aquaculture Research; Harvesting and Ginning Technologies for

Stripper Cotton; Plant Stress and Water Conservation Research.

Aflatoxin in cotton.—A recognized food safety hazard, aflatoxin

has caused millions of dollars in crop losses to agriculture producers each year. The Committee recognizes the promising research the Agricultural Research Service has accomplished to

eliminate aflatoxin as an agricultural hazard. The Committee is

providing an increase of $250,000 in FY 2001 to the ARS Western

Cotton Research Laboratory, Phoenix, AZ, for expanded research

aimed at lowering aflatoxin levels in cotton.

Agricultural law research.—The National Center for Agricultural

Law Research and Information is the primary contributor of bibliographic agricultural law information to the USDA National Agricultural Library. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research

Service to continue funding in fiscal year 2001 for the National

Center for Agricultural Law Research located at the University of

Arkansas School of Law.

Animal and plant genomics research.—More rapid and efficient

methods are required to characterize, identify and manipulate useful properties of genes and genomes. These new methods or

‘‘genomics’’ are critical for developing improved crops and livestock

that help producers to maximize yields of quality products while

minimizing environmental degradation and production costs. The

Committee provides an increase of $900,000 for research to be carried out at ARS laboratories in Ithaca, NY and Clay Center, Nebraska.

Animal vaccines.—The Committee provides an increase of

$900,000 in fiscal year 2001 for expanded research on advanced

animal vaccines and diagnostic applications jointly carried out by

ARS the University of Connecticut and the University of Missouri.

Aquaculture initiatives for the mid-Atlantic highlands.—The

Committee recognizes the Agricultural Research Service’s extensive

aquaculture research activities and directs the agency to work with

Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) headquartered at Canaan Valley,

WV, in facilitating aquaculture initiatives and demonstrations in

the Mid-Atlantic highlands. CVI provides a forum where small watershed groups, government, industry, and the research community

can address economic development issues affecting the Mid-Atlantic highlands states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West

Virginia. The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 in FY

2001 for this aquaculture initiative.

Aquaculture initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.—The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for collaborative research between the Agricultural Research Service and the

23

Harbor Branch Institute, with participation of the Florida State

University to pursue new research initiatives in the area of aquaculture.

Aquaculture research.—The Committee recognizes the need to

conduct fish health management research directed at meeting the

needs of the U.S. aquaculture industry including research on improving yields, food quality, disease control, and stress tolerance.

The Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to continue funding in fiscal year 2001 for research activities at the

Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center located in Stuttgart, AR.

Aquaculture fisheries center.—The Committee provides an in- crease of $75,000 for the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for research related to bird predation on farm-raised fish and the development of value added products for aquaculture.

Aquaculture systems.—The Committee recommends an increase

of $575,000 in fiscal year 2001 for expanded research on developing

new aquaculture systems focused on rainbow trout in cooperation

with the University of Connecticut.

Area-wide IPM.—The Committee supports the USDA initiative to

develop area-wide pest management programs using biointensive

IPM approaches and other IPM technology that can be used for

control of pests as alternatives to chemical pesticides that are at

risk from FQPA assessment. The Committee provides an increase

of $1,000,000 over the FY 2000 level for expanded research on

major IPM research and area-wide demonstration programs based

on the use of biorational and biologically-based strategies for control of key pests.

Asian bird influenza.—The Committee provides an increase of $45,000 in fiscal year 2001 for ARS to develop and assess baseline

data on Eurasian birds as an influenza reservoir and their migration habits, specifically through increasing the number and diversity of wild bird samples obtained and analyzed.

Avian Leukosis—J. Virus.—The Committee is aware of the significant accomplishments of the ARS Avian Disease and Oncology

Laboratory, East Lansing, MI in controlling this virus and provides

an increase of $250,000 in FY 2001 for expanded research of this

poultry disease.

Barley food health benefits research.—The Committee recognizes

the need to investigate the benefits of barley foods to human

health. The Committee provides an increase of $200,000 for investigation and documentation of the benefits of barley foods to

human health, which are requisites to expanded domestic and

international markets of barley.

Biobased materials from agricultural commodities.—The Committee is aware of important breakthroughs in scientific tools and

methods that have enabled new, biobased products with novel

properties for applications previously met only by petroleum based

or nonbiobased materials. The Committee provides an additional

$900,000 for expanded research at ARS regional utilization centers

at Albany, CA; Wyndmoor, PA and New Orleans, LA.

Biobased products.—The Committee expects the Department to

continue its efforts to support and enhance the listing of biobased

24

products for Federal procurement and provides an increase of

$300,000 within available funds.

Biodegradable absorbents from pectins.—The Committee recognizes the importance for research to develop biobased materials

from agricultural commodities and by-products using biotechnology,

biocatalysis and other integrated technologies. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to develop biodegradable biobased

absorbents from pectins to be carried out at the ARS research laboratory at Winter Haven, FL.

Biological controls and agricultural research.—The Committee

provides an increase of $300,000 for the Center of Biological Controls and the Science Center of Excellence, which are being combined into the Center of Excellence in the Biological and Chemical

Sciences at Florida A&M University.

Biological control of insects and weeds.—Arthropods, such as Silverleaf whitefly, Asian longhorned beetle, Russian wheat aphid and

others are high priority targets for Integrated Pest Management.

The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 to develop biologically based arthropod IPM with emphasis on formulation and

delivery of microbial agents at the ARS Yakima research station.

Cereal crops research.—The Committee provides an increase of

$250,000 for expanded research on the quality and improved production practices for barley and oats conducted at the Cereal Crops

Research Laboratory, Madison, WI.

Chicken genome mapping.The Committee provides an increase of

$300,000 in FY 2001 for expanded research on chicken genome

mapping project being carried out at Beltsville, MD.

Citrus and horticultural research.—The Committee notes the expanded and important mission of the new ARS Ft. Pierce research

station as well as its past accomplishments carried out at the

former Orlando, FL location. The Committee provides an additional

$275,000 for research operations at the Ft. Pierce laboratory which

is essential to maintain effective research necessary to support the

citrus and horticultural industries.

Coffee and cocoa research.—The Committee is concerned with the

infestation of tropical fungal and pest diseases and its devastating

impact on coffee and cocoa crop production. The Committee provides an increase of $120,000 for this important disease resistance/

alternative crop research project.

Conversion of agricultural materials from biomass.—The Committee supports research efforts to develop and use biobased fuel

to decrease dependence on imported petroleum, protect the environment and improve the rural economy. The Committee provides an

increase of $500,000 to the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL for this research.

Cotton ginning research.—There is an acute need to develop new

cotton ginning equipment to preserve cotton fibers for improved

cotton quality. The Committee provides an increase of $900,000

above the level available in FY 2000 for the ARS cotton ginning research conducted at Las Cruces, NM.

Diaprepes root weevil (Diaprepes abbreviates).—The Committee

recognizes the seriousness of the Diaprepes root weevil and its impact on citrus, corn, sugarcane, ornamental plants, cotton, yucca,

25

papaya, and sweetpotato. It is important that this research be continued at the fiscal year 2000 level.

Emerging diseases.—It is the view of the Committee that research on exotic and emerging diseases is an area of high priority

and that funding proposed for plant and animal diseases should be

equally allocated.

Endophyte Research.—There are over 35 million acres of

endophyte infected tall fescue pastures in the U.S. responsible for

annual losses to the beef cattle industry. The Committee provides

an increase of $270,000 for expanded joint research at the University of Arkansas, University of Missouri, and Oregon State University.

Floriculture and nursery crops research.—The Committee is

aware that floriculture and nursery crops represent more than 10%

of the total U.S. farm crop cash receipts. The Committee provides

an increase of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 for expanded research

on this important cash crop. A portion of this funding should continue to be allocated through cooperative agreements with university partners, including the University of California, Cornell University, and Ohio State University.

Food safety research.—The Committee supports expanded initiatives to provide a safe food supply for all Americans. Additional

preharvest research is required to design effective programs to control bacteria and parasites carried by animals that are pathogenic

for humans. Additional food safety research is required during

postharvest operations at all critical points during food processing

and storage. The Committee provides an additional $1,600,000 for

research on: Antibiotic resistance ($600,000) at Athens, GA; Ames,

IA; and College Station, TX; pathogens during preslaughter and

transportation ($400,000) at Lubbock, TX and Clay Center, NE;

control plants toxins and heavy metals in food crops ($200,000),

Beltsville, MD; pathogen control in fruits and vegetable ($200,000),

Albany, CA; and pathogen and residue detection during processing

and storage ($200,000), Wyndmoor, PA.

Food Quality Protection Act.—The Committee recognizes the Department’s responsibilities to find replacement technology for currently used pesticides at risk of being phased out after EPA review.

The Committee provides an additional $300,000 for the activities of

the Office of Pest Management.

Formosan termite control.—The Committee has provided

$5,000,000, the same amount available in fiscal year 2000, for the

ongoing formosan termite control and research program at the

Southern Regional Research Center.

Fusarium Head Blight.—Generally known as ‘‘scab’’, Fusarium

Head Blight poses an extremely serious threat to all classes of

wheat and barley in the U.S. The effects of scab are mostly manifested as reduced farm yield, lowered test weights, and reduced

grain quality. The problem is amplified because scab infested grain

is usually contaminated with vomitoxin, a toxic metabolyte produced when the fungal pathogen invades the developing grain kernel. The Committee is providing an increase of $800,000 in fiscal

year 2001 to expand ongoing cooperative effort with land-grant universities to control this serious threat to the wheat and barley industries.

26

Ginning technologies.—The Committee directs that research carried out by ARS in cotton ginning harvesting and the development

of ginning technologies be maintained at fiscal year 2000 funding

levels.

Glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce’s disease.—The Committee is aware of the devastating Pierce’s disease, a widespread

and lethal disease of grapevines. This disease is currently the most

production-limiting disease on grapevine. Pierce’s disease was responsible for $33 million in management costs and crop losses in

1999. Methods of control are only partially effective and consist of

early detection, removal of infected vines and management of nearby vegetation that harbor insects and pathogens. The disease is

spread by the leafhopper vector, Glassy-winged sharpshooter

(GWSS). The GWSS feeds at the base of grapevines where pruning

is destructive. The Committee provides an increase of $1,100,000

for research to combat the GWSS and Pierce’s disease on both a

short and long-term basis.

Golden nematode.—The Committee provides an increase of $30,000 to Cornell University to support golden nematode research

in plant breeding, nematology and activities involving seed production and extension.

Grain Sorghum.—The Committee is committed to ensuring that

research dollars allocated for specific research areas are spent as

intended. The Committee directs the Agriculture Research Service

to report on all research projects related to grain sorghum. This report is to include a description of each project and how it relates

to grain sorghum, any articles published as a result of the research, and an outline of funding used in the project. The report

should be submitted no later than February 15, 2001. The Committee expects that all research funding appropriated for grain sorghum to be spent to the direct benefit of that crop, such as increased production, and be developed in coordination with the grain

sorghum industry.

Grape rootstock.—Grapes are now the highest value fruit crop in

the nation and sixth largest crop overall. Most of the crop is processed to raisins, grape juice, and wine, thereby adding enormous

value to the crop. The Committee provides an increase of $38,000

at Geneva, NY for this vitally needed research on grape rootstock

development.

Greenhouse and hydroponics research.—The Committee recognizes the need for additional effort in the areas of greenhouse and

hydroponics research. Additional emphasis is necessary to enhance

soilless culture systems to optimize environmental conditions to enhance plant production and quality while reducing pest and disease

problems. The Committee provides an increase of $1,500,000 for

ARS research in collaboration with the University of Toledo.

Greenhouse lettuce germplasm, Salinas, CA.—The Committee

provides an increase of $38,000 for additional costs associated with

the preservation, maintenance, and evaluation of greenhouse lettuce germplasm.

Hog Cholera research.—The Committee supports expanded research on exotic diseases of livestock and provides an increase of

$1,300,000 to develop vaccines to prevent the outbreak and spread

of hog cholera.

27

Human nutrition research.—The Committee recognizes the important research being carried out at the ARS Human Nutrition

Center at Little Rock, AR and provides an additional $750,000 for

fiscal year 2001 to the Children’s Hospital.

IPM systems for fruits and vegetables.—The Committee provides an increase of $400,000 for research on the development of improved semiochemical techniques for control of insect pests on

fruits and vegetables and other crops treated with

organophosphates and carbamates and for pests under large scale

eradication or control.

Invasive species research.—There are more than 30,000 invasive

species in the U.S. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to detect and eradicate incipient weed populations and manage established species. The Committee provides an increase of

$300,000 to support this research through foreign exploration and

host testing of new biocontrol agents for weeds.

Lyme disease research.—Lyme disease is a major health threat in

the Northeast. Controlling the tick that causes the disease is critical to public health. The Committee directs the Agricultural Research Service to continue funding in FY 2001 research on ecologically based technologies for controlling ixodes scapularis and reducing lyme disease being coordinated at Beltsville, MD, in support

of the Northeast Regional Lyme Tick Project and in collaboration

with Yale University.

Listeria and E.coli research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of research and new technology developments to identify,

control and eliminate Listeria monocytogenes and E.coli 0157:H7

pathogens contamination in foods. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for expanded research to control and prevent

Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products

and E.coli 0157:H7 in raw beef products.

Lettuce geneticist/breeder, Salinas, CA.—The Committee pro- vides an increase of $38,000 in fiscal year 2001 for continuing support of the geneticist plant breeder hired last year at the ARS research station at Salinas, CA.

Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) Virus.—The Committee provides an increase of $300,000 for this sheep-associated virus infecting small ruminants. This additional funding will be used for research on the development of vaccines critical to the systematic

eradication of MCF virus in small ruminants at the ARS laboratory

at Pullman, WA, and in cooperation with the ARS sheep station at

Dubois, ID, and Washington State University.

Manure management systems.—The Committee supports additional research to improve manure management practices and provides an increase of $300,000 to the ARS Florence, SC research station to develop improved treatment technologies to manage animal

waste from swine production to protect water and air quality.

Methyl bromide alternatives research.—The Committee is aware

of the important research carried out by ARS to develop alternatives to methyl bromide which is effectively utilized as a soil

farming agent and pest control for stored commodities. The Committee provides an increase of $1,620,000 for methyl bromide research. The Committee expects ARS to use these additional funds

to support registration requirements of minor use pesticides as alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
28

ternatives to methyl bromide as well as, to initiate research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide for floriculture crops.

Microbial pathogens in small watersheds.—The kinds of microbial pathogens in small watersheds and their potential sources are

not well understood. The Committee provides an increase of

$300,000 to the Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Laboratory at University Park, PA for the technology required to develop effective management strategies for the benefit of

agricultural livestock producers and other landowners in the

Northeast.

Mid-West/Mid-South irrigation.—The Committee is aware of the

importance of irrigation research in reducing risk and increasing

yields on the farm. The Committee directs ARS to provide an increase of $30,000 in fiscal year 2001 for cooperative research into

irrigation methods and technologies at the University of Missouri

Delta Center in Portageville, Missouri.

Mosquito trapping research and West Nile Virus.—Infectious diseases transmitted by insects in Connecticut and other Northern

states have become an increasing concern to public health. Mosquito-borne diseases, such as West Nile encephalitis and Eastern

Equine encephalitis have increased in threat. ARS has specified interest in the problem of vector-borne diseases because many of

these infectious agents also have potential impact on animal

health, people, and human food production. The Committee provides an increase of $800,000 to ARS for research on mosquito

trapping and research on the mosquito-borne West Nile Virus. Research is to develop the next generation of novel or improved mosquito traps and attractant-enhanced trapping technology for use in

surveillance, detection, population monitoring, and control of vectors of exotic mosquito-borne disease agents. These traps will be

used to collect mosquito populations in different regions and assayed to map the geographical range of pathogens, and to predict

the likelihood of disease outbreaks. Further, the Committee directs

that $450,000 of the increase provided be utilized for cooperative

research with the University of Connecticut State Agricultural Experiment Station for research that focuses on the West Nile Virus

crisis. These resources will allow the University to enhance its ongoing efforts to control and eradicate this infectious disease.

Nematology research.—The Committee provides an increase of

$250,000 in FY 2001 to the ARS research station at Tifton, GA for

research on the development of nematode management strategies

to address crop yield losses due to increasing population of nematodes.

Organic minor crop research, Salinas CA.—The Committee provides an increase of $38,000 for organic minor crop research at the

ARS research station at Salinas, CA.

Parasite mite research.—The Committee directs that research in

mite control in honey bee colonies utilized in honey production and

crop pollination be maintained at fiscal year 2000 funding levels.

Plant genetics.—The productivity and sustainability of American

agriculture depends on accessible and secure germplasm. The Committee provides an increase of $250,000 to the Plant Genetics Resources Laboratory, Geneva, NY for germplasm conservation and

29

research on the genetic diversity of grape and apple rootstock and

other vegetable crops.

Plant germplasm resources.—The Committee supports the ARS

research effort to maintain, characterize, evaluate and enhance the

Nation’s plant germplasm. The Committee provides an increase of

$1,875,000 to support ARS repositories and research at Davis, CA;

Riverside, CA; Ft. Collins, CO; Griffen, GA; Ames, IA; Urbana, IL;

Ithaca, NY; Corvallis, OR; College Station, TX; Pullman, WA; Phoenix, AZ; Washington, DC; Charleston, SC; Aberdeen, ID; and Madison, WI.

Post-harvest and controlled atmosphere chamber.—The Committee provides an increase of $38,000 for research into post-harvest and controlled atmosphere techniques aimed at reducing insect and disease problems in lettuce destined for Japan and other

export markets.

Poultry diseases research.—The Committee directs the Secretary

to submit a report on the feasibility of consolidating Agricultural

Research Services’ research on avian viral diseases at the Southeast Poultry Disease Laboratory, Athens, GA. Costs associated with

the completion of this feasibility study shall be funded from unobligated balances currently available to this laboratory.

Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome (PEMS).—The Committee

provides an increase of $100,000 to the Southeast Poultry Disease

Laboratory, Athens, GA for research on the identification and characterization of agents causing Poult Enterititis-Mortality Syndrome.

Plum pox virus.—The Committee recognizes the serious disease

of Plum Pox, caused by the plum pox virus (PPV) a virus disease

of stone fruits and some nuts, including peaches, plums, apricots,

nectarines, cherries and almonds. PPV can cause losses up to 80–

100% in susceptible varieties. PPV is quarantined in most countries including the U.S. and importation of budwood and rootstock

are prohibited from areas where PPV is known to occur. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 for research on detection,

insect transmission and germplasm enhancement.

Potato research.—The Committee provides an increase of

$250,000 for research on the evaluation and enhancement of potato

germplasm, including use of genetic engineering techniques, development of new varieties and efficient methods of pest control conducted by ARS at Prosser, WA.

Purple loosestrife research.—The Committee recognizes the

progress made on purple loosestrife, an invasive Eurasian weed of

wetland areas. While significant reductions of this weed have been

made through the release of biological control agents, additional research is required. The Committee provides an increase of $275,000

to the ARS Ithaca, NY research laboratory to carry out this work.

Rangeland resource management.—Rangeland resource management addresses remediation of arid and semi-arid rangelands by

developing new methods for monitoring and assessing rangelands

ecosystems, developing new technologies for biological control of

rangeland weeds, and creating new technology transfer applications for arid land management. The Committee provides an increase of $1,800,000 to the Jornada Experimental Range Program

at Las Cruces, NM to expand research in this area which will reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
30

sult in the development of the best forage—livestock management

practices and strategies for the benefit of both ranchers and private

and public land managers.

Rapid diagnostic capabilities.—The Committee is aware of the

Department’s request to provide research capacity to develop ‘‘on

the spot’’ diagnostic tools for pathogens that threaten animal and

plant agriculture. This research will help the U.S. in preventing

and dealing with acts of chemical and biological bioterrorism

against agricultural and food security systems. The Committee provides $500,000 for this research initiative.

Rice research.—The Committee recognizes the continuing need

for evaluation and enhancement of rice germplasm. The Committee

provides an increase of $75,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the National

Rice Research Center located in Stuttgart, AR.

Risk Assessment for Bt. Corn.—The Committee is aware of the

need for improved insect monitoring for Bt. Corn. Laboratory and

field studies are necessary to determine potential impacts of Bt.

Corn on migrating insects, such as the monarch butterfly, as well

as other insects. The Committee provides an additional $400,000 to

the ARS laboratory at Ames, IA for these investigations.

Root diseases in wheat and barley.—The Committee directs ARS

to provide an increase of $75,000 in FY 2001 for the ARS Root Disease and Biological Control Laboratory, Pullman, WA for investigation of root diseases. Major research breakthroughs are needed in

root disease management to achieve high yields possible under conservation tillage systems.

Small fruits research.—The Committee directs the ARS to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2000 level for the Northwest Center

for Small Fruits Research, Corvallis, OR. The Center conducts and

coordinates research efforts unique to small fruit industries in the

Pacific Northwest, including breeding, insect, disease management,

product development, and market analyses.

Soil tilth research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of

research to carry out effective soil and water investigations at the

ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, IA. The Committee provides an increase of $750,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level to support this important research.

Soybean Research/Iowa State University.—The Committee is

aware of the important ARS-supported soybean genetics work

being done, and continues to strongly support ongoing research at

Ames, Iowa, aimed at increasing the productivity and profitability

of soybean production and processing. The Committee expects ARS

to continue the program at not less than the current fiscal year

2000 funding levels.

Sugarbeet research.—The Committee is aware of the importance

of the sugarbeet research at Ft. Collins, CO. The Committee directs

the ARS to fund this project at the fiscal year 2000 level.

Sustainable vineyard practices position.—The Committee provides an increase of $38,000 for sustainable vineyard practices research at UC, Davis. This research is responsible for development

of biologically and environmentally sound practices for grape growing which enhance compatibility with soil, water, air, and biotic resources.

31

Temperate fruit flies.—The Committee provides an increase of

$38,000 to the ARS station at Yakima, WA to further develop technology for the control and management of temperate fruit flies. The

presence of temperate fruit flies has been cited by potential export

markets as barriers to increased cherry exports from the U.S.

U.S. Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory.—The Committee

provides an increase of $750,000 for expanded research at the U.S.

Plant and Water Conservation Laboratory in Lubbock, TX.

Utilization of Foundry Sand By-Products in Agriculture.—The

Committee recognizes the potential for the use of foundry sand byproducts as soil amendments or components of blended materials

including composts for agricultural situations. Within available

funds, the Committee urges the Department to conduct such research as may be appropriate to amass and compile existing data

on foundry by-products, perform experiments in controlled environments, and establish field plot tests to quantify beneficial use responses.

Vaccines for brucellosis.—The Committee supports Department

efforts to develop vaccines for wildlife. Brucellosis vaccines for wildlife will help eliminate the exposure of domestic animals from this

disease as they come in contact with wild animals. The Committee

provides an increase of $1,000,000 for this research at the National

Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA.

Viticulture research.—The Committee is aware of the emerging

importance of the grape and wine industry in the Pacific Northwest. The Committee provides an increase of $68,000 in FY 2001

to address important viticulture research being conducted by ARS

in cooperation with the University of Idaho.

Water use management technology.—It is estimated that 50% of

the total water consumed in some critical regions of the U.S.

Southeast is used for agricultural purposes. The Committee provides an increase of $350,000 in FY 2001 to the ARS Research Station at Tifton, GA to develop and expedite the implementation of

remote sensing technologies to improve the use of agricultural inputs, including water, nutrients, and plant protectants. It is expected that this technology could realize efficiency gains of as much

as 20% when implemented.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $52,500,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 39,300,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 39,300,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥13,200,000

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 which directly or indirectly support research and extension programs of the

Department. Routine facilities maintenance, construction or replacement items would continue to be funded under the limitations

contained in the regular account.

32

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities, the

Committee provides an appropriation of $39,300,000, a decrease of

$13,200,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and

the same as the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s provisions:

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Arizona:

Water Conservation and Western Cotton Laboratory, Maricopa ............................................ 0 $5,000

California:

Western Regional Research Center, Albany ........................................................................... $4,900 4,900

District of Columbia:

U.S. National Arboretum ......................................................................................................... 3,330 3,330

Iowa:

National Animal Disease Center, Ames ................................................................................. 9,000 9,000

Maryland:

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research ..................................................................................... 13,300 13,300

National Agricultural Library .................................................................................................. 1,770 1,770

New York:

Plum Island Animal Disease Center ...................................................................................... 7,000 7,000

Unspecified locations:

General reduction ................................................................................................................... 0 ¥5,000

Total, Buildings and Facilities ........................................................................................... 39,300 39,300

National Arboretum.—The Committee is disappointed that the

budget request did not include funding for implementing the National Arboretum’s master facilities plan. In particular, a new entrance road to the Arboretum is a time-sensitive project that should

proceed as early as possible. Due to budget constraints, the Committee is unable to recommend funding for this work. However, the

Department will be expected to include this project in the budget

request for fiscal year 2002.

Plum Island Animal Disease Center.—The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for repair and maintenance of buildings and

supporting infrastructure at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center at Greenport, NY. The Committee notes that no funds are requested for planning or executing an upgrade of the Center to Biosafety Level 4, and no funds are provided for this purpose. Funds

are provided for the following projects:

Replace boiler plant, Phase 3 ............................................................ $3,000,000

Consolidate firehouse/motor pool ...................................................... 2,000,000

Miscellaneous small projects/contingency ........................................ 2,000,000

Total .......................................................................................... 7,000,000

Unspecified locations: General reduction.—The Committee recommends a general reduction of $5,000,000 to be applied to the

combination of project savings from favorable bids, reduced overhead costs, scope reductions, structuring of bid additives, and other

cost reduction initiatives available to the Department to assure

that construction projects are not excess to program requirements.

33

This recommendation by the Committee does not cancel or delay

any project.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

SERVICE

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on

October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The Service

was created by the merger of the Cooperative State Research Service and the Extension Service. The mission of CSREES is to work

with university partners 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

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $481,881,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 460,865,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 477,551,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,330,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. +16,686,000

The research and education programs administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service were established by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1462, dated July 19,

1961 and Supplement 1, dated August 31, 1961, and under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. The primary function of research and

education activities is to administer Acts of Congress that authorize Federal appropriations for agricultural research and higher

education carried out by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Micronesia, and Northern Mariana Islands, and by approved schools of forestry, the 1890 landgrant colleges and Tuskegee University, the 1994 land-grant institutions, and other eligible institutions. Administration of payments

and grants involves the approval of each research proposal to be financed in whole or in part from Federal grant funds; the continuous review and evaluation of research and higher education programs and expenditures thereunder; and the encouragement of cooperation within and between the states and with the research programs of the Department of Agriculture.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For payments under the Hatch Act, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $180,545,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

For cooperative forestry research, the Committee provides an appropriation of $21,932,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

For payments to the 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee University, the Committee provides an appropriation of $30,676,000,

the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same

as the budget request.

34

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted 1

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Payments Under Hatch Act ............................................................................... $180,545 $180,545 $180,545

Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis) ............................................. 21,932 21,932 21,932

Payments to 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University ...................................... 30,676 30,676 30,676

Special Research Grants (P.L. 89–106):

Advanced spatial technologies (MS) ....................................................... 1,000 0 0

Aegilops cylindricum (jointed goatgrass) (WA) ....................................... 360 0 360

Aflatoxin (IL) ............................................................................................ 113 0 113

Agriculture-based industrial lubricants (IA) ........................................... 250 0 400

Agricultural diversification (HI) ............................................................... 131 0 0

Agricultural diversity/Red River Trade Corridor (MN/ND) ........................ 250 0 500

Agricultural telecommunications (NY) ..................................................... 425 0 425

Agriculture water usage (GA) .................................................................. 300 0 300

Agroecology (MD) ..................................................................................... 0 0 300

Alliance for food protection (NE, GA) ...................................................... 300 0 300

Alternative crops (ND) ............................................................................. 550 0 550

Alternative crops for arid lands (TX) ...................................................... 100 0 100

Alternative salmon products (AK) ............................................................ 552 0 0

Animal science food safety consortium (AR, IA, KS) .............................. 1,521 0 1,750

Apple fire blight (MI, NY) ........................................................................ 500 0 500

Aquaculture (AR) ...................................................................................... 0 0 250

Aquaculture (FL) ...................................................................................... 0 0 470

Aquaculture (LA) ...................................................................................... 330 0 330

Aquaculture (MS) ..................................................................................... 592 0 0

Aquaculture (NC) ..................................................................................... 255 0 300

Aquaculture (VA) ...................................................................................... 100 0 100

Aquaculture (WA) ..................................................................................... 0 0 300

Aquaculture product and marketing development (WV) ......................... 750 0 0

Babcock Institute (WI) ............................................................................. 510 0 600

Binational agriculture research and development (BARD) 2 ................... (400) 2,000 400

Biobased technology (MI) ........................................................................ 0 0 300

Biodiesel research (MO) ........................................................................... 152 0 0

Biotechnology (NC) ................................................................................... 0 0 300

Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production (IA) ......................... 213 0 0

Bovine tuberculosis (MI) .......................................................................... 170 0 300

Brucellosis vaccine (MT) .......................................................................... 425 0 0

Center for animal health and productivity (PA) ..................................... 113 0 0

Center for rural studies (VT) ................................................................... 200 0 0

Chesapeake Bay agroecology (MD) .......................................................... 150 0 200

Chesapeake Bay aquaculture (MD) ......................................................... 385 0 400

Citrus canker (FL) .................................................................................... 0 0 5,000

Citrus tristeza .......................................................................................... 595 0 750

Coastal cultivars (GA) ............................................................................. 170 0 0

Competitiveness of agricultural products (WA) ...................................... 680 0 680

Cool season legume research (ID, WA) ................................................... 329 0 329

Cranberry/blueberry (MA) ......................................................................... 150 0 150

Cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding (NJ) ...................................... 220 0 220

Dairy and meat goat research (TX) ......................................................... 63 0 63

Delta rural revitalization (MS) ................................................................. 148 0 0

Designing foods for health (TX) .............................................................. 319 0 375

Diaprepes/root weevil (FL) ....................................................................... 298 0 400

Drought mitigation (NE) .......................................................................... 200 0 200

Ecosystems (AL) ....................................................................................... 500 0 500

Efficient irrigation (NM/TX) ...................................................................... 0 0 1,250

Environmental research (NY) ................................................................... 400 0 400

Environmental horticulture (FL) ............................................................... 0 0 300

Environmental risk factors/cancer (NY) .................................................. 170 0 230

Environmentally-safe products (VT) ........................................................ 170 0 0

Exotic pests (CA) ..................................................................................... 0 0 2,000

Expanded wheat pasture (OK) ................................................................. 285 0 0

Farm injuries and illnesses (NC) ............................................................ 0 0 300

Farm and rural business finance (IL/AR) ............................................... 87 0 0

35

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted 1

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Feed barley for rangeland cattle (MT) .................................................... 637 0 637

Fish and shellfish technologies (VA) ....................................................... 0 0 500

Floriculture (HI) ........................................................................................ 250 0 0

Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO) ........................ 800 0 1,000

Food irradiation (IA) ................................................................................. 200 0 250

Food Marketing Policy Center (CT) .......................................................... 400 0 500

Food processing center (NE) .................................................................... 42 0 42

Food quality (AK) ..................................................................................... 350 0 0

Food safety (AL) ....................................................................................... 446 0 0

Food safety research consortium (NY) .................................................... 0 0 300

Food Systems Research Group (WI) ......................................................... 425 0 500

Forages for advancing livestock production (KY) ................................... 213 0 250

Forestry (AR) ............................................................................................ 523 0 523

Fruit and vegetable market analysis (AZ, MO) ....................................... 320 0 350

Generic commodity promotion, research and evaluation (NY) ............... 198 0 198

Global change/ultraviolet radiation ......................................................... 1,000 1,567 1,567

Global market support service (AR) ........................................................ 127 0 0

Grain sorghum (KS) ................................................................................. 106 0 106

Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture (WA, OR, ID) 423 0 423

Human nutrition (IA) ................................................................................ 473 0 473

Human nutrition (LA) ............................................................................... 752 0 752

Human nutrition (NY) .............................................................................. 622 0 622

Hydroponic tomato production (OH) ........................................................ 100 0 100

Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology ............................................. 1,184 0 1,184

Improved dairy management practices (PA) ........................................... 296 0 500

Improved early detection of crop diseases (NC) ..................................... 170 0 0

Improved fruit practices (MI) .................................................................. 445 0 445

Infectious disease research (CO) ............................................................ 255 0 300

Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR) .................................... 1,250 0 1,250

Integrated production systems (OK) ........................................................ 180 0 0

International agricultural market structures and institutions (KY) ........ 250 0 0

International arid lands consortium ........................................................ 400 0 500

International asparagus competitiveness (WA) ....................................... 0 0 200

Iowa biotechnology consortium ................................................................ 1,564 0 1,564

Livestock and dairy policy (NY, TX) ......................................................... 475 0 575

Lowbush blueberry research (ME) ........................................................... 220 0 260

Maple research (VT) ................................................................................. 100 0 0

Meadowfoam (OR) .................................................................................... 300 0 300

Michigan biotechnology consortium ........................................................ 675 0 775

Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance .................................... 423 0 500

Midwest agricultural products (IA) .......................................................... 592 0 700

Milk safety (PA) ....................................................................................... 298 0 350

Minor use animal drugs .......................................................................... 550 550 0

Molluscan shellfish (OR) ......................................................................... 400 0 400

Multi-commodity research (OR) ............................................................... 364 0 364

Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture (HI) ....................................... 127 0 0

National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium (NY) ....................... 0 0 300

National biological impact assessment .................................................. 254 254 0

Nematode resistance genetic engineering (NM) ..................................... 127 0 127

Nevada arid rangelands initiative (NV) .................................................. 255 0 300

New crop opportunities (AK) .................................................................... 425 0 0

New crop opportunities (KY) .................................................................... 595 0 700

Non-food uses of agricultural products (NE) .......................................... 64 0 64

Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialties (AL) ....................................... 0 0 300

Oil resources from desert plants (NM) .................................................... 175 0 175

Organic waste utilization (NM) ................................................................ 100 0 100

Pasture and forage research (UT) ........................................................... 225 0 250

Peach tree short life (SC) ........................................................................ 162 0 0

Peanut allergy reduction (AL) .................................................................. 425 0 500

Pest control alternatives (SC) ................................................................. 106 0 0

Phytophthora root rot (NM) ...................................................................... 127 0 150

Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging (NM) .............. 212 0 250

36

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted 1

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Pierce’s disease (CA) ............................................................................... 0 0 2,000

Potato research ........................................................................................ 1,300 0 1,400

Precision agriculture (KY) ........................................................................ 850 0 500

Preharvest food safety (KS) ..................................................................... 212 0 212

Preservation and processing research (OK) ............................................ 226 0 226

Produce pricing (AZ) ................................................................................ 0 0 80

Rangeland ecosystems (NM) ................................................................... 200 0 400

Red snapper research (AL) ...................................................................... 510 0 700

Regional barley gene mapping project ................................................... 425 0 425

Regional crop information and policy centers ........................................ 0 1,500 0

Regionalized implications of farm programs (MO, TX) ........................... 294 0 294

Rice modeling (AR) .................................................................................. 296 0 296

Rural Development Centers (PA, IA, ND, MS, OR, LA) ............................ 523 523 523

Rural policies institute (NE, IA, MO) ....................................................... 644 0 1,000

Russian wheat aphid (CO) ...................................................................... 200 0 200

Safe vegetable production (GA) ............................................................... 0 0 300

Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing (AK) ............................. 552 0 0

Seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and marketing (MS) 305 0 0

Seafood safety (MA) ................................................................................. 255 0 300

Small fruit research (OR, WA, ID) ........................................................... 300 0 300

Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources ............. 338 0 400

Soybean cyst nematode (MO) .................................................................. 475 0 700

STEEP—water quality in Pacific Northwest ............................................ 500 0 500

Sustainable agriculture (CA) ................................................................... 255 0 400

Sustainable agriculture (MI) .................................................................... 445 0 445

Sustainable agriculture and natural resources (PA) .............................. 95 0 100

Sustainable agriculture systems (NE) ..................................................... 59 0 59

Sustainable beef supply (MT) .................................................................. 637 0 637

Sustainable pest management for dryland wheat (MT) ......................... 425 0 425

Swine waste management (NC) .............................................................. 500 0 500

Technological development of renewable resources (MO) ...................... 0 0 300

Tillage, silviculture, waste management (LA) ......................................... 212 0 212

Tomato wilt virus (GA) ............................................................................. 200 0 300

Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR .............................................. 2,724 0 5,000

Tropical aquaculture (FL) ........................................................................ 170 0 200

Turkey carnavirus (IN) ............................................................................. 200 0 200

Urban pests (GA) ..................................................................................... 64 0 0

Value-added products (IL) ....................................................................... 0 0 100

Vidalia onions (GA) .................................................................................. 100 0 300

Viticulture consortium (NY, CA) ............................................................... 1,000 0 1,500

Water conservation (KS) .......................................................................... 79 0 79

Weed control (ND) .................................................................................... 423 0 423

Wetland plants (LA) ................................................................................. 600 0 600

Wheat genetic research (KS) ................................................................... 261 0 261

Wood utilization (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI, ID, TN, AK) ......................... 5,136 0 5,786

Wool research (TX, MT, WY) ..................................................................... 300 0 300

Total, Special Research Grants ........................................................... 59,948 6,394 74,354

Improved pest control:

Emerging pest/critical issues .................................................................. 200 467 200

Expert IPM decision support system ....................................................... 177 260 177

Integrated pest management .................................................................. 2,731 2,731 2,731

Minor crop pest management (IR–4) ...................................................... 8,990 10,711 8,990

Pest management alternatives ................................................................ 1,623 4,200 1,623

Total, Improved pest control ............................................................... 13,721 18,369 13,721

Competitive research grants:

Animals .................................................................................................... 29,000 35,000 26,000

Markets, trade and development ............................................................. 4,600 7,000 4,600

Nutrition, food safety and health ............................................................ 16,000 22,000 14,000

37

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted 1

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Natural resources and the environment .................................................. 20,500 25,000 18,500

Plants ....................................................................................................... 41,000 48,000 26,634

Processing for adding value or developing new products ...................... 8,200 13,000 7,200

Total, Competitive research grants ..................................................... 119,300 150,000 96,934

Animal Health and Disease (Sec. 1433) .......................................................... 5,109 5,109 5,109

Alternative crops ............................................................................................... 750 0 750

Critical Agricultural Materials Act .................................................................... 600 0 0

1994 Institutions research program ................................................................. 500 1,000 1,000

Graduate fellowship grants .............................................................................. 3,000 5,000 3,000

Institution challenge grants ............................................................................. 4,350 6,000 4,350

Multicultural scholars program ........................................................................ 1,000 2,000 1,000

Hispanic education partnership grants ............................................................ 2,850 3,500 3,500

Secondary agriculture education ...................................................................... 500 500 600

Aquaculture Centers (Sec. 1475) ..................................................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000

Sustainable agriculture research and education/SARE ................................... 8,000 10,500 9,000

Capacity building grants (1890 institutions) .................................................. 9,200 9,500 9,500

Payments to the 1994 Institutions ................................................................... 1,552 1,552 1,552

Federal Administration:

Agriculture development in the American Pacific ................................... 564 0 564

Agriculture waste utilization (WV) ........................................................... 425 0 0

Agricultural water policy (GA) ................................................................. 0 0 385

Alternative fuels characterization laboratory (ND) .................................. 218 0 218

Animal waste management (OK) ............................................................. 250 0 300

Biotechnology research (MS) ................................................................... 425 0 0

Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (IA) ............................... 355 0 500

Center for innovative food technology (OH) ............................................ 381 0 781

Center for North American Studies (TX) .................................................. 87 0 87

Climate change research (FL) ................................................................. 170 0 170

Cotton research (TX) ................................................................................ 170 0 500

Data information system ......................................................................... 2,000 2,250 2,000

Food animal residue avoidance database .............................................. 0 0 300

Geographic information system ............................................................... 850 0 850

Germplasm development in forage grasses (OH) ................................... 100 0 100

Livestock marketing information center (CO) ......................................... 170 0 170

Mariculture (NC) ...................................................................................... 250 0 250

Mississippi Valley State University .......................................................... 583 0 0

National Center for Peanut Competitiveness (GA) .................................. 300 0 300

Office of extramural programs ................................................................ 310 588 588

Pay costs and FERS ................................................................................. 1,100 1,100 1,100

Peer panels .............................................................................................. 350 350 350

PM–10 air quality study (CA, WA) .......................................................... 873 0 873

Precision agriculture/Geospatial Training and Application Center (AL) 340 0 600

Precision agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center

(AL) ...................................................................................................... 85 0 150

Shrimp aquaculture (AZ, HI, MS, MA, SC) .............................................. 3,354 0 3,354

Sustainable agriculture development (OH) ............................................. 0 0 500

Urban silviculture (NY) ............................................................................ 0 0 250

Water quality (IL) ..................................................................................... 298 0 298

Water quality (ND) ................................................................................... 340 0 340

Wetland plants (WV) ................................................................................ 0 0 150

Total, Federal Administration .............................................................. 14,348 4,288 16,028

Total, Research and Education Activities ........................................... 481,881 460,865 477,551

1 Includes impact of reductions pursuant to Public Law 106–113.

2 Fiscal year 2000 funding provided under the Agricultural Research Service.

38

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,600,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 7,100,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 7,100,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +2,500,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized

by Public Law 103–382 provides authority to establish an endowment for the 1994 land-grant institutions (31 tribal controlled colleges). This program will enhance educational opportunities 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. Beginning in 2001, it is proposed that funds also be made 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: sixty 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 forty percent of the adjusted income

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

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the

Committee provides $7,100,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above

the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends language as requested which provides that funds may be used to support facility

renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance.

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $424,174,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 428,236,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 428,740,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,566,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. +504,000

Cooperative agricultural extension work was established by the

Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The legislation authorizes the Department of Agriculture to give, through the landgrant institutions, instruction and practical demonstrations in agricultural and home economics and related subjects, and to encourage the application of such information by means of demonstrations, publications, and otherwise to persons not attending or a

resident in the colleges. In addition, the Service provides nutrition

training to low-income families, 4–H Club work, and educational

assistance such as community resource development.

39

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $428,740,000, an increase of $4,566,000 above the amount

available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of $504,000 above the

budget request.

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee:

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted 1

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Smith Lever Sections 3(b) & 3(c) ...................................................................................... $276,548 $276,548 $276,548

Smith Lever Section 3(d)

Farm safety ................................................................................................................ 3,400 0 4,000

Food and nutrition education (EFNEP) ...................................................................... 58,695 61,043 58,695

Indian reservation agents .......................................................................................... 1,714 5,000 1,714

Pest management ...................................................................................................... 10,783 12,269 10,783

Pesticide applicator training ..................................................................................... 0 1,500 1,500

Rural development centers ........................................................................................ 908 908 908

Sustainable agriculture ............................................................................................. 3,309 4,500 3,309

Youth at risk .............................................................................................................. 9,000 10,000 9,000

Youth farm safety education and certification ......................................................... 0 5,000 1,000

1890 Colleges and Tuskegee University ............................................................................. 26,843 26,843 26,843

1890 facilities grants ......................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 12,000

Renewable Resources Extension Act .................................................................................. 3,192 3,192 3,192

Rural health and safety education .................................................................................... 2,628 0 0

Extension services at the 1994 institutions ...................................................................... 3,060 3,500 3,060

Subtotal ................................................................................................................. 412,080 422,303 412,552

Federal Administration and special grants:

After-school program (CA) ......................................................................................... 0 0 420

Ag in the classroom .................................................................................................. 208 476 576

Beef producers’ improvement (AR) ............................................................................ 197 0 197

Botanical gardens initiative (IL) ............................................................................... 106 0 0

Conservation technology transfer (WI) ...................................................................... 170 0 200

Delta teachers academy ............................................................................................ 3,500 0 3,500

Diabetes detection and prevention (WA) ................................................................... 550 0 975

Efficient irrigation (NM/TX) ........................................................................................ 0 0 2,000

Extension specialist (MS) .......................................................................................... 100 0 0

Family farm beef industry network (OH) ................................................................... 0 0 1,390

General administration .............................................................................................. 4,736 5,457 4,736

Income enhancement demonstration (OH) ................................................................ 246 0 246

Integrated cow/calf resources management (IA) ...................................................... 250 0 300

National Center for Agriculture Safety (IA) ............................................................... 195 0 195

Pilot technology transfer (OK, MS) ............................................................................ 326 0 326

Pilot technology transfer (WI) .................................................................................... 163 0 163

Range improvement (NM) .......................................................................................... 197 0 197

Rural development (AK) ............................................................................................. 277 0 0

Rural development (NM) ............................................................................................ 280 0 280

Rural development (OK) ............................................................................................. 150 0 0

Rural rehabilitation (GA) ........................................................................................... 246 0 0

Vocational agriculture (OK) ....................................................................................... 0 0 290

Wood biomass as an alternative farm product (NY) ................................................ 197 0 197

Total, Federal Administration ................................................................................ 12,094 5,933 16,188

Total, Extension Activities ..................................................................................... 424,174 428,236 428,740

1 Includes impact of reductions pursuant to Public Law 106–113.

Delta Teachers Academy.—The Committee recommends

$3,500,000 for the Delta Teachers Academy. Within these funds,

40

the Committee directs that services shall be provided at a school

in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

Diabetes detection and prevention (WA).—The Committee recommends $975,000 for confirmation of the detection and education

pilot demonstration project that has been conducted through the

Extension Service in Hawaii and Washington. This technology involves non-invasive eye imaging, diagnosis through existing telemedicine infrastructure and treatment plans.

Expansion of Extension Systems.—The Committee is aware that

there are nations such as Lebanon, Russia, and Ukraine that have

an interest in developing a system similar to our Cooperative Extension effort. The Committee directs the Department to review

these interests and to provide a report regarding which countries

have such an interest, what efforts have been or could be undertaken either by the Department or through the Land Grant or private university system to support the establishment of extension

systems, what resources are available or would be needed to adequately support such efforts, and whether or not any legislative

changes would be required to facilitate the expansion of extension

systems to other nations.

Farm Safety: AgrAbility.—Within the funds provided for Smith- Lever 3(d) for Farm Safety, the Committee recommends $3,000,000

for the AgrAbility program, which helps people with disabilities to

be able to farm safely, efficiently, and profitably through on-thefarm education and assistance.

Income enhancement demonstration (OH).—The Committee expects that the Agricultural Business Enhancement Center will intensify its efforts in identifying and pursuing improved business

practices and alternative market opportunities, including those related to sales at or through Farmers’ Markets.

Indian Reservation Agents.—The Committee directs the Department to submit a report on the feasibility of specifying that all

states with reservation lands are eligible for funding, and of inviting all such states to submit proposals for funds. This report is to

include an analysis of the impact of taking into account each state’s

total Native American population when allocating funds on a formula basis. This report is to be submitted no later than January

1, 2001.

National Rural Behavioral Health Center (FL).—The Committee

is aware of a proposal by the National Rural Behavioral Health

Center at the University of Florida to train cooperative extension

service agents in crisis intervention and stress management education. This model program would provide the training to better

equip extension agents in delivering behavioral health information

and programs to residents of rural and farm communities, most of

whom live in areas experiencing health service shortages. The

Committee urges the Department to work cooperatively with the

Health Resources Administration of the Department of Health and

Human Services in efforts to provide support for the Center and to

build on the Center’s initiative to extend the knowledge gained so

that extension agents might be empowered to assist rural victims

with this education and outreach effort.

4H Programs.—The Committee encourages the Department to

work with 4H programs to develop a program for the collection of

41

discarded and surplus school supplies and clothing for redistribution to needy individuals in the United States and to the extent

possible in other nations.

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $39,541,000

2001 budget estimates ....................................................................... 76,194,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 39,541,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥36,653,000

Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants program. Water Quality,

Food Safety, and Pesticide Impact Assessment Special Research

Grants and Smith Level 3(d) programs previously shown under Research and Education and/or Extension Activities are proposed

under this account.

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Integrated Activities:

Small farms initiative ........................................................................ 0 $4,000 0

Water quality ...................................................................................... $13,000 16,204 12,000

Food safety ......................................................................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000

Pesticide impact assessment ............................................................ 4,541 4,640 4,551

International science and education grants ..................................... 0 1,000 0

Biobased products program .............................................................. 0 9,600 0

Invasive species ................................................................................. 0 1,500 0

Crops at risk from FQPA implementation ......................................... 1,000 3,000 1,000

FQPA risk mitigation program for major food crop systems ............ 4,000 10,000 4,000

Methyl bromide transition program ................................................... 2,000 5,000 2,000

Organic transition program ............................................................... 0 1,000 1,000

Anti-hunger and food security program ............................................ 0 5,250 0

Total, Integrated Activities ............................................................ 39,541 76,194 39,541

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $39,541,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal

year 2000 and a decrease of $36,653,000 below the budget request.

Competitive Grants: International Involvement.—The Committee

directs the Department to focus these research dollars on collaborative effort that can take maximum advantage of developing agricultural production for the benefit of the people of the nation in

which the research takes place.

Water Quality: Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst.—The Committee is

aware of an admirable voluntary environmental risk reduction program known as ‘‘Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst’’. Within funds provided under the Integrated Activities account, the Department is

encouraged to give consideration to $4,000,000 for this program.

The Administrator of CSREES is directed to report to the Committee on any application received for this program at the time of

42

receipt, and on the status of funding for this program at the time

of any obligation of funds.

Water Quality: Great Lakes.—The Committee expects that attention will be given to the special needs of integrating production agriculture and the Great Lakes.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $618,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 635,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 618,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥17,000

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 PROVISIONS

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

$618,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000

and a decrease of $17,000 below the budget request.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $437,768,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 512,444,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 470,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +32,232,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥42,444,000

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was

established by the Secretary of Agriculture 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.

43

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 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 which

ensure the humane care and treatment of animals as required by

the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts. These activities include inspection of certain establishments that handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring of 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 in support of the control and eradication programs in other functional components; applied research aimed at reducing economic damage from vertebrate

animals; development of new pest and animal damage control

methods and tools; and regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—User fees are collected 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.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted

FY 2001

request

Committee

provisions

1. Pest and Disease Exclusion:

Ag. quarantine inspection ............................................................................. $34,546 $38,450 $38,450

User fees ........................................................................................................ 86,926 87,000 87,000

Subtotal, AQI ............................................................................................. 121,472 125,450 125,450

Cattle ticks .................................................................................................... 4,996 5,276 5,276

Foot-and-mouth disease ................................................................................ 3,803 3,803 3,803

Import/export .................................................................................................. 6,809 7,237 7,237

Sanitary/phytosanitary management ............................................................. 7,530 9,892 8,785

Fruit fly exclusion and detection ................................................................... 25,183 55,110 31,910

Screwworm ..................................................................................................... 30,276 30,400 30,400

Tropical bont tick ........................................................................................... 407 407 407

Total, Pest and Disease Exclusion ............................................................ 200,476 237,575 213,268

2. Plant and Animal Health Monitoring:

Animal health monitoring and surveillance .................................................. 65,943 69,501 69,624

44

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted

FY 2001

request

Committee

provisions

Animal and plant health regulatory enforcement ......................................... 5,850 6,263 6,263

Emergency Management System ................................................................... 627 5,868 2,368

Pest detection ................................................................................................ 6,680 6,729 6,729

Total, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring .............................................. 79,100 88,361 84,984

3. Pest and Disease Management Programs:

Aquaculture .................................................................................................... 766 576 676

Biocontrol ....................................................................................................... 8,153 8,318 8,318

Boll weevil ...................................................................................................... 15,094 2,856 19,757

Brucellosis eradication .................................................................................. 10,876 8,227 8,427

Emerging plant pests .................................................................................... 3,507 28,586 3,533

Golden nematode ........................................................................................... 580 580 580

Gypsy moth .................................................................................................... 4,363 4,420 4,420

Imported fire ant ........................................................................................... 100 0 200

Noxious weeds ................................................................................................ 424 2,124 1,124

Pink bollworm ................................................................................................ 1,316 1,074 1,548

Pseudorabies .................................................................................................. 4,563 4,039 4,039

Scrapie eradication ........................................................................................ 2,989 8,026 3,026

Tuberculosis ................................................................................................... 4,916 4,974 4,974

Wildlife services operations ........................................................................... 31,395 28,684 35,637

Witchweed ...................................................................................................... 1,506 1,506 1,506

Total, Pest and Disease Management ...................................................... 90,548 103,990 97,765

4. Animal Care:

Animal welfare ............................................................................................... 10,167 15,167 12,167

Horse protection ............................................................................................. 361 398 398

Total, Animal Care .................................................................................... 10,528 15,565 12,565

5. Scientific & Technical Services:

Biotechnology/environmental protection ........................................................ 8,523 10,283 10,283

Integrated systems acquisition project ......................................................... 3,497 0 0

Plant methods development labs .................................................................. 4,688 4,806 4,806

Veterinary biologics ........................................................................................ 10,337 10,751 10,751

Veterinary diagnostics ................................................................................... 15,609 17,678 16,678

Wildlife services methods development ........................................................ 10,357 10,525 10,835

Total, Scientific and Technical Services ................................................... 53,011 54,043 53,353

6. Contingency fund ............................................................................................... 4,105 4,105 8,065

7. Invasive species ................................................................................................. 0 8,805 0

Total, Salaries and Expenses .................................................................... 437,768 512,444 470,000

Recap:

Appropriated ................................................................................................... 350,842 425,444 383,000

AQI User Fees ................................................................................................. 86,926 87,000 87,000

437,768 512,444 470,000

Wildlife Services.—The Committee directs APHIS to assure, to

the maximum extent possible, that all control activities be costshared with local sponsors. The Committee also expects APHIS to

continue work related to blackbird damage control in Louisiana.

The Committee provides an additional $2,000,000 for support and

expansion of rabies control including domestic programs and international collaboration. The Committee expects the program to target rabies in the midwestern and eastern states and in Texas. The

45

Committee expects a minimum of $600,000 to be targeted to rabies

problems in New York state.

The Committee is concerned about reports that the incidence of

raccoon rabies is expanding beyond the current control border. The

Department is encouraged to expand this border and to develop additional cooperative agreements with those states in the expanded

barrier area.

The Committee also provides $250,000 for wildlife services to

contain crop and aquaculture losses in southeastern Missouri,

$625,000 for a cooperative agreement with Georgia Wildlife Services and the University of Georgia to conduct research on and control of game bird predation in Georgia, and $100,000 for trapping

in Virginia to combat increased predation by coyotes.

The Committee has received reports of increased losses to ranchers in western states. The Committee regrets that limitations on

the budget prevent any response to requests for compensation for

loss of livestock, but it provides an additional $300,000 to assist in

controlling wolf predation.

The Committee is concerned that the spread of the wolf population in western states has caused an increase in Wildlife Services

operations that cannot be funded with the current level of appropriations. The Committee directs the Department to prepare a report on increased APHIS activities due to wolf predation with increased costs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and projections for

costs in fiscal year 2001. The report should include an accounting

of all compensation to APHIS from other federal and local agencies

and should be provided to the Committees on Appropriations no

later than March 1, 2001.

The Committee expects APHIS to intensify its efforts in both research and operations to control migratory fish-eating birds, such

as the double crested cormorant, which are causing serious problems to the Southeastern aquaculture industry. The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for aviation operations and aviation safety.

Avocados.—The Committee urges the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service to continue working closely with U.S. avocado

growers in implementing procedures for the importation of Mexican

avocados. The Committee directs APHIS to report on the status of

Mexican avocado imports including any problems in pest surveys,

oversight by APHIS personnel and importation, including the diversion of Mexican avocados to other than approved destinations.

The Committee also directs APHIS to report to Congress prior to

publishing any rules expanding the approved areas or lengthening

time periods for importation of Mexican avocados.

Imported Fire Ant.—The Committee supports a program for the

control, management, and eradication of the imported fire ant and

provides $200,000 for this program of which, $75,000 is for New

Mexico.

Hog cholera.—The Committee believes there is a very high risk

of introduction of hog cholera into the United States due to the

presence of the disease in the Caribbean. The Committee believes

this should be viewed as an emergency situation and the following

efforts should be undertaken: (1) preclearance of passengers entering the United States from high risk countries; (2) enhanced surVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
46

veillance of high risk U.S. herds; (3) enforcement of the Swine

Health Protection Act; and (4) improved training and educational

efforts for state and Federal animal health officials and accredited

veterinarians.

Methods Development.—The Committee expects that activities

funded by this appropriation shall continue to be carried out by

APHIS Wildlife Services and in full cooperation with state wildlife

management agencies and the International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies. The Committee provides $500,000 for research and evaluation of

nicarbazin as a means of controlling goose and other avian populations to increase airport safety.

National Farm Animal Identification and Records Project for

Dairy Cattle.—The Committee provides continued funding at the

fiscal year 2000 level for the National Farm Animal Identification

and Records Project for Dairy Cattle to be coordinated with the

Holstein Association.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards.—The Committee expects

that imported products will be subjected to the same sanitary and

phytosanitary standards as domestic products and those that do

not meet the U.S. standards will be rejected. APHIS should provide

adequate staffing levels at the borders and ports of entry to ensure

that sanitary and phytosanitary standards are upheld.

Screwworm.—The Committee expects the Department to continue to work with Mexican authorities to develop an alternative

use for the Chiapas screwworm facility and to continue to keep the

Committee informed of any developments. This alternative use

should focus on those activities that would help the area population

produce commercial crops uniquely suitable for production in the

area.

Plant Pest and Disease Emergencies.—The Committee is concerned about the increasing risk to our national food supply from

plant pests and diseases. Recent examples include citrus canker in

Florida, Pierce’s disease in California, plum pox virus in Pennsylvania, Asian longhorned beetles in Illinois and New York, and

Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies throughout the southern

United States. The Committee notes that the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to declare emergencies and to use the resources of the Commodity Credit Corporation to meet such threats

to American agricultural production. This system has served our

country well for many years by granting the Secretary the power

to make virtually unlimited efforts to eliminate emerging pest and

disease problems before outbreaks expand and become unmanageable.

It appears that a problem has now arisen with this system. After

the Secretary has made an emergency declaration, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) must apportion funds from the

Treasury before the effort can commence. It appears that the exercise of this apportionment function has unnecessarily delayed

USDA action, and has permitted problems to expand, and to increase the cost of eradication. The Committee strongly believes that

this is not a proper use of OMB’s ministerial power.

In particular, the state of Florida is increasing its effort to control and eradicate citrus canker during the current fiscal year. The

47

Committee supports this effort, and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report by March 1, 2001 on all requests for OMB apportionment of funds under existing emergency declarations.

Hereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to submit to

the Committee copies of all apportionments requested under emergency declarations at the time they are submitted to OMB, as well

as the response received from OMB.

Bovine Tuberculosis.—The Committee is concerned about the

health of cattle with the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Michigan. The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to recognize and declare this emergency and to accelerate its prevention

and eradication efforts by using $7.5 million in CCC emergency

funds.

Asian Longhorned Beetle.—The Committee is aware of the serious threat to trees in New York and Illinois and other states and

directs the Department to continue its prevention and eradication

efforts using CCC emergency funds and Emerging Plant Pest funds

as necessary.

Aquaculture.—The Committee provides an appropriation of

$676,000 for aquaculture of which $100,000 is to support a wildlife

biologist at the northwest Florida Aquaculture Farm in

Blountstown, FL to serve north Florida, southeast Alabama and

southwest Georgia.

Boll Weevil.—The Committee has increased funding provided to

APHIS for the Federal cost-share of the nationwide boll weevil

eradication program. The Committee notes that the Federal costshare has fallen to approximately 5% compared to the original level

of 30%, as a result of a substantial increase in participating acreage. The Committee is aware that several programs are incurring

significant costs associated with self-financing their eradication activities. In particular, the Committee notes that Oklahoma producers have successfully generated funds through sale of bonds.

However, the bonds have been subject to Federal tax, thereby substantially increasing the financing cost and reducing the benefits to

the Oklahoma program. The Committee expects APHIS and the

Boll Weevil Eradication Action Committee to assist the Oklahoma

Foundation in mitigating the unanticipated costs associated with

the bond issue.

Brucellosis.—The Committee provides an additional $200,000 for

the Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis Committee and the Idaho

Wildlife Brucellosis Plan.

Blackbird.—The Committee urges the Department to implement,

if feasible, a baiting program to control blackbird damage to sunflowers.

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.—The Committee

provides an additional $124,000 for the National Poultry Improvement Program.

Pink Bollworm Eradication.—The Committee recognizes the significant economic losses caused by pink bollworm infestation. The

Committee supports efforts which combine the use of sterile moths,

Bt cotton varieties and limited application of conventional pesticides. The Committee therefore expects the Secretary to instruct

APHIS to utilize all available resources to provide financial assistVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
48

ance, in addition to the direct appropriation and grower assessments, to operate the program during this fiscal year.

Berryman Institute.—The Committee directs the Department to

continue the current funding level for the Jack Berryman Institute

in Utah.

APHIS Operations at Miami International Airport.—Miami International Airport (MIA) is the nation’s busiest international cargo

and second busiest international passenger airport. The Committee

is concerned about increasing delays in time in transit, duties and

processing paperwork burdens attributable to shipment of goods

and arriving passengers at MIA. The Committee therefore encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide additional positions for APHIS cargo and passenger inspection operations at MIA.

Overhead Charges.—The Committee is concerned that overhead

costs charged to various programs may be in excess of the amounts

needed and directs APHIS to keep these costs as low as possible.

Third Party Inspection.—The Committee directs APHIS to provide inspection support including training, certification and quality

audits to businesses providing independent third party agricultural

inspections.

Contingency Fund.—The Committee provides an additional

$3,960,000 over the amount requested for fiscal year 2001 in the

Contingency Fund. The Committee notes that the Administration

has proposed using appropriated funds for emergencies previously

funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The Committee strongly disagrees with this approach and directs the Department to continue funding such emergencies as citrus canker,

plum pox, Asian longhorned beetle and Pierce’s disease through

CCC. The Committee also notes that there are many new demands

for funding to combat pests and diseases. Many of these pests and

diseases enter the United States because of increased imports and

travel. Some are of domestic origin. The Committee has received

requests for funding to combat many problems including Asian

longhorned beetle, Asian gypsy moth, grasshoppers, Mormon crickets, Pierce’s disease, plum pox, rabies, fire ants, Johne’s disease,

goatsrue/tamarisk and bovine tuberculosis. Frequently, the

amounts requested differ from APHIS’ analysis of need. The Committee directs APHIS to consult with state and local governments

when assistance is requested and use contingency funds whenever

appropriate.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,200,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,200,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,200,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

The APHIS Buildings and Facilities account funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific program activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities.

49

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and

Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,200,000

the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same

as the budget request.

The following table summarizes the committee’s provisions:

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

enacted

FY 2001

request

Committee

provisions

Buildings and Facilities:

Plum Island, NY ......................................................................................................... $1,200 $3,200 3,200

Basic buildings and facilities repair, alterations, and preventative maintenance 4,000 2,000 2,000

Total, Buildings & Facilities ................................................................................. 5,200 5,200 5,200

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $51,497,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 66,572,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 56,326,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +4,829,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥10,246,000

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was established by

the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972, under the authority

of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities.

Through its marketing, consumer, and regulatory programs, AMS

aids in advancing orderly and efficient marketing and effective distribution and transportation of products from the Nation’s farms.

Programs administered by this agency include market news activities, payments to states for marketing activities, the Plant Variety Protection Act, the Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders, standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg

surveillance services, transportation services, and market protection and promotion.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service,

the Committee provides an appropriation of $56,326,000, an increase of $4,829,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2000 and a decrease of $10,246,000 below the budget request.

The Committee expects implementation of the Organic Certification Program to continue and that a final rule will be published

in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee has included $3,000,000 for mandatory price re- porting. The Committee notes that $4,700,000 was made available

in fiscal year 2000 for mandatory price reporting, and as of April

30, 2000 the Department was at least three months behind in its

implementation schedule. Since the fiscal year 2000 funds are

available until expended, the Committee believes that adequate

50

funds should be available in fiscal year 2001 to carry out the program.

The Committee provides $1,106,000 to complete planning and

begin implementation of the Pesticide Data water testing program.

The Committee includes $31,000 to stimulate interest in the

identification and development of marketing opportunities for small

and limited-resource farmers through the Federal-State Marketing

Improvement Program.

The Committee is aware that the Department guidelines for commodity purchase programs relating to small businesses effectively

prohibit many farmer cooperatives from participating in such programs. The Committee has included a general provision that the

USDA does not prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-owned

cooperatives in the commodity purchase program.

The Committee has included language that allows the transfer of

$639,000 from the Marketing Services account to the Expenses and

Refunds account for the implementation of the National Organic

Standards Program upon promulgation of a final rule. These funds

are to provide an incentive for certifying agents to become accredited under the new national program as soon as possible. Accreditation fees that are proposed as part of the program will not be

charged during the first 18 months of the program, except to cover

travel costs. The $639,000 is needed to cover program costs for 18

months at which time the program expects to be self-supporting

through the collection of user fees.

The Committee is encouraged by the attention being paid by

AMS to the problems of small and medium-sized producers. The

Committee directs the Department to build on these efforts by developing a plan in consultation with the Committee to provide marketing training to producers and producer organizations to enable

them to take maximum advantage of opportunities for dealing with

new and changing agricultural markets.

The Committee encourages the Department to expand its efforts

in collaboration with the North American Farmers Direct Marketing Association to facilitate the exchange of information between

marketers and farmers’ markets, and to increase its promotion of

farmers’ markets and direct marketing websites.

The Committee expects the Department to expand its initiative

for linking small farmers and cooperatives directly with school food

purchasing authorities, and to make specific efforts in this regard

in Ohio.

The Committee is concerned about the conditions surrounding

the conduct of the current pork producer referendum. The Committee expects the Department to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that only the ballots of legitimate producers will

be counted in this referendum.

The Committee compliments AMS for its efforts to develop and

disseminate more information about contracting practices in various sectors of agriculture. The Committee urges and encourages

the agency to expand these efforts, and to report to the Committee

as to what additional resources might be necessary to provide producers with the amount of information they need to evaluate the

adequacy of their own contracts.

51

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2000 limitation .................................................................................... ($60,730,000)

2001 budget limitation ....................................................................... (60,730,000)

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (60,730,000)

Comparison:

2000 limitation ............................................................................ ............................

2001 budget limitation ................................................................ ............................

The Agricultural Marketing Service provides inspection, grading,

and classing services to the cotton and tobacco industries on a user

funded basis. The legislative authorities to carry out these programs are: the U.S. Cotton Standards Act; the Cotton Statistics

and Estimates Act of 1927, as amended; the Tobacco Inspection

Act; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981; the Dairy and

Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1985; and the Uniform Cotton Classing

Fees Act of 1987. These programs facilitate the interstate and foreign commerce of these products. This is accomplished by inspecting, identifying, and certifying the quality of these products in accordance with official standards. Grades serve as a basis for prices

and reflect the value of the products to the producer as well as the

buyer. These programs facilitate the movement of commodities

through marketing channels in a quick, efficient, and equitable

manner.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural

Marketing Service, the Committee provides $60,730,000, the same

as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the

budget request.

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ ($12,428,000)

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ (13,438,000)

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ (13,438,000)

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +1,010,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ...........................

The Act of August 24, 1935, appropriates 30 percent of all customs receipts for: (a) encouraging exports of agricultural commodities; (b) encouraging domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by diversion to alternative outlets or by increasing their

utilization; and (c) reestablishing the farmers’ purchasing power.

The primary purpose of section 32 is to strengthen markets by

purchasing surplus perishable agricultural commodities to encourage continued adequate production.

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

1999 through 2001:

52

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD, FISCAL YEARS 1999–

2001

FY 1999 actual FY 2000 current

estimate

FY 2001 budget

estimate

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) ..................... $5,701,865,817 $5,735,557,955 $5,738,448,921

Supplemental Appropriation ............................................ 145,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Less Rescission ................................................................ ¥7,958,000 ¥15,000 ..............................

Less Transfers:

Food and Nutrition Service .............................................. ¥5,048,150,000 ¥4,935,199,000 ¥5,127,579,102

Commerce Department .................................................... ¥66,426,288 ¥69,920,523 ¥72,827,819

Total, Transfers ........................................................... ¥5,114,576,288 ¥5,005,119,523 ¥5,200,406,921

Budget Authority ....................................................................... 724,331,529 730,423,432 538,042,000

Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year ......................... 131,966,602 112,630,114 300,000,000

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations ........................................ 3,527,838 0 0

Available for obligation ............................................... 859,825,969 843,053,546 838,042,000

Less Obligations:

Commodity Procurement:

Child Nutrition Purchases ....................................... 400,000,000 400,000,000 400,000,000

Emergency Surplus Removal .................................. 144,484,206 96,000,000 0

Diversion Payments ................................................. 178,264,816 0 0

Disaster Relief ........................................................ 7,013,711 0 0

Estimated Future Purchases 0 26,041,546 115,000,000

Total, Commodity Procurement .......................... 729,762,733 522,041,546 515,000,000

Administrative Funds:

Commodity Purchase Service ........................................... 6,580,001 8,584,000 9,604,000

Marketing Agreements & Orders ..................................... 10,853,121 12,428,000 13,438,000

Total, Administrative Funds ........................................ 17,433,122 21,012,000 23,042,000

Total, Obligations ........................................................ 747,195,855 543,053,546 538,042,000

Carryout ..................................................................................... 112,630,114 300,000,000 300,000,000

Return to Treasury .................................................................... 0 0 0

Unobligated Balance Available, End Of Year ............. 112,630,114 300,000,000 300,000,000

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of $13,438,000, an

increase of $1,010,000 above the amount available for fiscal year

2000 and the same as the budget request.

The Committee is aware of the continuing disastrous situation

being experienced by agricultural producers of specialty crops who

do not receive direct Federal market assistance in agricultural sectors where surpluses have resulted in prices well below the cost of

production. The Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal

year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act included language urging the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate the impact market surpluses in the cranberry industry have on prices paid to growers.

The language anticipated the Secretary using funds made available

under the section 32 program to help stabilize prices through the

purchase of cranberry products. Despite the fact that prices being

paid to producers in this sector are continuing to decline precipitously due to continuing surpluses, little has been done to address

53

the situation. The Committee directs the Secretary to redouble efforts to help producers of specialty crops using the projected

$300,000,000 carryover in the section 32 program. In carrying out

this mandate, the Secretary should focus on purchases of agricultural products grown primarily by small farmers who are most in

need.

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,200,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,500,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,500,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +300,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program 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 PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,500,000, an increase of $300,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000, and the same as the budget

request.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $26,433,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 33,549,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 27,801,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +1,368,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥5,748,000

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 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, assurance of the financial integrity of

54

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 PROVISIONS

For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, the Committee provides $27,801,000, an increase of $1,368,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of

$5,748,000 below the budget request.

The Committee supports GIPSA’s expanded role in addressing

international grain trade issues and has included an increase of

$368,000 for compliance activities specifically as they relate to

opening foreign markets for grain and oilseed. The Committee has included an increase of $600,000 to allow

GIPSA to continue to identify anti-competitive behavior, and examine causes and competitive implications of contract livestock production.

GIPSA has embarked on a sustained effort to examine the competitive structure of the poultry industry, and the Committee has

provided an increase of $400,000 to carry out this work.

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2000 limitation ....................................................................................... ($42,557,000)

2001 budget limitation .......................................................................... (42,557,000)

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ (42,557,000)

Comparison:

2000 limitation ................................................................................

2001 budget limitation ................................................................... .........................

The U.S. Grain Standards Act requires, with minor exceptions,

that all grain exported by grade must be officially inspected and

weighed. The agency’s employees or delegated state agencies perform original inspection and weighing services at export port locations in the United States and Canada. Grain which is not being

exported may be inspected at interior locations, upon request, by

licensed employees of designated state and private agencies. The

agency’s employees, upon request, perform domestic original inspection and weighing services on grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and

related grain commodities. The agency’s employees supervise and

provide oversight for inspectors performing official services.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses of $42,557,000, the same as the amount available

for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request. The bill

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

Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require

additional supervision and oversight or other uncontrollable factors

occur.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $446,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 560,000

55

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 446,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥114,000

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 egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides an appropriation of $446,000, the same as the

amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $114,000

below the budget request.

The Committee directs the Under Secretary for Food Safety to

review the current laws and policies regarding the handling or inspection of nonambulatory animals and report back to the Committee no later than 180 days with the findings.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $649,119,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 688,204,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 673,790,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +24,671,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,414,000

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 major objectives of the 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 and the Poultry Products Inspection Act; provide continuous inplant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products

Inspection Act; and administer the pathogen reduction program.

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 PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $673,790,000, an increase of $24,671,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of

$14,414,000 below the budget request.

The Committee provides the full amount requested for inspection

costs and for activities related to the Codex Alimentarius.

The Committee provides bill language allowing funds made available to the Food Safety and Inspection Service for fiscal year 2001

56

to liquidate overobligations and overexpenditures incurred in fiscal

years 1997 and 1998.

The Committee remains concerned that the Food Safety and Inspection Service has not finished removing or revising those meat

and poultry inspection regulations inconsistent with the HACCPbased inspection system. The agency has missed self-imposed deadlines for completing this project, and the Committee believes the

accomplishments in this area, as cited in testimony and correspondence, are not as extensive as they should be. Accordingly,

the Committee directs FSIS to prepare by March 1, 2001, a report

listing every meat and poultry inspection regulation in place prior

to publication of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule, the agency’s

determination of whether each regulation should be revised or removed in the wake of HACCP implementation and the agency’s

proposed date for completing that revision or removal.

The Committee believes that agency managers must have an understanding of the establishments that the agency regulates, which

necessarily requires the occasional observation of operations in an

inspected establishment. The Committee expects all appropriate

senior personnel of the agency, specifically senior personnel in the

Field Operations, the Public Health and Science and the Policy and

Program Development and Evaluation offices, to become HACCP

certified and to observe operations in the range of establishments

inspected by the agency at least annually. The agency is directed

to provide the Committee a report no later than March 1, 2001 listing these senior personnel (GS 14 and above), the date on which

they have become HACCP certified and the date and type of establishment in which they have observed operations.

FSIS has a plan to better utilize available inspection personnel

through implementation of daily, unscheduled inspection in processing establishments. The Committee expects the Agency to make

full use of its authority to ensure that inspection resources are rationally dedicated to address relative food safety risks and to avoid

the disruptive effect of continued inspector shortages. To further

these objectives, the Agency is expected to evaluate greater flexibility in requirements for frequency of unscheduled inspection and

other possible means of enhancing the efficiency of inspection in

processing establishments. FSIS should report its findings to the

Committee by January 31, 2001.

FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $572,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 589,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 572,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥17,000

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

57

commodity programs. The Office has oversight and management

responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency (which includes the

Commodity Credit Corporation), the Risk Management Agency, and

the Foreign Agricultural Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$572,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000

and a decrease of $17,000 below the budget request.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103–354, enacted October 13, 1994. Originally called the Consolidated Farm

Service Agency, the name was changed to the Farm Service Agency

on November 8, 1995. The FSA administers the agricultural commodity programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC); the warehouse examination function; the conservation reserve program (CRP); several other conservation cost-share programs; the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP);

and farm ownership, operating, emergency disaster, and other loan

programs.

Agricultural market transition program.—The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104–127 (1996

Act), enacted April 4, 1996, mandates that the Secretary offer individuals with eligible cropland acreage the opportunity for a onetime signup in a 7-year, production flexibility contract. Depending

on each contract, a participant’s prior contract-crop acreage history

and payment yield, as well as total program participation, each

contract participant shares a portion of a statutorily-specified annual dollar amount. In return, participants must comply with certain requirements regarding land conservation, wetland protection,

planting flexibility, and agricultural use. Contract crops, for the

purposes of determining eligible cropland and payments, include

wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, and rice.

This program does not include any production adjustment requirements or related provisions except for restrictions on the planting

of fruits and vegetables.

Marketing assistance loan program, price support programs, and

other loan and related programs.—The 1996 Act provides for marketing assistance loans to producers of contract commodities, extra

long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds for the 1996 through 2002

crops. With the exception of ELS cotton, these nonrecourse loans

are characterized by loan repayment rates that may be determined

to be less than the principal plus accrued interest per unit of the

commodity. Producers have the option of taking a loan deficiency

payment, if available, in lieu of the marketing assistance loan.

The 1996 Act also provides for a loan program for sugar for the

1996 through 2002 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, where the

loans may be either recourse or nonrecourse in nature depending

on the level of the tariff rate quota for imports of sugar. The 1996

Act provides for a milk price support program, whereby the price

58

of milk is supported through December 31, 1999, via purchases of

butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk. The rate of support is fixed

each calendar year, starting at $10.35 per hundredweight in 1996

and declining each year to $9.90 per hundredweight in 1999. The

FY 2000 Appropriations Act, P.L. 106–78, extends the milk price

support program to January 1, 2001. The 1996 Act and the 1938

Act provide for a peanut loan and poundage quota program for the

1996 through 2002 crops of peanuts. Finally, the Agricultural Act

of 1949, as amended (1949 Act), and the 1938 Act provide for a

price support, quota, and allotment program for tobacco.

The interest rate on commodity loans secured on or after October

1, 1996, will be one percentage point higher than the formula

which was used to calculate commodity loans secured prior to fiscal

year 1997. The CCC monthly commodity loan interest rate will, in

effect, be one percentage point higher than CCC’s cost-of-money for

that month.

The 1996 Act amended the payment limitation provisions in the

Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), by changing the

annual $50,000 payment limit per person for deficiency and diversion payments to an annual $40,000 payment limit per person for

contract payments. The annual $75,000 payment limit per person

applicable to combined marketing loan gains and loan deficiency

payments for all commodities that was in effect for the 1991

through 1995 crop years continues through the 2002 crop year.

Similarly, the 3-entity rule is continued.

Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.—Various price

support and related programs have been authorized in numerous

legislative enactments since the early 1930’s. Operations under

these programs are financed through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency (FSA)

are utilized in the administration of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Administrator of the FSA is also Executive Vice

President of the Corporation.

The 1996 Act created new conservation programs to address high

priority environmental protection goals and authorized CCC funding for many of the existing and new conservation programs. The

Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of the

programs financed through the CCC.

Foreign assistance programs and other special activities.—Various surplus disposal programs and other special activities are conducted pursuant to the specific statutory authorizations and directives. These laws authorize the use of CCC funds and facilities to

implement the programs. Appropriations for these programs are

transferred or paid to the Corporation for its costs incurred in connection with these activities, such as Public Law 480.

Farm credit programs.—The Department’s reorganization has

placed the farm credit programs under FSA to facilitate improved

coordination between the credit programs and FSA’s risk management, conservation, and commodity support programs. FSA reviews

applications, makes and collects loans, and provides technical assistance and guidance to borrowers. Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund

(ACIF) loans are appropriated to the ACIF Program Account and

transferred to FSA salaries and expenses.

59

Risk management.—Includes the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) which provides crop loss protection for

growers of many crops for which crop insurance is not available.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Transfer from

program accts. Total, FSA, S&E

2000 appropriation 1 ....... $794,394,000 ($211,265,000) ($1,005,659,000)

2001 budget estimate ..... 828,385,000 (266,719,000) (1,095,104,000)

Provided in the bill ......... 828,385,000 (266,719,000) (1,095,104,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .. +33,991,000 (+55,454,000) (+89,445,000)

2001 budget estimate ...................... ............................ ............................ ................................ 1 Excludes $56,000,000 in Commodity Credit Corporation funds provided by P.L. 106–78 to cover FSA administrative costs to carry out emergency and disaster assistance for producers.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Committee provides an appropriation of $828,385,000 and

transfers from other accounts of $266,719,000, for a total program

level of $1,095,104,000. This is an increase of $89,445,000 above

the amount available for fiscal year 2000 (excluding supplementals)

and the same as the budget request.

The Committee expects the Agency to target lending in farm loan

and assistance programs to those in most economic need.

Barley Loan Rate.—The Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996 requires the Secretary in implementing the

Marketing Loan Assistance Program to establish a loan rate for

barley, and respective feed grains, ‘‘taking into consideration’’ barley’s feeding value relative to corn. This determination does not reflect, but does not preclude taking into account, the value of malting barley, which represents more than one-half of annual U.S.

barley production. In establishing the national average loan rate

for barley for the 2000 through 2002 crops, the Committee directs

the Secretary to include in the determination prices representing

all U.S. barley production for the previous five years, including not

less than one-half of the difference between average prices for

malting barley and feed barley. The Committee also directs the

Secretary to take into account county production and prices of feed

barley and malting barley in establishing county loan rates and

loan repayment rates, so as to meet the objectives of the non-recourse marketing loan program which include minimizing outlays

and commodity forfeitures.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program/Habitat for Endangered Species.—The Committee urges the Farm Service Agency

(FSA) to put priority on proposals addressing the habitat needs of

species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act, and water quality improvements for water bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The

Committee encourages FSA to use maximum flexibility in interpreting Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) policies to ensure that riparian buffer standards are appropriate for

the landscape type and actual biological and water quality needs

of the relevant watershed. The FSA is directed to administer CREP

60

in a manner which encourages collaborative partnerships in watershed restoration and protection and where appropriate, combines

CREP benefits and financial resources with state, private or regional initiatives that build off the core CREP measures with

broader or long-term buffer contracts, including the purchase of

easements by other entities.

County Offices.—The Committee is concerned about any Departmental plans to close FSA county offices at a time when the FSA

office network is essential to helping farmers address critical economic and environmental issues. The Committee reiterates its

strong view that no county office closure or consolidation should

occur except in those locations for which closures and relocations

are supported by rigorous analysis to ensure actions are cost effective, and that services available to the public will not be reduced.

FSA County Office Employees.—The Committee is disappointed

that the budget request did not include funding to support maintaining FSA county office employees at the Fiscal Year 2000 level.

Rural communities and agricultural producers rely heavily on the

programs administered by the FSA county office employees during

periods of economic decline. Since the current economic crisis is not

expected to decline in the near future, the Committee directs the

FSA to use all available funding sources, program delivery efficiencies and workload management options to support retaining

FSA county office employees. The Committee expects the Department to provide budget requests fully supporting the workload

needs of county office employees.

Location of Commodity Sales to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).—The Committee directs the Department to increase its

outreach to producers and grain traders so as to increase the pool

of CCC-eligible vendors for any commodity sale. In particular, the

Committee expects the Department to make special efforts in Ohio

and other Great Lakes States to increase sales and shipments from

these areas.

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $3,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 4,000,000

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

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥1,000,000

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural

Credit Act of 1987. 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 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

FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the

state’s agricultural mediation program.

61

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,000,000, the same as the amount available in fiscal

year 2000 and a decrease of $1,000,000 below the budget request.

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $450,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 450,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 450,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

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 PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $450,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Farm Ownership Loans.—Makes loans to farmers and ranchers

for acquiring, enlarging, or improving farms, including farm buildings, land development, use, and conservation, refinancing indebtedness, and for loan closing costs.

Operating Loans.—Makes loans to farmers and ranchers for costs

incident to reorganizing a farming system for more profitable operations, for a variety of essential farm operating expenses such as

purchase of livestock, farm equipment, feed, seed, fertilizer, and

farm supplies; for refinancing land and water development, use,

and conservation; for refinancing indebtedness; for other farm and

home needs; and for loan closing costs.

Emergency Loans.—Makes loans in designated areas where a

natural disaster has caused a general need for agricultural credit

which cannot be met for limited periods of time by private cooperatives or other responsible sources.

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Makes loans to any Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act,

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.

Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Makes loans in conjunction

with the sale of security properties previously acquired during the

servicing of its loan portfolio.

62

Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Makes loans to assist foundations in financing the operation of boll weevil eradication programs

provided to farmers.

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2000 loan level ....................................................................................... a $3,083,292,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 4,557,938,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 4,557,938,000

Comparison:

2000 loan level ................................................................................ +1,474,646,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

a Excludes $2,542,294,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted 11/29/

99.

This fund makes the following loans to individuals: farm ownership, farm operating, and emergency. In addition, the fund makes

loans to associations for Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Approximate loan levels provided by the Committee for fiscal

year 2001 for the agricultural credit insurance fund programs are:

$1,128,000,000 for farm ownership loans, of which $128,000,000 is

for direct loans and $1,000,000,000 for guaranteed loans;

$3,177,868,000 for farm operating loans, of which $700,000,000 is

for direct loans, $477,868,000 is for guaranteed subsidized loans,

and $2,000,000,000 is for guaranteed unsubsidized loans;

$2,006,000 for Indian tribe land acquisition loans; $150,064,000 for

emergency disaster loans; and $100,000,000 for boll weevil eradication loans.

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

level

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Farm loan programs:

Farm ownership:

Direct .................................................................................................. a $128,049 $128,000 $128,000

Guaranteed ......................................................................................... b 431,373 1,000,000 1,000,000

Farm operating:

Direct .................................................................................................. c 500,000 700,000 700,000

Unsubsidized guaranteed .................................................................. d 1,697,842 2,000,000 2,000,000

Subsidized guaranteed ...................................................................... e 200,000 477,868 477,868

Emergency disaster ..................................................................................... f 25,000 150,064 150,064

Indian tribe land acquisition ...................................................................... 1,028 2,006 2,006

Boll Weevil Eradication ............................................................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000

Total, farm loans ........................................................................... 3,083,292 4,557,938 4,557,938

a Excludes $21,951,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

b Excludes $568,627,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

c Excludes $400,000,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

d Excludes $302,158,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

e Excludes $702,558,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

f Excludes $547,000,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Guaranteed loan

subsidy

Administrative

expenses

2000 appropriation .................... a $38,030,000 b $43,976,000 $214,161,000

2001 budget estimate ............... 114,060,000 71,494,000 269,454,000

63

Direct loan

subsidy

Guaranteed loan

subsidy

Administrative

expenses

Provided in the bill ................... 114,060,000 71,494,000 269,454,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ............ +76,030,000 +27,518,000 +55,293,000

2001 budget estimate ........ .......................... .......................... ..........................

a Excludes $109,218,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

b Excludes $69,339,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

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 and

loan guarantees committed in 2001, as well as for administrative

expenses.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under

credit reform:

FY 2000

estimate

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Loan subsidies:

Farm ownership:

Direct ...................................................................................... a $4,827,000 $13,786,000 $13,786,000

Guaranteed ............................................................................. b 2,416,000 5,100,000 5,100,000

Subtotal ............................................................................. 7,243,000 18,886,000 18,886,000

Farm operating:

Direct ...................................................................................... c 29,300,000 63,140,000 63,140,000

Guaranteed unsubsidized ...................................................... d 23,940,000 27,400,000 27,400,000

Guaranteed subsidized .......................................................... e 17,620,000 38,994,000 38,994,000

Subtotal ............................................................................. 70,860,000 129,534,000 129,534,000

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................... 21,000 323,000 323,000

Emergency disaster ......................................................................... f 3,882,000 36,811,000 36,811,000

Total, Loan subsidies ............................................................. 82,006,000 185,554,000 185,554,000

ACIF expenses:

Salaries and expenses ............................................................... 209,861,000 265,315,000 265,315,000

Administrative expenses ............................................................. 4,300,000 4,139,000 4,139,000

Total, ACIF expenses .............................................................. 296,167,000 455,008,000 455,008,000

a Excludes $828,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

b Excludes $3,184,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

c Excludes $23,441,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

d Excludes $4,260,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

e Excludes $61,895,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

f Excludes $84,949,000 (FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113).

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $63,983,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 67,700,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 67,700,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +3,717,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR)

Act of 1996, Risk Management became an agency of the Department of Agriculture, known as the Risk Management Agency

64

(RMA), reporting to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

RMA manages program activities in support of the Federal crop

insurance program as authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance

Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994

and the FAIR Act of 1996. Functional areas of RMA are research

and development, insurance services, and compliance whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. Reviews and evaluations are conducted for overall performance to ensure the actuarial soundness of the insurance program.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $67,700,000, an increase of $3,717,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget

request.

CORPORATIONS

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ a $710,857,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ a 1,727,671,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ a 1,727,671,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +1,016,814,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

a Current indefinite appropriation.

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 was designed to replace the

combination of crop insurance and ad hoc disaster payment programs with a strengthened crop insurance program.

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 $60 per crop per policy,

or $200 for all crops grown by the producer in a county, with a cap

of $600 regardless of the number of crops and counties involved. At

least catastrophic (CAT) coverage was required for producers who

participate in the commodity support, farm credit, and certain

other farm programs. This coverage was available either through

FSA local offices or private insurance companies. Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996, producers have the option of waiving their eligibility for emergency

crop loss assistance instead of obtaining CAT coverage required to

meet program requirements. Emergency loss assistance does not

include emergency loans or payment under the noninsured assistance program (NAP), which is administered by FSA. Beginning

with the 1997 crop, the Secretary began phasing out delivery of

CAT coverage through the FSA offices, except in those areas where

there are insufficient private insurance providers. The private companies serve as the sole source for CAT coverage.

The Reform Act of 1994 also provided increased subsidies for additional ‘‘buy-up’’ coverage levels which producers may obtain from

65

private insurance companies. The amount of subsidy is equivalent

to the amount of premium established for catastrophic risk protection coverage and an amount for operating and administrative expenses for coverage up to 65 percent at 100 percent price. For coverage equal to or greater than 65 percent at 100 percent of the

price, the amount is equivalent to an amount equal to the premium

established for 50 percent loss in yield indemnified at 75 percent

of the expected market price and an amount of operating and administrative expenses.

The reform legislation included the NAP program for producers

of crops for which there is currently no insurance available. NAP

was established to ensure that most producers of crops not yet insurable will have protection against crop catastrophes comparable

to protection previously provided by ad hoc disaster assistance programs. While the NAP program was established as part of the Risk

Management Agency, under the FAIR Act of 1996, the NAP program was shifted to FSA and has been incorporated into the Commodity Credit Corporation program activities.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary, the same as provided in fiscal year 2000 and the same as

the budget request.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Corporation was organized on October 17, 1933, under the

laws of the State of Delaware, as an agency of the United States,

and was managed and operated in close affiliation with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. On July 1, 1939, it was transferred

to the Department of Agriculture by the President’s Reorganization

Plan No. 1. On July 1, 1948, it was established as an agency and

instrumentality of the United States under a permanent Federal

charter by Public Law 80–806, as amended. Its operations are conducted pursuant to this charter and other specific legislation.

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 also 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.

Activities of the Corporation are primarily governed by the following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, as

amended; the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996, P.L. 104–127 (1996 Act), enacted April 4, 1996; the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural AdjustVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
66

ment Act of 1938, as amended (1938 Act); and the Food Security

Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act).

The 1996 Act requires that the following programs be offered for

the 1996 through 2002 crops: seven-year production flexibility contracts for contract commodities (wheat, feed grains, upland cotton,

and rice); nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for contract commodities, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, and oilseeds; a nonrecourse loan program for peanuts; and a nonrecourse/recourse

loan program for sugar. The 1996 Act also requires a milk price

support program that begins after enactment of the Act and continues through December 31, 1999, followed by a recourse loan program for dairy product processors. The FY 2000 Appropriations

Act, P.L. 106–78 extends the milk price support program through

January, 2001.

The 1996 Act establishes the environmental conservation acreage

reserve program (ECARP), which encompasses the conservation reserve program (CRP), the wetlands reserve program (WRP), and

the environmental quality incentives program (EQIP). Each of

these programs is funded through the Corporation.

The 1996 Act also authorizes other new Corporation funded conservation programs, including the conservation farm option; flood

risk reduction contracts; wildlife habitat incentives, and farmland

protection programs.

The Corporation is managed by a board of directors appointed by

the President and confirmed by the Senate, subject to the general

supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, who is ex

officio, a director, and chairman of the board. The board consists

of six members, in addition to the Secretary, who are designated

according to their positions in the Department of Agriculture.

Personnel and facilities of the Farm Service Agency, FSA state

and county committees, and other USDA agencies are used to carry

out Corporation activities.

The Corporation has an authorized capital stock of $100 million

held by the United States and authority to borrow up to $30 billion. Funds are borrowed from the Federal Treasury and may also

be borrowed from private lending agencies.

The specific powers (15 U.S.C. 714c) of the Commodity Credit

Corporation are as follows:

In the fulfillment of its purposes and in carrying out its annual

budget programs submitted to and approved by the Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the Corporation is authorized to use

its general powers only to—

(a) Support the prices of agricultural commodities through

loans, purchases, payments, and other operations.

(b) Make available materials and facilities required in connection with the production and marketing of agricultural commodities.

(c) Procure agricultural commodities for sale to other government agencies, foreign governments, and domestic, foreign or

international relief or rehabilitation agencies, and to meet domestic requirements.

(d) Remove and dispose of or aid in the removal or disposition of surplus agricultural commodities.

67

(e) Increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic

markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new

and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such

commodities.

(f) Export or cause to be exported, or aid in the development

of foreign markets for agricultural commodities.

(g) Carry out conservation or environmental programs authorized by law.

(h) Carry out such other operations as the Congress may

specifically authorize or provide.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

2000 appropriation ................................................................. a $30,037,136,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................. a 27,771,007,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 27,771,007,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .......................................................... ¥2,266,129,000

2001 budget estimate ...................................................... ........................................

a Current indefinite appropriation.

If necessary to perform the functions, duties, obligations, or commitments of the Commodity Credit Corporation, administrative

personnel and others serving the Corporation shall be paid from

funds on hand or from those funds received from the redemption

or sale of commodities. Such funds shall also be available to meet

program payments, commodity loans, or other obligations of the

Corporation.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides $27,771,007,000, a decrease of $2,266,129,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year

2000 and the same as the budget request.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT

2000 limitation ....................................................................................... $5,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 5,000,000

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

Comparison:

2000 limitation ................................................................................ .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

The Commodity Credit Corporation’s (CCC) hazardous waste

management program is intended to ensure compliance with the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.

Investigative and cleanup costs associated with the management

of CCC hazardous waste are paid from USDA’s hazardous waste

management appropriation. CCC funds operations and maintenance costs only.

68

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For CCC Operations and Maintenance for Hazardous Waste

Management, the Committee provides a limitation of $5,000,000,

the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same

as the budget request.

(69)

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $693,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 711,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 693,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥18,000

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 PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of

$693,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000

and a decrease of $18,000 below the budget request.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is the lead

Federal conservation agency for private land. SCS was established

in 1935 to carry out a continuing program of soil and water conservation on the Nation’s private and non-Federal land. NRCS was

established by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of

1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The agency combines the authorities of the

former SCS and directs financial or technical assistance programs

for natural resource conservation.

NRCS provides America’s private land conservation through local

conservation districts to individuals, communities, watershed

groups, tribal governments, Federal, state, and local agencies, and

others. The NRCS staff at the local level work with state and local

conservation staff and volunteers in a partnership to assist individuals and communities to care for natural resources. NRCS also develops technical guidance for conservation planning and assistance.

This technical guidance is tailored to local conditions and is widely

used by NRCS staff and governmental and nongovernmental organizations to ensure that conservation is based on sound science.

The benefits of these activities are multifaceted, including sustained and improved agricultural productivity; cleaner, safer, and

more dependable water supplies; reduced damages caused by floods

and other natural disasters; and an enhanced natural resource

70

base to support continued economic development, recreation, and

the environment.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $660,812,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 747,243,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 676,812,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +16,000,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥70,431,000

The purpose of conservation operations is to sustain agricultural

productivity and protect and enhance the natural resource base.

This is done through providing America’s private land conservation

to land users, communities, units of state and local government,

and other Federal agencies in planning and implementing natural

resources solutions to reduce erosion, improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and conserve wetlands, enhance fish and

wildlife habitat, improve air quality, improve pasture and range

conditions, reduce upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. Assistance is also provided to implement highly erodible land (HEL),

wetlands (swampbuster), wetlands reserve program (WRP), and

conservation reserve program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food

Security Act, as amended by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,

and Trade Act of 1990, the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, and

the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appro- priation of $676,812,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $70,431,000

below the budget request.

The Committee does not include funds for global climate change,

biomass products initiative, or the Community Federal Information

Partnerships as requested in the budget. These programs do not

support the current level of on-the-ground conservation technical

assistance.

The Committee does not concur with the request to transfer

$36,000,000 from NRCS for Common Computing Environment

(CCE)/Service Center Modernization (SCM), but rather encourages

the Chief to work with the Secretary to determine a fair and equitable amount to support CCE/SCM efforts.

The Committee includes legislative language prohibiting the use

of funds to carry out the urban resources partnership (URP) program and the American heritage rivers initiative (AHRI). This prohibition of the use of NRCS funds to carry out the AHRI does not

apply to the work being done on the Hudson River and the Upper

Susquehanna-Lackawanna River. The Committee notes that an

evaluation report conducted by the Office of Inspector General

found: (1) that the Under Secretary chose not to follow the normal

legislative process to initiate the URP program, and (2) good management practices were not followed in implementing an URP program and $20.3 million in program expenditures were made without proper statutory authority and funding authorities. The Committee directs that the $2,204,000, and the associated staff years

71

included in the explanatory notes for URP program and AHRI be

used to fund conversation technical assistance.

The Committee includes $18,000,000 for the Grazing Lands Con- servation Initiative, an increase of $1,000,000 above the current

funding level.

The Committee has provided for the continuation of the following projects: $400,000 to promote pastureland management and rotational grazing in Central New York; $250,000 to establish best

management practices to individual farmers to reduce the impact

of agriculture-related non-point sources of pollution in the

Skaneateles and Owasco, New York watersheds; $250,000 to address agriculture non-point source pollution in the Onondaga Lake

Watershed; $600,000 for the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil

and Erosion Sediment Control; $250,000 for technical assistance to

the Westchester Soil and Conservation District to address land use

and water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound; $100,000

for the Trees Forever Program in Iowa; and, fiscal year 2000 funding and staffing levels in support of Chesapeake Bay activities.

The Committee has included additional funding for the following projects: $100,000 to promote pastureland management and rotational grazing in central New York for a total of $500,000; $100,000

for the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil and Erosion Sediment

Control for a total of $700,000; $50,000 for technical assistance to

the Westchester Soil and Conservation District to address land use

and water quality issues affecting the Long Island Sound for a total

of $300,000; $500,000 to establish an innovative, collaborative approach to protecting the resources of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary;

$100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois; $250,000 for

technical assistance to the Lake Tahoe Basin Soil Conservation

Project; $525,000 to implement phase II of a multi-year agreement

between NRCS and the Watershed Agricultural Council in Walton,

New York, of this amount $80,000 should be for monitoring of perpetual stewardship easements; $525,000 for a cooperative agreement to build surface water retention/pond projects in Georgia;

$290,000 to expand cooperative efforts with Delaware State University for plant materials; $100,000 for conservation tillage and

soil quality in Alabama; $1,500,000 for a pilot program to improve

NRCS field office telecommunications capabilities in remote areas

of New Mexico serving mostly minority or disadvantaged populations; $250,000 to design and implement natural stream restoration initiatives in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of which $125,000

shall be for the Canaan Valley Institute and $125,000 for the

NRCS office in Morgantown, West Virginia; $200,000 for the soil

survey geographic database to conduct digitized soil surveys in the

Mid-Atlantic Highlands in conjunction with the Canaan Valley Institute; $125,000 for a pilot AFO/CAFO project in Utah in cooperation with the Utah Farm Bureau, the Utah Cattlemen Association,

and the Utah Dairymen Association; $1,600,000 for the creation

and implementation of pilot projects for innovative technology systems resulting in a 75 percent reduction in nutrients of wastewater

discharged by confined animal feeding operations through organizations such as Florida Agricultural Resources Mobilization Foundation, Inc. and the North Carolina Agricultural Finance Authority

to accelerate the process of selection, funding, implementing, and

72

evaluating systems through pilot projects; $100,000 for the Dairy

Quality assurance program in California; and an increase of

$8,660,000 for a total of $53,670,000 for AFO/CAFO work.

The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide technical assistance for the Embrass River Watershed and Shad Lake in Illinois.

The Committee directs the NRCS to use up to $600,000 in EQIP

funds for conservation measures and up to 500 acres from the wetlands reserve program to restore wetlands and purchase permanent easements in the Illinois River Basin in Illinois.

The Committee encourages the NRCS to provide financial support to the National Agroforestry Center to the extent the Center

can provide direct benefits in support of NRCS programs.

The Committee encourages the agency to provide adequate funds

to the National Water Management Center in Lonoke, Arkansas.

The Committee encourages the NRCS to augment the telecommunications pilot project in New Mexico from existing telecommunications funds.

The Committee recognizes the long-term nature of the technical

assistance work associated with EQIP contracts, and recommends

that the technical assistance component be reimbursed for all costs

associated with new and existing contracts.

The Committee encourages NRCS to be reimbursed for the cost

of technical assistance needed to support EQIP and to conduct voluntary on-farm environmental assessments as part of the pork industry’s On-Farm Odor/Environmental Assistance Program.

The Committee encourages the NRCS to allocate EQIP funds to

the maximum extent possible to conduct voluntary on-farm assessments for the pork industry’s On-Farm Odor/Environmental Assistance Program.

The Committee recognizes the major difficulties created by the

encroachment of urban areas on rural areas. The Committee believes that there is a need to develop a more comprehensive and

integrated view of transportation, land use by commercial, residential, agricultural, and public entities. The Committee directs the

Service to develop a proposal for such a comprehensive view, including consultation with entities such as the American Farmland

Trust and the Nature Conservancy. In the development of this proposal, the Committee expects the Service to identify pilot projects

for this activity, including highway development in northwest Ohio,

and the pilot land use and open space program for Macomb and St.

Clair Counties, Michigan.

WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $10,368,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 10,368,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,868,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +500,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. +500,000

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law

83–566, August 4, 1954, provided for the establishment of the

Small Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001–1008), and section 6 of

the Act provided for the establishment of the River Basin Surveys

and Investigations Program (16 U.S.C. 1006–1009). A separate apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
73

propriation funded the two programs until fiscal year 1996 when

they were combined into a single appropriation, Watershed Surveys

and Planning.

River Basin activities provide for cooperation with other Federal,

state, and local agencies in making investigations and surveys of

the watersheds of rivers and other waterways as a basis for the development of coordinated programs. Reports of the investigations

and surveys are prepared to serve as a guide for the development

of agricultural, rural, and upstream watershed aspects of water

and related land resources, and as a basis of coordination of this

development with downstream and other phases of water development.

Watershed planning activities provide for cooperation between

the Federal government and the states and their political subdivisions in a program of watershed planning. Watershed plans form

the basis for installing works of improvement of floodwater retardation, erosion control, and reduction of sedimentation in the watershed of rivers and streams and to further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water. Watershed planning consists of assisting local organizations to develop their watershed

work plan by making investigations and surveys in response to requests made by sponsoring local organizations. These plans describe the soil erosion, water management, and sedimentation

problems in a watershed and works of improvement proposed to alleviate these problems. Plans also include estimated benefits and

costs, cost sharing and operating and maintenance arrangements,

and other appropriate information necessary to justify Federal assistance for carrying out the plan.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Committee provides

an appropriation of $10,868,000, an increase of $500,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of $500,000

above the budget request.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

2000 appropriation 1 ........................................................................... $91,643,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 83,423,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 83,423,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥8,220,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

1 Excludes $80,000,000 in emergency funding provided by P.L. 106–113.

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law

566, 83d Cong.), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001–1005, 1007–1009),

provides for cooperation among the Federal government, the states,

and local 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 work of the Department under this item includes financial

assistance for the installation of works of improvement specified in

approved watershed work plans including structural measures,

land treatment measures, and program evaluation studies in seVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
74

lected watershed projects to determine the effectiveness of structural and land treatment measures installed. In addition, NRCS

makes loans to local organizations to finance the local share of the

costs of installing planned works of improvement.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $83,423,000, a decrease of $8,220,000

below the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and the same

amount as the budget request. Language is included which limits

the amount spent on technical assistance to not more than

$44,423,000. The Committee expects more funding to be spent on

completing ongoing projects and reducing the backlog of watershed

projects.

The Committee is aware of and expects progress to continue on

the following projects: the four pilot projects in North Florida related to dairy and poultry cleanup efforts; Glen Shoals Lake in Illinois; Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Watershed Project in Texas; Little

Red River and the Big Slough Watersheds in Arkansas; Soap Creek

Watershed in Iowa; Elm Fork Watershed Structure 19 in Texas;

Sumter County, South Carolina; Upper Hocking Watershed, East

Fork Buck Creek Watershed and Rush Creek Watershed; and the

Chino Dairy Preserve Project, San Bernardino, California.

The Committee includes bill language that of the funds available for Emergency Watershed Protection activities, $1,045,000 shall be

available for DuPage County, Illinois for financial and technical assistance.

The Committee believes that dams built by the USDA are essential to the safety and livelihood of the areas they encompass, and

has earmarked $4,100,000 in subsidy budget authority for a lowcost loan program as requested in the President’s budget. The subsidy level will provide a $60,000,000 loan program level that will

provide loans to State and local governments for the rehabilitation

of aging dams built over the past 50 years. The Committee receive

numerous requests to fund dam rehabilitation. The Committee encourages the NRCS to identify those projects in greatest need of rehabilitation including: Mud River Watershed and West Fork Clarks

River Watershed in Kentucky, and Calwell Lake Dam and Wolf

Run Lake Dam in Guernsey, Noble and Washington Counties,

Ohio.

The Committee is aware of continued flooding in the Devils Lake

basin in North Dakota, and notes that the lake has risen 25 feet

over the last several years. The Committee encourages, the NRCS

in cooperation with the FSA to assist in the locally coordinated

flood response and water management activities being developed

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. NRCS and FSA

utilize conservation programs in providing water holding and storage areas on private land as necessary intermediate measures in

watershed management.

The Committee recognizes that the Manatee Agriculture Water

Reuse System (MARS) may provide a model for protecting scarce

agricultural water resources in Florida’s unique watersheds and

the rest of the nation. The subcommittee therefore urges the Secretary to consider providing the maximum grant allowable through

75

his discretionary authority under the Watershed Protection and

Flood Prevention Act to assist farmer access to the MARS project

in Manatee County, Florida.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $35,265,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 36,265,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 41.015,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... +5,750,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. +4,750,000

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, 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.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Resource Conservation and Development, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $41,015,000, an increase of $5,750,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of

$4,750,000 above the budget request.

The Committee fully funds the President’s request of $6,492,515

for headquarters and centers/institutes. The Committee directs

that all other funds go to direct support of Resource Conservation

and Development’s area operations. The Committee recognizes that

there are 50 pending applications for the program, and expects

these applications to be funded to the maximum extent practicable.

FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $5,377,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ .........................

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

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥5,377,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

The Forestry Incentives Program is authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–313), as

amended by section 1214, title XII, of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Its purpose is to encourage the

development, management, and protection of nonindustrial private

forest lands. The program will be carried out by providing technical

assistance and long-term cost sharing agreements with private

landowners.

76

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee concurs with the President’s budget and does not

provide funding for the Forestry Incentives Program. This program

promotes timber production on private lands, and in support of the

budget these efforts will be continued through the State and Private Forestry program in the Forest Service.

(77)

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 Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service and placed them

under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.

These agencies deliver a variety of programs through a network of

state, district, and county offices.

In the 1930’s and 1940’s these agencies were primarily involved

in making small loans to farmers; however, today these agencies

have a multi-billion dollar loan program throughout all America

providing loan and grant assistance for single family, multi-family,

housing, and special housing needs, as well as a variety of community facilities, infrastructure, and business development programs.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $588,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 605,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 588,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥17,000

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 Rural Utilities Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the Committee provides an appropriation of $588,000, the same as the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $17,000

below the budget request.

The Committee expects the Department to give consideration to

the following projects or organizations requesting assistance under

the Rural Community Advancement Program and other rural development programs: grants and loans for the Southern New Mexico state fair grounds buildings and infrastructure improvements;

a grant to the Pueblo of Acoma for the Baca pipeline; a grant to

the Pueblo of Laguna water development project (NM); a grant to

the New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum; assistance for

the development and construction of the Agribusiness Center in

Statesboro (GA); funding for sewage treatment and wastewater collection in the city of Blaine, WA; funds for agricultural economic

78

development in the New York City Watershed; a Rural Business

Enterprise Grant for development and promotion of agritourism in

New York; the provision of water and sewer services for the city

of Jenkins, KY; improvements to the Iberville Parish (LA) Water

Project; improvements to the Livingston Parish (LA) Water Project;

the purchase and repair of the Crown Building in Craig County,

VA; construction of a shell building in the Floyd County (VA) Industrial Park; a rural business enterprise grant for development of

infrastructure in the Glen Lyn (VA) Industrial Park; rural business

enterprise grants for small business incubators in Southwest Virginia including the Floyd County Jacksonville Center, the Town of

Grundy, the Virginia Highlands, the Southwest Regional Enterprise Center and the Dickenson County Kitchen Incubator; forgiveness or rescheduling for a wastewater system loan made to the

town of Grundy, VA; expansion of the farmer’s market in Duffield,

VA; a rural business opportunity grant to plan and design a cheese

processing facility in Washington County, VA; loans or grants for

farmworker housing in Hillsborough County, FL; preservation and

upgrading of the Lyles Station School in Gibson County, IN; a regional employment, economic and software development center for

the Middle Georgia College in Cochran, GA; improvements to the

water and sewer system for the Satsop Development Park in Grays

Harbor, Grays Harbor County, WA; assistance to farmers’ markets

in Bath, Bourbon, Estill, Nicholas and Powell counties (KY); a

rural business enterprise grant to preserve and restore the York

(PA) Farmers’ Market; the Interpretive Plan for the Lincoln Highway and Gettysburg Borough (PA); the Central Valley Applied Agricultural and Technology Center in Clovis, CA for a multi-use community agriculture education project; the Burlington Community

Land Trust’s proposal to construct the Vermont Public Market; the

Southern Vermont Recreation Center Foundation for a senior center and community facility in Springfield, VT; the Community

Recreation, Exercise and Wellness organization for a multi-purpose

therapy and rehabilitation project in Morrisville, VT; a safe drinking water project in Jackson and Vinton counties (OH); a community facilities grant for the Iron County (MI) Association for repairs

to an event complex; assistance to the Rural Center of North Carolina to assist rural communities with planning costs for water and

wastewater treatment projects; a project to improve facilities at the

Curry County, NM fairgrounds; a feasibility study for the construction of a regional fire fighters’ training facility in the City of Clovis,

NM; assistance to Rural Enterprises Inc. for development, marketing and implementation of a rural infrastructure tax-exempt

loan pool through a bond issue in Durant, OK; the Montana Agricultural Product Processing Consortium for processing higher value

products derived from Montana agricultural commodities; a cooperative development grant for the Mission Valley (MT) Market

Project for a regional shared-use processing center; a value-added

cooperative center at Montana State University-Northern in Havre

for cooperative activities a rural economic development grant for

Malt Montana, Inc. to assist the manufacture of custom malt; a

feasibility study for agricultural options in Dawson County, MT; infrastructure improvements for the city of Scobey, MT; funding for

the construction of a straw fiberboard plant in Rudyard, MT; a

79

project for repair and upgrades to the Tillamook Railroad (OR) and

the associated fiber optic telecommunication network; support for a

‘‘Value-Added Initiative’’ at Western Illinois University to identify

new opportunities to produce value-added products; funding from

the Rural Community Development Initiative for the SWODA Development Corporation for investment in infrastructure in western

Oklahoma; assistance to the Greater Fleming County (KY) Regional Water Commission for well drilling, connections and related

equipment and facilities; assistance to the Belvidere-Boone County

New Uses Agriculture-Technology District (IL) for continued work

on research and development of bio-based products; funding from

the community facilities account to complete the upgrading and

renovation of St. Clair Park within the city of Greensburg, Westmoreland County, PA; the Tucker County Development authority’s

Industrial Park water and sewer project in Davis, WV; the

Vandalia (WV) Heritage Foundation’s program for revitalization

through community and economic development; facilitation of economic diversification and community development in communities

in Barbour County, WV; the Adaland Restoration Committee’s

project to increase tourism through restoration of heritage properties in Phillipi, WV; a biofuels research project at the Center for

Energy Research, Education and Service at Ball State University

(IN); assistance for the construction of a Vocational Agricultural

Complex at the Antelope Valley’s new fairgrounds and construction

of a 19,000 square foot exhibit hall for the fairgrounds in Lancaster, CA; a rural business enterprise grant or a community facilities grant to the Western Massachusetts food processing center in

Greenfield, MA; the application of the Hampden Hampshire Housing Partnership’s application for rental subsidy assistance for 17

units at the Mountain View Apartments in Hadley, MA; funding

for the high technology University Research Park in Carbondale,

IL to promote regional economic development; forgiveness or rescheduling for rural development loans issued to the Green County

(KY) Sanitation District #1; funding for construction enhancements, additional farm acreage, and various equipment for the

Cumberland Farm Products Association in Monticello, KY; a Rural

Business Enterprise Grant to the City of Ellington, MO, to construct water and sewer lines for retail operations; a Rural Business

Enterprise Grant to the Southeast Missouri Port Authority for motive rail equipment and facilities; a grant for a Micro Rural Business Development Center on the campus of Tougaloo College in

Jackson, MS; grants to the Village of Teutopolis (IL) for upgrading

and extending the existing sewer system; and a multipurpose facility for the Lamar County (GA) Livestock and Agricultural Exposition Authority.

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those

applications judged meritorious when subjected to established review procedures.

The Committee directs the Department to consider assistance for

a rent-to-own project in the town of Troy, NC.

The Committee directs the Department to work with the Town

of Ulster, NY to work out the difficulties of establishing the

Glenerie Water District under the constraints of the New York

State Department of Audit and Control.

80

The Committee has provided set asides for Rural Empowerment

Area Partnership Zones in several programs in the rural development mission area. The Committee directs that when evaluating an

application submitted by a community designated as a Rural Empowerment Area Partnership Zone, the Secretary shall also consider the following factors when assigning points for poverty, unemployment, and other demographic factors: local constraints to

economic growth and activity; low density settlement patterns;

stagnant or declining employment; and isolation resulting in disconnection from markets, suppliers, and centers of information and

finance.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Administrative

expenses Transfers Total expenses

2000 level 1 .......................... $120,270,000 413,262,000 $533,532,000

2001 budget request ........... 130,371,000 450,589,000 580,960,000

Provided in the bill ............. 120,270,000 413,262,000 533,532,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...... ............................ ............................ ............................

2001 budget estimate .. ¥10,101,000 ¥37,327,000 ¥47,428,000

1 In Fiscal Year 2000, Salaries and Expenses were provided in separate accounts for the Rural Utilities

Service, the Rural Housing Service and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. In Fiscal Year 2001, a new

consolidated account is being established to administer all Rural Development programs.

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 PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission

areas, the Committee provides an appropriation of $120,270,000, a

decrease of $10,101,000 below the budget request. The Committee

agrees to the Administration request to combine three separate salary and expense accounts into one account for rural development.

In fiscal year 2000, a total of $120,270,000 was provided for these

three accounts.

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ 1$693,637,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 762,542,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 775,837,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +82,200,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... +13,295,000

1 Includes $5,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November

29, 1999.

The Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], authorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

81

1996 (Public Law 104–127), consolidates funding for the following

programs: direct and guaranteed water and waste disposal loans,

water and waste disposal grants, emergency community water assistance grants, solid waste management grants, direct and guaranteed community facility loans, community facility grants, direct

and guaranteed business and industry loans, rural business enterprise grants, and rural business opportunity grants. This proposal

is in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104–127.

Consolidating funding for these 12 rural development loan and

grant programs under RCAP will provide greater flexibility to tailor financial assistance to applicant needs.

With the exception of the 10 percent in the ‘‘National office reserve’’ account, funding will be allocated to rural development State

directors for their priority setting on a State-by-State basis. State

directors are authorized to transfer not more than 25 percent of the

amount in the account that is allocated for the State for the fiscal

year to any other account in which amounts are allocated for the

State for the fiscal year, with up to 10 percent of funds allowed to

be reallocated nationwide.

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development

Act of 1972 and finance a variety of rural community facilities.

Loans are made to organizations, including certain Indian tribes

and corporations not operated for profit and public and quasipublic

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, health care,

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. Health care 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), would be 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 will be targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have lower population and income levels would receive

a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of developing the facility.

The Rural Business and Industry Loans 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

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act 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

82

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. Industrial development loans may be made in any area that is not

within the outer boundary of any city having a population of 50,000

or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized and urbanizing

areas with a population density of more than 100 persons per

square mile. Special consideration for such loans is given to rural

areas and cities having a population of less than 25,000.

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 not to exceed $1,500,000 annually 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.

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by several

actions, including sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, 309A, 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

quasipublic 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, as

amended. 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.

83

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations

as compared to the budget request:

RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars]

FY 2000

level

FY 2001

estimate

Committee

provisions

Housing:

Community facility loans:

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ 0 0 ....................

Direct ..................................................................................................... $10,150 $29,225 $10,150

Community facility grants ............................................................................. 13,000 24,000 23,000

Subtotal, housing ............................................................................. 23,150 53,225 33,150

Business:

Business and industry loans:

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ $26,435 $10,125 $10,125

Direct ..................................................................................................... 0 2,910 2,910

Rural business enterprise grants .................................................................. 37,664 40,664 50,664

Rural business opportunity grants ................................................................ 1 500 8,000 10,000

Subtotal, business ............................................................................ 64,599 61,699 73,699

Utilities:

Water and waste disposal loans:

Guaranteed ............................................................................................ 0 0 ....................

Direct ..................................................................................................... 73,420 140,249 75,500

Water and waste disposal grants ................................................................. 529,768 502,369 588,488

Solid waste management grants .................................................................. 2,700 5,000 5,000

Subtotal, utilities .............................................................................. 605,888 647,618 668,988

Total, loans and grants ................................................................... 693,637 762,542 775,837

1 Excludes $5,000,000 for FY 2000 supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

The Committee notes that the house-passed fiscal year 2000 sup- plemental legislation provides an additional $28,000,000 for water

and waste grants and an additional $15,000,000 for community facilities grants. The Committee further notes that the Administration has provided from the Fund for Rural America an additional

$28,000,000 for water and waste projects, an additional $2,000,000

for community facilities grants, an additional $1,000,000 for rural

business opportunity grants and an additional $1,300,000 to subsidize business and industry loan guarantees of approximately

$40,000,000. These additional funding levels are not indicated in

the previous table.

The following earmarks are included in bill language for the

Rural Community Advancement Program: Federally Recognized

Native American Tribes, $12,000,000, of which $250,000 is for

transportation technical assistance; the Rural Community Development Initiative, $6,000,000; hazardous weather early warning systems, $5,000,000; transportation technical assistance, $500,000;

rural partnership technical assistance grants, $5,000,000; Mississippi Delta region counties, $2,000,000; loans for marketing and

processing biobased products, $2,000,000; water and waste disposal

systems in the Colonias, $20,000,000; water and waste disposal

systems in Alaska, $20,000,000; technical assistance for rural

84

waste systems, $18,515,000; $9,500,000 for a circuit rider program;

empowerment zones, enterprise communities and Rural Area Economic Partnership Zones, $42,574,650, of which, $30,000,000 is for

rural utilities programs.

The Committee notes that lack of transportation is among the

many economic hardships facing Native Americans. The availability of transit for persons without cars is nearly three times

worse for Native American communities than elsewhere in the

United States. The Committee has provided an earmark of

$250,000 to develop the transportation capabilities of these communities so that they can have better access to employment, education

and health care.

Of the funds provided for technical assistance for rural waste systems, the Committee directs that $7,300,000 be designated for

the Rural Community Assistance Programs.

The Committee notes that tourism can provide substantial income to economically depressed rural areas of the United States

and that communities in states such as Vermont have developed

successful programs for agritourism. The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 in the bill for agritourism and directs the Department

to cooperate closely with communities seeking assistance for such

programs. The Committee provides $6,000,000 for the Rural Community

Development Initiative (RCDI). The fiscal year 2000 legislation also

provided $6,000,000 for this initiative but there is no indication to

date that any funds have actually been used for the benefit of rural

America. The Committee directs the Department to ensure that the

RCDI delivers positive benefit to rural communities.

Of the funds provided in the bill for the Rural Business Opportunity Grants program, the Committee directs the Department to

provide $2,000,000 for projects in communities designated by the

Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership

Zones.

The Committee supports continued efforts to provide adequate

technical service for centrally owned and managed cluster well systems. Therefore, the Committee supports the Well-Care program

and recognizes needs that can be filled through the water and

waste loan and grant programs.

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) was established under Federal

Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.

The mission of the 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 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

85

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, especially guaranteed loans.

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level .................................................................................... 1 $4,589,373,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,385,009,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,073,497,000

Comparison:

2000 loan level ............................................................................. +484,124,000

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥311,512,000

1 Excludes $70,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant

to Section 517 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended.

This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural housing loans

for single family homes, rental and cooperative housing, farm labor

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 not to exceed 30 years. Farm labor

housing insured loans are made either to a farm owner or to a public or private nonprofit organization to provide modest living quarters and related facilities for domestic farm labor. 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 PROVISIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000 level FY 2001 estimate Committee provisions

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:

Low-income family housing (sec. 502):

Direct ....................................................................... 1 $1,100,000 $1,300,000 $1,100,000

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 3,200,000 3,700,000 3,700,000

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 114,321 120,000 114,321

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 100,000 200,000 100,000

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 2 32,396 40,000 32,396

Farm labor (sec. 514) ...................................................... 3 25,001 4 0 ......

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 7,503 15,000 16,780

Site loans (sec. 524) ....................................................... 5,152 5,000 5,000

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 5,000 5,009 5,000

Total, loan authorization ............................................. 4,589,373 5,385,009 5,073,497

1 Excludes $50,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

2 Excludes $15,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

3 Excludes $5,000,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

4 The budget requests these loans in the Farm Labor Program account.

86

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Guaranteed loan

subsidy

Administrative

expenses

2000 appropriation ........ 1 $161,560,000 $20,000,000 $375,879,000

2001 budget estimate ... 284,811,000 47,440,000 409,233,000

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

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .... .............................. .............................. ..............................

2001 budget estimate .............................. .............................. ..............................

1 Excludes $11,099,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 2000 established the 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 2001, as well as for administrative

expenses.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the costs of the loan programs under

credit reform. In many cases, changes from the fiscal year 2000

amounts reflect changes in the loan subsidy rates as set by the Office of Management and Budget.

[In thousands of dollars]

FY 2000 level FY 2001 estimate Committee provisions

Loan subsidies:

Single family (sec. 502):

Direct ....................................................................... 1 $93,830 $208,780 $176,760

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 19,520 44,400 7,400

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 2 9,900 14,176 11,481

Farm labor (sec. 514) ...................................................... 3 11,308 4 0 ......

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 45,363 59,124 56,326

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 480 3,040 1,520

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 874 2,452 874

Housing site dev. (sec. 524) ........................................... 4 0 ......

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 281 279 279

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................. 192,659 332,251 254,640

RHIF expenses:

Administrative expenses .................................................. 375,879 409,233 375,879

1 Excludes $4,265,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

2 Excludes $4,584,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

3 Excludes $2,250,000 for FY 2000 Supplemental pursuant to P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999.

4 The budget requests these loans in the Farm Labor Program account.

The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental legislation provides the following additional amounts:

$25,000,000 for section 502 direct loans providing for a loan level

of $296,000,000; $4,000,000 for section 504 housing repair providing for a loan level of $13,000,000 and $15,872,000 for section

515 rental housing providing for a loan level of $40,000,000. These

additional funding levels are not indicated in the previous table.

The Committee provides bill language increasing the single-family housing loan guarantee fee from one percent to two percent.

This change was proposed in the Administration’s fiscal year 2001

budget.

87

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $640,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 680,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 655,900,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +15,900,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥24,100,000

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 established a rural rental assistance program to be administered

through the rural housing loans programs.

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, lowincome 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 low-income families to extend expiring contracts or provide full amounts authority to existing contracts; 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 PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a

program level of $655,900,000, an increase of $15,900,000 above

the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of

$24,100,000 below the budget request.

The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental legislation provides an additional $13,600,000 for the

rental assistance program that is not indicated in the previous

table.

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $28,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 40,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 28,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥12,000,000

This grant program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act

of 1949, as amended. Grants are made to local organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help programs under which

groups of usually six to ten families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors who will work with families in the construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the self-help assistance.

88

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $28,000,000, the same as the amount

available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $12,000,000 below

the budget request.

The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental legislation provides an additional $6,000,000 for the mutual and self-help housing grants that is not indicated in the previous table.

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Grants

2000 appropriation 1 ............................................. 0 0 0

2001 budget estimate ........................................... $30,000,000 $15,777,000 $20,000,000

Provided in the bill ............................................... 28,520,000 15,000,000 15,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ....................................... +28,520,000 +15,000,000 +15,000,000

2001 budget estimate .................................. ¥1,480,000 ¥777,000 ¥5,000,000

1 In Fiscal Year 2000, farm labor housing loans were included in the Rural Housing Insurance Fund, and farm labor grants were included in Rural Housing Assistance Grants.

This new account consolidates three farm labor programs into

one account. This consolidation will provide more flexibility for distributing rural farm labor housing assistance. The account consists

of direct farm labor housing loans, domestic farm labor housing

grants and low-income migrant and seasonal farmworker grants.

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.

The low-income migrant and seasonal farmworker grants are

made to public agencies or private organizations with tax exempt

status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code of 1986,

that have experience in providing services to low-income migrant

and seasonal farmworkers. The type of assistance to be provided is

determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Farm Labor Program Account, the Committee provides

a loan subsidy of $15,000,000 which supports a loan level of

$28,520,000 instead of a loan subsidy of $15,777,000 which supports a loan level of $30,000,000 which was the budget request.

The Committee also provides an additional $15,000,000 in grants,

a decrease of $5,000,000 below the budget request. Of the

$15,000,000 in grants, $12,000,000 is for farm labor housing grants

and $3,000,000 is for grants for migrant and seasonal farmworkers.

89

The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental legislation provides an additional $5,000,000 for grants

to low-income and migrant seasonal farm workers. The Committee

further notes that the Administration has provided from the Fund

for Rural America an additional $2,500,000 for grants for farmworker housing for fiscal year 2000. These additional funding levels

are not indicated in the previous table.

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ 1 $45,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 2 39,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 39,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... ¥6,000,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... .........................

1 Excludes $7,250,000 for farm labor housing grants and $7,250,000 for very low-income housing grants pursuant to the FY 2000 Supplemental, P.L. 106–113 enacted November 29, 1999. 2 Rural housing for domestic farm labor grants are requested in the Farm Labor Program account.

The following programs are consolidated under the Rural Housing Assistance Grants: very low-income housing repair grants,

rural housing preservation grants, compensation for construction

defects, and supervisory and technical assistance grants.

The Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants program is authorized under Section 504 of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as

amended. The program makes 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. A grant can be

made in combination with a Section 504 very low-income housing

repair loan.

Rural Housing Preservation Grants are used for home repair for

low- and very low-income people. The purpose of the preservation

program is to improve the delivery of rehabilitation assistance by

employing the expertise of housing organizations at the local level.

Eligible applicants will compete on a state-by-state basis for grants

funds. These funds may be administered as loans, loan writedowns, or grants to finance home repair. The program is administered by local grantees.

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.

The supervisory and technical assistance grant program is carried out under the provisions of section 509(f) and 525 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under section 509, grants are made

to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and

533 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The assistance is to

be directed to underserved areas where at least 20 percent or more

of the population is at or below the poverty level, and at least 10

percent or more of the population resides in substandard housing.

Under section 525, grants are made to public and private nonprofit

organizations and other associations for the developing, conducting,

administering or coordinating of technical and supervisory assistVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
90

ance programs to demonstrate the benefits of Federal, State, and

local housing programs for low-income families in rural areas.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $39,000,000, a decrease of

$6,000,000 below the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and the

same as the budget request.

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.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

Current economic conditions, together with the rapid changes

taking place throughout the global economy, underscore the need

for policies and programs to strengthen the ability of farmers to

join together in cooperative self-help efforts to improve their income, manage their risk, move more into value-added production

and processing, and capture a larger share of the consumer dollar.

Programs carried out by Cooperative Services within the Rural

Business and Cooperative Service as authorized under the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7 U.S.C. 453 (a) and (b)), including

those related to research, education and technical assistance, play

an important role in helping promote such cooperative self-help efforts for the benefit of farmers. Accordingly, the Committee believes such programs should be given a high priority to ensure the

levels of funding and staffing necessary to meet their objectives.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level ....................................................................................... $38,256,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 64,495,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 38,256,000

Comparison:

2000 loan level ................................................................................ ....................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥26,239,000

91

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

2001, as well as for administrative expenses.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account, the

Committee provides for a loan level of $38,256,000, the same as the

amount provided in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $26,239,000

below as the budget request.

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan subsidy Administrative expenses

2000 appropriation ............................................. $16,615,000 $3,337,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................... 32,834,000 3,640,000

Provided in the bill ............................................. 19,476,000 3,337,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................... +2,861,000 ............................

2001 budget estimates ................................ ¥13,358,000 ¥303,000

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level ....................................................................................... $15,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 15,000,000

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

Comparison:

2000 loan level ................................................................................ ...........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ...........................

The rural economic development loans program was established

by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (P.L. 100–203), which

amended the Rural Electrification Act of 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, start-up costs, and other reasonable expenses for the

purpose of fostering rural economic development.

92

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account,

the Committee provides for a loan level of $15,000,000, the same

as provided for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

The Committee has provided language, requested by the Administration, to use earnings generated by the interest differential on

voluntary cushion of credit payments made by Rural Utilities Service borrowers to provide necessary loan subsidies for rural economic

development loans. By using these earnings for subsidy budget authority, additional loans funds will be available to rural communities. The discretionary cost of these loans is offset by reductions

to rural economic development grants made from the cushion of

credit.

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY

Direct loan subsidy

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ 1 $3,453,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 1 3,911,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 3,911,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +458,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ........................... 1Offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of credit payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $6,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 11,500,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 6,500,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +500,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥5,000,000

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 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 non-federal

sources. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on specific

selection criteria.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer to 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.

Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to

any qualified State department of agriculture, university, and other

State entity to conduct research that will strengthen and enhance

the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in rural

areas.

93

Cooperative Research Agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.

2204. The funds are used for Cooperative Research Agreements,

primarily with colleges and universities to address critical operational, organizational and structural issues facing cooperatives.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $6,500,000, an increase of $500,000 above

the amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of

$5,000,000 below the budget request. Of the funds provided, not to exceed $2,000,000 is provided for

a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology Transfer

for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program.

NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER REVOLVING FUND

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. 0

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... $5,000,000

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

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .......................................................................... +5,000,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ............................

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center was established by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996 to promote activities to strengthen and enhance production or

marketing of sheep and goat products in the United States. The

Center may provide loans or grants to eligible entities to provide

assistance to the industry for infrastructure development, business

development, production, resource development, and market and

environmental research. The 1996 Act provided $20,000,000 in

mandatory funding for the establishment and operation of the Center and authorized additional discretionary appropriations of

$30,000,000.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Revolving Fund the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,000,000, the

same as the budget request. No funds were provided for this account in fiscal year 2000.

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

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

94

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 ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level ....................................................................................... $2,611,500,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 2,045,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 2,040,000,000

Comparison:

2000 loan level ................................................................................ ¥571,500,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥5,000,000

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), as

amended provides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommunications programs.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels for the rural electrification and telecommunications loan program account:

FY 2000 enacted FY 2001 estimate Committee

provisions

Loan authorizations:

Electric:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $121,500,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 295,000,000 300,000,000 295,000,000

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 1,700,000,000 800,000,000 800,000,000

Private Sector Guarantee .............................................. ............................ 400,000,000 400,000,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 2,116,500,000 1,550,000,000 1,545,000,000

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 75,000,000 75,000,000 75,000,000

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 120,000,000 120,000,000 120,000,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 495,000,000 495,000,000 495,000,000

Total, Loan authorizations ................................... 2,611,500,000 2,045,000,000 2,040,000,000

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVEL

FY 2000 enacted FY 2001 estimate Committee

provisions

Loan subsidies:

Electric:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $1,095,000 $4,980,000 $4,980,000

Direct, Municipal rate ................................................... 10,827,000 20,850,000 20,480,000

Direct, FFB .................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Private Sector Guarantee .............................................. ............................ 40,000 40,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 11,922,000 25,870,000 25,500,000

Telecommunications:

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 840,000 7,770,000 7,770,000

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 2,370,000 ............................ ............................

Direct, FFB .................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................

95

FY 2000 enacted FY 2001 estimate Committee

provisions

Subtotal ................................................................ 3,210,000 7,770,000 7,770,000

Total, Loan subsidies ........................................... 15,132,000 33,640,000 33,270,000

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 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 2001, as well as for administrative

expenses.

The Committee notes that the House-passed fiscal year 2000 supplemental legislation provides an additional $1,021,000 for rural

utilities 5 percent hardship loans providing for a loan level of

$113,250,000. These additional amounts are not indicated in the

previous table.

RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVEL

2000 loan level ....................................................................................... $175,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 175,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 175,000,000

Comparison:

2000 loan level ................................................................................ ...........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ...........................

The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was required by law to begin

privatization (repurchase of Federally owned stock) in fiscal year

1996. RTB borrowers are able to borrow at private market rates

and no longer require Federal assistance.

The Rural Telephone Bank is managed by a 13-member board of

directors. The Administrator of RUS serves as Governor of the

Bank until conversion to private ownership, control, and operation.

This will take place when 51 percent of the Class A stock issued

to the United States and outstanding at any time after September

30, 1996, has been fully redeemed and retired. Activities of the

Bank are carried out by RUS employees and the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Telephone Bank, the Committee provides for a

loan level of $175,000,000, the same as the level for fiscal year

2000 and the same as the budget request.

The Committee includes the same provision from the fiscal year

2000 bill which limits the retirement of the Class A stock of the

Rural Telephone Bank.

The Committee does not concur with proposed bill language

using unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account to pay for loan subsidies or administrative expenses

of the Rural Telephone Bank.

96

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan

subsidy

Administrative expenses

2000 appropriation ............................................. $3,290,000 $3,000,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................... 2,590,000 3,000,000

Provided in the bill ............................................. 2,590,000 3,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................... ¥700,000 ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................. ............................ ............................

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

2001, as well as for administrative expenses.

DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM

Loan level Subsidy level Grants

2000 appropriation ...................... $200,000,000 $700,000 $20,000,000

2001 budget estimate ................. 400,000,000 0 27,000,000

Provided in the bill ..................... 400,000,000 0 19,500,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .............. +200,000,000 ¥700,000 ¥500,000

2001 budget estimates ......... ............................ ........................ ¥7,500,000

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program was authorized by the Food Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990,

as amended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996. This program provides incentives to improve the quality of phone services, 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 PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $19,500,000, a decrease of

$1,200,000 below the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a

decrease of $7,500,000 below the budget request.

The Committee expects the Department to give consideration to

the following projects or organizations requesting assistance under

the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program: The aquaculture

education, training and technical support initiative at the Harbor

Branch Oceanographic Institution at Ft. Pierce, FL and Florida

State University; development of the Telecommunications Center

for Education by the University Colleges of Technology at the State

University of New York; establishment of a distance learning site

at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA; a distance learning and telemedicine program for the Southwest Virginia Education and Training Network; the distance learning program at

Peirce College in Philadelphia, PA; development of a rural outreach

and telemedicine network for Community Medical Centers based in

97

Fresno, CA; a project of the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (NM) to provide geospatial technology transfer to tribal nations; funding for a distance learning laboratory to supplement agricultural training for the Foothills Technical Institute (AR); and a

partnership between the Wheeling (WV) Jesuit University Center

of Educational Technologies with the Thomas Education Center to

provide distance learning for local communities.

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those

applications judged meritorious when subjected to established review procedures.

(98)

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $554,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 570,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 554,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥16,000

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

food, nutrition and consumer activities. The Office has oversight

and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

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

Consumer Services the Committee provides $554,000, the same

amount as provided in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $16,000

below the budget request.

The Committee recommends that the Secretary of Agriculture

consider a pilot program with the Alisal Union School District in

Salinas, California to combine the administration of the Summer

food service program and the School lunch program.

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) represents an organizational effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country.

Nutrition assistance programs are intended to 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.—Federal assistance is provided to the

50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,

and Guam for use in serving nutritious lunches and breakfasts to

children attending schools of high school grades or under, to children of preschool age in child care centers and homes, and to children in other institutions in order to improve the health and wellbeing 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.

99

Food Stamp Program.—This program is aimed at making more

effective use of the Nation’s food supply and at improving nutritional standards of needy persons and families, in most cases,

through the issuance of food coupons which may be used in retail

stores for the purchase of food. The program also includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35) authorized a block grant for

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition assistance program that is specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income

households.

The program 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 Food Stamp Program. The program

also includes $100,000,000 for commodity purchases under the

Emergency Food Assistance Program.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC).—This program helps to safeguard the health

of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and infants,

and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by providing

food packages designed to supplement each participant’s diet with

foods that are typically lacking. 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.

The Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides (WIC or WICeligible) participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious,

unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers markets. The program is designed to accomplish two major goals: (1)

improve the diets of WIC or WIC-eligible participants and (2) increase the awareness and use of farmers’ markets by low-income

households.

The Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP).—This program combines funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program

(CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).

CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up to

age six, and to pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women

with low-incomes who reside in approved project areas. In addition,

this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at

low-income elderly persons.

TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in the

cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for needy

individuals.

Food Donations Programs.—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. Funding is provided for use in non-Presidentially declared

disasters and for FNS administrative costs in connection with disaster relief for all disasters. Commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities are provided to assist nutrition programs for the elderly.

100

Food Program Administration.—This account represents most

salaries and Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition

Service and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP).

As of September 30, 1999, there were 1,539 full-time permanent

and 105 part-time and temporary employees in the agency. There

were 539 in the Washington headquarters and 1,000 in the field,

which includes 613 in seven regional offices and the balance in four

food stamp compliance offices; one computer support center in Minneapolis, Minnesota; one administrative review office; and 69 field

offices. The Center oversees improvements in and revisions to the

nutrition guidance systems. CNPP is the focal point for advancing

and coordinating nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health of all Americans.

Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section

32).—This program includes the donation of commodities purchased under the surplus removal activities of the Agricultural

Marketing Service. Special programs provide food to needy children

and adults who are suffering from general and continued hunger.

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Direct appropriation Transfer from

section 32 Total program level

2000 appropriation ........ $4,611,829,000 $4,935,199,000 $9,554,028,000

2001 budget estimate ... 4,578,482,000 4,967,574,000 9,546,056,000

Provided in the bill ....... 4,407,460,000 5,127,579,000 9,535,039,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ¥204,369,000 +192,380,000 ¥18,989,000

2001 budget estimate .................... ¥171,022,000 +160,005,000 ¥11,017,000

Working through State agencies, the Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS) provides Federal assistance in 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 this program is to help maintain the health and proper physical

development of America’s children. The child nutrition account includes the School Lunch Program; the School Breakfast Program;

the Summer Food Service Program; and Child and Adult Care Food

Programs. In addition, the Special Milk Program provides funding

for milk service in some kindergartens, as well as in schools, nonprofit child care centers, and camps which have no other Federally

assisted food programs. Milk is provided to children either free or

at a low cost depending on their family income level. FNS provides

cash subsidies to State administered programs and directly administers the program in the States which have chosen not to do so.

Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation and

transfer from section 32. Grants are also made for nutritional

training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. Under

current legislation, 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 William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1998, Public Law 105–336, contains a number of child nutrition

provisions. These include:

101

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).—Reauthorizes the program through 2003 and relaxes the site limitations for private nonprofit sponsors in SFSP.

School Breakfast Program (SBP).—(1) Authorizes a pilot project

to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to all students

without regard to family income; and (2) requires participating

schools to obtain a food safety inspection conducted by a State or

local agency.

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).—Authorizes payments for snacks provided to children through age 18 in afterschool programs. Permanently authorizes and provides funds for

demonstration projects to expand services to homeless children and

family day care homes in low-income areas. Beginning on July 1,

1999, the Homeless Child Nutrition Program and the Homeless

Summer Food Service Program transfer into CACFP.

National School Lunch Program (NSLP).—(1) Significantly expands reimbursement for snacks for children up to age 18 in afterschool care programs; (2) provides for free snacks in needy areas;

and (3) requires participating schools to obtain a food safety inspection conducted by a State or local agency.

Special Milk Program.—Through the Special Milk Program,

funds are provided to State agencies to reimburse eligible participants for all or part of the cost of fluid milk consumed. Under Public Law 97–35, participation in the Special Milk Program is restricted to schools and institutions that do not participate in another meal service program authorized by the Child Nutrition or

School Lunch Acts. Effective October 1, 1986, based on authority

in Public Law 99–661, children in split session kindergarten programs in nonprofit schools who do not have access to the meal

service programs operating in those schools may participate in the

program.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides a total of $9,535,039,000, a decrease of $18,989,000 below the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $11,017,000

below the budget request. Of the total amount provided,

$4,407,460,000 is by direct appropriation and $5,127,579,000 is by

transfer from Section 32.

Child Nutrition Programs:

School lunch program ..................................................................... $5,387,523,000

School breakfast program .............................................................. 1,495,684,000

Child and adult care food program ............................................... 1,807,435,000

Summer food service program ....................................................... 323,499,000

Special milk program ..................................................................... 16,843,000

State administrative expenses ....................................................... 127,321,000

Commodity procurement and computer support ......................... 360,223,000

School meals initiative ................................................................... 10,000,000

Food safety education ..................................................................... 2,000,000

Coordinated review effort .............................................................. 4,511,000

Total ......................................................................................... $9,535,039,000

The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the School Meals Initiative. Included in this amount is $4,000,000 for food service training

grants to States; $1,600,000 for technical assistance materials;

$800,000 for the National Food Service Management Institute coopVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
102

erative agreement for food service; $400,000 for print and electronic

food service resource systems; and $3,200,000 for other activities.

The Department invests a significant amount of money in the

school nutrition programs. The Committee is concerned about the

effect foods sold in competition with the school meal programs may

be having on the integrity of the program. Specifically, the Department should review, and include in a report information on any

statutory limits or judicial rulings that restrict the ability of the

Department to regulate these competitive foods. The Committee

urges the Department to review the effect that competitive foods

may have on the school meal programs and to report back to the

Committee on this subject.

The Committee has included language that allows the Secretary

to transfer $6,000,000 from the WIC account to the Child Nutrition

Program, to complete the funding for the school breakfast pilot

project, once the fiscal year 2000 carryover is determined to be in

excess of $100,000,000.

The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS,

AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $4,032,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 4,148,100,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 4,067,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +35,000,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥81,100,000

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) safeguards the health of pregnant,

breastfeeding, and postpartum women and infants, and children up

to age five who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income.

The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of

1998, Public Law 105–336, reauthorizes the program through 2003

and added several provisions to the program. The act requires that

an individual seeking certification or recertification in the program

must provide documentation of family income.

Infant Formula Rebate Contracts.—The act permits State agencies to award infant formula rebate contracts to the bidder offering

the lowest net wholesale price, unless the State agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the weighted average retail price for different brands of formula in that State does

not vary by more than 5 percent.

The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is designed to

accomplish two major goals: (1) to improve the diets of WIC participants by providing them with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers’

markets; and (2) to increase the awareness and use of farmers’

markets by low-income households.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) the Committee provides an appropriaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
103

tion of $4,067,000,000, an increase of $35,000,000 above the

amount available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $81,100,000

below the budget request.

The Committee notes that WIC participation has decreased dramatically. Since October 1999 when WIC participation was 7.449

million, the number of monthly participants has dropped to 7.117

million as of February 2000. That is a decrease of more than

332,000 participants.

This Committee believes that WIC is one of the best programs

government has to offer to address the vulnerabilities that at-risk

pregnant and post partum women, infants and children have available to them. Accordingly, the Committee has provided consistent,

bipartisan support for the WIC program. But at a time when participation in the program is showing a precipitous drop-off, the

Committee is in a position to continue to help the WIC program as

well as other important programs in this bill.

The President’s fiscal year 2001 budget request estimates that

WIC participation will average 7.4 million during fiscal 2001 and

end fiscal year 2001 with 7.5 million participants. There is nothing

in the WIC participation data that indicates such a participation

level can be reached. The current projected WIC carry over ranges

from $160,000,000 to over $200,000,000 based on current average

participation levels. The Committee recommendation provides a

$35,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, and

allows for average monthly participation of at least 7.4 million

throughout fiscal year 2001. Even then, the WIC program will still

carry over more then $100,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001.

The Committee recommendation includes language to allow

funds to be used for WIC electronic benefit transfer systems and

raises the authorized level of infrastructure funding to accommodate the funding level needed to develop EBT systems.

The Committee maintains language regarding the Farmers Mar- ket Nutrition Program that makes the first $10 million available

for that program within 45 days of the enactment of this Act with

the balance becoming available upon the determination that funds

are not needed to maintain caseload.

The Committee understands that the Food and Nutrition Service

is considering a proposed regulation that would broaden the variety

of produce available for purchase under the WIC program. We understand that this action is based on the recent FNS report titled

Review of the Nutritional Status of WIC Participants which concluded that participating WIC mothers and children were deficient

in vital nutrients found in fruits and vegetables. The committee

strongly supports this proposal and expects USDA to expeditiously

move forward to ensure that WIC vouchers are broadened to ensure that a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables are available for

purchase by WIC participants.

The Committee is concerned that when our Nation’s military personnel are transferred to overseas posts they are no longer eligible

for WIC benefits. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of Defense to provide a solution

to this problem.

The Committee includes language that permits the Secretary to

transfer any carryover funds in excess of $100,000,000 to fund the

104

remaining piece of the school breakfast pilot project; an additional

$5,000,000 for the commodity supplemental food program; and

$10,000,000 for the elderly feeding program with prior notification

to the Committee on Appropriations.

While the Committee supports and encourages state and local

agency efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participant

referral to other health care services, it recognizes the tremendous

constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as a result of expanding health care priorities. The Committee also recognizes that

the Department’s broad interpretation of the Child Nutrition Act of

1966, with respect to the delivery of screening, assessment and referral services, on behalf of other federal agencies or departments.

The delivery of which may jeopardize WIC agencies’ ability to deliver the core mission of WIC program services—quality nutrition

education and counseling, breast-feeding promotion and support,

and related health care services. The Committee wishes to clarify

that while WIC plays an important role in screening and referral

to other health care services, it was never the Committee’s intention that WIC should perform aggressive screening, referral and assessment functions on behalf of other programs, nor was it the

Committee’s intention that WIC State and Local agencies should

assume the full burden of entering into and negotiating appropriate

cost sharing agreements. The Committee again includes bill language to preserve WIC funding for authorized WIC services and

again directs the Secretary to work with other Federal departments

and agencies to ensure that except for basic education and referral

purposes, WIC funds are not used to pay the administrative expenses or to coordinate operations or activities of other Federal

agency services, activities or programs not authorized by section 17

of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, unless fully reimbursed by those

agencies.

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s failure to

publish a final rule on WIC Food Delivery Systems. This rule was

first published for public comment in December 1990, and republished for public comment in June 1999. State and local WIC agencies have done their best to protect the integrity of the WIC program; however, they have been hampered in their efforts to ensure

full compliance because of a lack of adequate federal regulation.

The needs of WIC participants to receive the supplementary foods

that are essential to their overall health and nutritional well-being

and the interests of the American people to be protected from fraud

and abuse require that a final rule be published. The Committee

directs the Secretary to release the final rule on WIC Food Delivery

Systems no later than October 31, 2000.

The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $21,071,751,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 22,131,993,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 21,231,993,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +160,242,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥900,000,000

105

The Food Stamp Program, authorized by the Food Stamp Act of

1964, attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible

households receive food stamps with which they can purchase food

through regular retail stores. They are thus enabled to obtain a

more nutritious diet than would be possible without food stamp assistance.

Participating households receive free food stamps in amounts determined by household size and income. Since March 1975, food

stamp projects have been established throughout the country. State

social service agencies assume responsibility for certifying eligible

households and issuing the stamps through suitable outlets. The

Food and Nutrition Service establishes a range of household food

stamp allotments which are updated annually.

Authorized grocery stores accept the stamps as payment for food

purchases and forward them to commercial banks for cash or credit. The stamps flow through the banking system to a Federal Reserve Bank for redemption out of a special account maintained by

the U.S. Treasury Department. A major alternative to the paper

food stamp system is Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). By the end

of fiscal year 1999, thirty-two systems (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,

Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

Vermont) and the District of Columbia are Statewide and eight systems (California, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Washington,

Wisconsin and Wyoming) are in some stage of planning or implementing their EBT systems.

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 Food Stamp Program.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

All direct and indirect administrative costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of food coupons, quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis.

In addition, State agencies which reduce quality control error

rates below 6 percent receive up to a maximum match of 60 percent of their administrative expenses. Also, State agencies are paid

up to 100 percent of the costs of administering the program on Indian reservations. The Food Stamp Program is in operation in all

50 States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.

The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 provided for the establishment of a system for levying fiscal sanctions on States which

fail to reduce high error rates below a prescribed target.

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico.—The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97–35, authorized a block grant

for nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico which gives the Commonwealth broad flexibility in establishing a nutrition assistance program which is specifically tailored to the needs of its low-income

106

households. Beginning in fiscal year 1987, funding for this block

grant program was included under the food stamp appropriation

account.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Stamp Program, the Committee provides $21,231,993,000, an increase of $160,242,000 above the amount

available in fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $900,000,000 below

the budget request. The total amount includes $100,000,000 for a

contingency reserve in fiscal year 2001; $1,301,000,000 for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico; and $100,000,000 for the emergency

food assistance program.

The Committee does not concur with the budget request for a $1,000,000,000 reserve for the food stamp program, but provides

$100,000,000, the same amount as fiscal year 2000.

Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2028, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

must submit a yearly plan to the Secretary of Agriculture that contains information regarding how food and assistance benefits under

the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) for Puerto Rico are to be

provided during the following fiscal year. The Secretary must approve or disapprove this plan by August 1 of the fiscal year that

it is submitted. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary not to

approve any NAP plan that does not require at least 75 percent of

NAP funds to be spent on food at businesses where staple foods

make up more than 50 percent of eligible food sales. Such a requirement will help to ensure that benefits distributed under NAP

are used for their congressionally-intended purpose: to provide food

assistance to needy persons.

The Committee has consolidated all funding for studies and evaluations under the Economic Research Service.

The Committee is encouraged by the implementation of EBT systems around the country and supports the goal that all States must

be operating an EBT system by 2002. The Committee directs the

Secretary to report to the Committee, no later than 120 days after

enactment of this Act, on efforts by the Food and Nutrition Service

to ensure that all States will be operating an EBT system by 2002.

The Committee believes the agency should focus more on preventive strategies to combat retailer trafficking of food stamps. Two

years ago, the Committee urged the Food and Nutrition Service,

FNS, to require preauthorization visits for all high risk stores. The

Committee is disappointed that more preauthorization visits have

not been required and directs the agency to work with its field offices to ensure that all new high risk retailer applicants are visited

before they are authorized to participate in the program.

The Committee also agrees with a previous Inspector General

recommendation that the National office needs to provide more direction and oversight to regional and field offices and that half of

all field offices should be reviewed each year. FNS established new

oversight procedures as a result of an OIG 1992 retailer audit, but

does not enforce them.

The Committee includes $194,000,000 for the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program. The budget estimate for this program include a projected end-of-year carryover of $166,000,000 at

the end of fiscal year 2000, and a projected end-of-year carryover

107

of $210,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2001

recommended appropriation for Employment and Training has the

effect of reducing the projected fiscal year 2001 end-of-year carryover to $185,000,000. There are no outlay savings associated with

this recommended funding level.

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $133,300,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 158,300,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 138,300,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +5,000,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥20,000,000

The Commodity Assistance Program provides funding for the

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative expenses for The Emergency Food Assistance Program

(TEFAP).

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The CSFP provides

supplemental food to infants and children up to age six, and to

pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who have low-incomes, and reside in approved project areas. In addition, this program operates commodity distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 years of age or older.

The 1996 FAIR Act (P.L. 104–127) reauthorized CSFP through

fiscal year 2002. In addition, this law requires CCC to donate 4

million pounds of nonfat dry milk and 9 million pounds of cheese

to the program annually, subject to availability.

TEFAP provides grant funds to State agencies to assist in the

cost of storage and distribution of donated commodities for needy

individuals.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $138,300,000 for the

commodity assistance program, an increase of $5,000,000 above the

amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $20,000,000

below the budget request.

The Committee has included $45,000,000 for administration of

the emergency food assistance program. These funds may be used

for administration purposes or for food costs at the discretion of the

states.

The Committee has included language that allows the Secretary

to transfer $5,000,000 from the WIC account to the Commodity

Supplemental Food Program once the fiscal year 2000 carryover is

determined to be in excess of $100,000,000.

The Committee supports the modification of administrative funding formula of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to be

certain that per participant administrative funds are not reduced

as a result of declining food costs.

The Committee does not concur with the budget request to fund

the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program in this account.

The Committee has included language providing $20,781,000 for

administrative expenses for the Commodity Supplemental Food

Program.

108

FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $141,081,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 151,081,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 141,081,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥10,000,000

Nutrition Program for the Elderly.—The Nutrition Program for

the Elderly (NPE) provides cash and commodities to States for distribution to local organizations that prepare meals served to elderly

persons in congregate settings or delivered to their homes. The program promotes good health through nutrition assistance by reducing the isolation experienced by the elderly. This program is a supplement to the Department of Health and Human Services’

(DHHS) funding for programs for the elderly with cash commodities on a per meal basis for each meal served to an elderly person.

Pacific Island Assistance.—This program provides for a directly

funded food distribution program for low-income individuals in the

nuclear-affected islands. This program attempts to alleviate hunger

and malnutrition in low-income households by providing nutritious

agricultural commodities to eligible persons. It also provides funding for use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’

administrative costs in connection with disaster relief.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Donations Programs the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $141,081,000, the same amount as the amount available for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $10,000,000 below the

budget request. Included in this amount is $140,000,000 for the nutrition program for the elderly.

The Committee has included language that allows the Secretary to transfer $10,000,000 from the WIC account to the Nutrition Program for the Elderly once the fiscal year 2000 carryover is determined to be in excess of $100,000,000.

FOOD PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ 1 $111,392,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 128,558,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 116,392,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +5,000,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥12,166,000

1Does not reflect a transfer from the Economic Research Service of $1,000,000 (P.L. 106–78)

for studies and evaluations.

The Food Program Administration appropriation provides for

most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition

Service, which includes the Child Nutrition Programs; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC); the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, administrative expenses of

The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Farmers’ Market

Nutrition Program; the Food Donations Programs, including the

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Pacific Island Assistance and

Disaster Feeding; the Food Stamp Program and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

109

The major objective of food program 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

progress toward program objectives; and (4) carrying out regular

staff support functions.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Food Program Administration, the Committee has provided

$116,392,000, an increase of $5,000,000 above the amount available

for fiscal year 2000, and a decrease of $12,166,000 below the budget request.

The Committee has maintained all funding for studies and evaluations under the Economic Research Service’s Food and Consumer

Economics Division. The Committee does not reduce the funding

available for studies and evaluations. Full discretion on how these

funds are to be spent has been left to the Department. The Committee continues to believe that consolidating these funds under

ERS is prudent and fiscally responsible. It is expected that FNS

staff, as well as staff from other agencies, will provide input and

continue to work with ERS staff to assure that all program and

policy needs of the Department are being met.

The Committee understands that small farmers may be precluded from bidding on contracts with school food service authorities by virtue of state efforts to require multi-item bidding. The

Committee expects the Food and Nutrition Service to work with

the Agricultural Marketing Service to identify cases in which such

restrictions might exist, evaluate the impact of such restrictions,

and take such action as necessary to facilitate sales by small producers to school food service authorities.

The Committee includes language that no funds shall be used for

the Colonias initiative included in the budget request or any other

initiative related to the Colonias without the prior approval of the

Committee on Appropriations.

The Committee encourages the Food and Nutrition Service to acquire commodities from local farmer’s markets and cooperatives for

nutrition programs to the maximum extent possible.

(110)

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE AND GENERAL SALES MANAGER

Appropriation Transfer from loan

accounts Total, FAS

2000 appropriation ...................... $109,186,000 ($4,266,000) ($113,452,000)

2001 budget estimate ................. 113,587,000 (4,266,000) (117,853,000)

Provided in the bill ..................... 109,186,000 (4,266,000) (113,452,000)

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .............. ........................ ........................ ............................

2001 budget estimate .......... ¥4,401,000 ........................ ¥4,401,000

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 attaches from the Department of State to the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The primary function of this organization is to help American agriculture in maintaining and expanding foreign markets for agriculture products vital to the economic well-being of the nation. It

maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and reporting service to assist the U.S. agricultural industry in its export operations

through a continuous program of analyzing and reporting foreign

agricultural production, markets, and policies. It attempts to develop foreign markets for U.S. farm products through administration of special export programs and through helping to secure

international trade conditions that are favorable toward American

products. FAS is also responsible for coordinating, planning, and

directing the Department’s programs in international development

and technical cooperation in food and agriculture formerly carried

out by the Office of International Cooperation and Development.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $109,186,000 and transfers of $4,266,000, for a

total program level of $113,452,000, the same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $4,401,000 below the

budget request.

The Committee provides bill language permitting the Depart- ment to maintain up to $2,000,000 solely for the purpose of offsetting international currency fluctuations.

The Committee also provides bill language allowing the Department more flexibility in hiring employees overseas so that it can

compete effectively in hiring with other U.S. Government agencies.

The Department has informed the Committee that restrictions on

additional funding for the FAS imagery program have been lifted.

The Committee believes that the imagery program provides an essential service to American agriculture while also serving as an important source of information on natural disasters in foreign counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
111

tries which allows the Administration to make decisions on foreign

assistance. The Committee supports more flexibility in funding

from the Commodity Credit Corporation and directs the Department to report on the FAS imagery program in its next annual

budget request to Congress.

The Committee is concerned that the Department does not hold

the lead position in the federal government on international agricultural development activities. Without sufficient personnel

trained in agricultural matters, it is unlikely that other agencies

can provide better assistance than can the Department of Agriculture. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report

on international development activities by location, identifying and

quantifying the federal resources in use at each location. In particular, the Committee expects the report to include specific identification of whether personnel are assigned for short term or long

term presence, or if they may be in an area only as temporary consultants.

The Committee continues to believe that U.S. commodities are

among the most powerful tools in our nation’s arsenal. The Committee compliments the Department for its efforts to maximize the

use of U.S. commodities around the world and encourages the Department to maintain this effort as a priority. In particular, the

Committee remains strongly supportive of the monetization of commodities where the proceeds of such monetization are used to respond to the needs of the people of the recipient nations.

The Committee expects that no appropriated funds will be used

to pay for travel and other expenses of non-U.S. Government employees participating in the Reverse Trade Mission Program.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall use currently available authorities to ensure that all forms of rice (rough, brown and milled)

are fairly represented in all Department of Agriculture food aid, export market development, export promotion and other export related programs.

The Committee expects that the Quality Samples Program (QSP)

administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service will be continued

to help develop new markets and expand existing markets for

United States agricultural products. Funds made available through

CCC to carry out activities under the QSP shall be no less than

$2,500,000, the same level as in fiscal year 2000.

PUBLIC LAW 480

PROGRAM AND GRANT ACCOUNTS

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the Program

Account. Appropriations to this account are used to cover the lifetime subsidy cost associated with direct loans obligated in 2000 and

beyond, as well as for administrative expenses.

Financing sales of agricultural commodities to developing countries and private entities for dollars on credit terms, or for local currencies (including for local currencies on credit terms) for use under

section 104; and for furnishing commodities to carry out the Food

for Progress Act of 1985, as amended (title I).—Title I of the legislaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
112

tion authorizes financing of sales to developing countries for local

currencies and for dollars on credit terms. Sales for dollars or local

currency may be made to foreign governments. The legislation provides for repayment terms either in local currencies or U.S. dollars

on credit terms of up to 30 years, with a grace period of up to 5

years.

Local currencies under title I sales agreements may be used in

carrying out activities under section 104 of the Agricultural Trade

Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended. Activities in

the recipient country for which these local currencies may be used

include developing new markets for U.S. agricultural commodities,

paying U.S. obligations, and supporting agricultural development

and research.

Title I appropriated funds may also be used under the Food for

Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to furnish commodities on credit

terms or on a grant basis to assist developing countries and countries that are emerging democracies that have a commitment to introduce and expand free enterprise elements in their agricultural

economies.

Ocean freight differential costs in connection with commodities

sales financed for local currencies or U.S. dollars (title I).—The

Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean freight differential costs

on shipments under this title. These costs are the difference between foreign flag and U.S. flag shipping costs.

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.

Commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad

(title III).—Commodities are supplied without cost to least developed countries through foreign governments for direct feeding, development of emergency food reserves, or may be sold with the proceeds of such sale used by the recipient country for specific economic development purposes. The Commodity Credit Corporation

may pay ocean freight on shipments under this title, and may also

pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well

as internal distribution costs.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy levels, and

administrative costs for all Public Law 480 programs:

FY 2000 enacted FY 2001 estimate Committee provisions

Public Law 480 Program Account:

Title I—Credit sales:

Program level ................................................................ ($166,298,000) ($180,000,000) ($180,000,000)

113

FY 2000 enacted FY 2001 estimate Committee provisions

Direct loans ................................................................... (145,298,000) (159,678,000) (159,678,000)

Ocean freight differential ............................................. 21,000,000 20,322,000 20,322,000

Loan subsidies .............................................................. 119,813,000 114,186,000 114,686,000

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad:

Program level ................................................................ (800,000,000) (837,000,000) (800,000,000)

Appropriation ................................................................. 800,000,000 837,000,000 800,000,000

Title III—Commodity grants:

Program level ................................................................ (- 0 -) (- 0 -) (- 0 -)

Appropriation ................................................................. - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -

Salaries and expenses:

General Sales Manager ................................................. 1,035,000 1,035,000 1,035,000

FSA ................................................................................ 815,000 815,000 815,000

Subtotal .................................................................... 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000

Total, Public Law 480:

Program level .................................................. (966,298,000) (1,017,000,000) (980,000,000)

Appropriation ................................................... 942,663,000 973,358,000 936,358,000

The Committee has provided bill language allowing transfer authority, not to exceed 15 percent, among titles I, II, and III of PL

480.

The Committee expects that monetized funds from food aid shipments to the Newly Independent States be used only for agricultural privatization and reform.

CCC EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2000 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,820,000

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... 3,820,000

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,820,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ...................................................................... ............................

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. ............................

Under the export credit programs, guarantees are provided by

CCC for the repayment of commercial credit extended to finance

U.S. agricultural export sales. The GSM–102 program covers export credit with repayment terms of up to three years. The GSM–

103 program provides intermediate-term credit with repayment

terms of three to ten years. The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as

amended, requires that not less than $5.5 billion be made available

annually from 1996 through 2002 for GSM–102 and GSM–103. The

FAIR Act provides $200,000,000 for the Emerging Markets Export

Credit Program.

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 loan guarantees committed in 2000 and beyond, as well as for administrative expenses.

Funding for the loan subsidy costs of CCC export credit is provided through a permanent, indefinite appropriation and not by annual appropriation.

114

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee provides an

appropriation of $3,820,000, the same as the amount available for

fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget request.

(115)

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Prescription drug

user fee Total, FDA, S&E

2000 appropriation ............ $1,037,661,000 $145,434,000 $1,183,095,000

2001 budget estimate ....... 1,156,905,000 149,273,000 1,306,178,000

Provided in the bill ........... 1 1,090,905,000 149,273,000 1,240,178,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation .... +53,244,000 +3,839,000 +57,083,000

2001 budget estimate ¥66,000,000 ............................ ¥66,000,000 1 $1,117,905,000 (appropriation) minus $27,000,000 (rescission) equals $1,090,905,000 (net).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the principal consumer protection agency of the Federal Government. The agency’s

mission and sole objective is to protect and promote the public

health through its science-based core activities of premarket review

and postmarket assurance. FDA has jurisdiction over a wide variety of products that affect every person, every day: foods and cosmetics; human and animal drugs; biologics including blood and vaccines; medical devices; and radiological products. FDA activities assure that these products are safe and effective, as well as properly

labeled.

FDA works extensively with stakeholders—industry, consumers,

and other interested parties—to: (1) set food and product standards; (2) evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medical

devices before they are marketed; (3) conduct and sponsor research

studies to detect health hazards and violations of laws or regulations, and improve the agency’s base of scientific knowledge to

allow for better regulatory decision-making; (4) inform business

firms and consumers about FDA-related topics; (5) work with state

and local agencies to develop programs that will supplement or

complement those of FDA; (6) maintain surveillance over foods,

drugs, medical devices and electronic products to ensure that they

are safe, effective, and honestly labeled; and (7) take legal action

when necessary to remove violative products from the marketplace

and to prosecute firms or individuals that violate the law.

FDA must respond to fulfill several challenges in order to meet

statutory requirements and its mission: research and developmentfueled pressures on regulatory responsibilities; greater product

complexity driven by breakthroughs in technology; growth in the

recognized adverse effects associated with product use; unpredictable new health and safety threats; emerging challenges in the

international arena; and the increased volume and diversity of

imports.

116

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides

a total direct appropriation of $1,117,905,000 for salaries and expenses, rescinds $27,000,000 from prior appropriations, and makes

available an additional $149,273,000 in fees collected under the

Prescription Drug User Fee Act, for a total of $1,240,178,000. This

is an increase of $57,083,000 above the total amount available in

fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of $66,000,000 below the budget request.

Agricultural Products Testing Laboratory.—Within sums provided for food safety, the Committee directs the FDA to provide

$1,500,000 for a contract with the New Mexico State University’s

Physical Science Laboratory to establish a laboratory in Don ̃a Ana

County, New Mexico. The laboratory will conduct rapid screening

analyses of fresh fruits and vegetables (imported and domestic) for

microbiological contamination of products sampled by FDA in the

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona area. The laboratory will augment

FDA’s capabilities and facilitate rapid testing of these perishable

products.

Competitive Exclusion Products.—The Committee finds that competitive exclusion products offer an innovative and valuable approach to reducing Salmonella and other harmful bacteria in poultry and livestock. The Committee is concerned, however, that only

one competitive exclusion product has been approved to date despite public statements by FDA, USDA, and the President’s Food

Safety Council supporting this emerging technology. In view of significant public health benefits of competitive exclusion products,

the FDA should review new animal drug applications for these

products on an expedited basis.

Contact dermatitis.—The Committee is aware that contact dermatitis is the most common occupational illness in the United

States costing the U.S. economy over $1 billion annually. The

American Academy of Dermatology and the American Contact Dermatitis Society estimate that nearly 3,000 chemicals and other materials can induce allergic contact dermatitis and over 50,000

chemicals are capable of producing skin irritation. The Committee

grows increasingly concerned that U.S. physicians lag behind their

counterparts in other countries in their ability to effectively diagnose, treat and train future physicians to care for this epidemic.

Only 24 allergens have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patch test kits, the only available test for

this skin disease. European, Canadian, and South American physicians have over 400 allergens available for testing. The Committee

directs the FDA to return regulatory authority for patch test kits

and their allergens to the Center for Devices and Radiological

Health, and further directs the Center to reinstate those allergens

that were available to U.S. physicians prior to 1986, and expedite

the approval of all other allergens in use in Europe and Canada,

but which have not been approved for use in the United States.

Dietary supplements.—The Committee directs the Food and Drug

Administration to report on the implementation of the decision in

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Pearson v. Shalala

regarding dietary supplement health claims. This report is to inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
117

clude the specific steps the agency plans to follow to carry out the

decision with regard to dietary supplements, as well as the agency’s basis for treating dietary supplements differently from conventional foods.

The Committee instructs the Food and Drug Administration to

report to the Committee within 6 months of enactment of the bill,

a summary of the total dollar amount spent in fiscal year 2000 in

assessing the safety of dietary supplements, and in meeting the

legal statutory burden under the Dietary Supplement Health and

Education Act of 1994 for demonstrating safety problems with dietary supplements.

The Committee instructs the Food and Drug Administration to

report to the Committee, within 6 months of enactment of the bill,

on the dollar cost to implement the Dietary Supplement Strategy

10 Year Plan.

Food Irradiation.—The Conference Report accompanying the

FDA Modernization Act of 1997 directed FDA to complete a final

rule by November 1998 revising its regulations regarding the labeling of foods treated with ionizing radiation. To date, the FDA has

not completed this requirement. The Committee believes that any

required disclosure should not be perceived as a warning or give

rise to inappropriate consumer anxiety. The Committee expects

FDA to make final by September 30, 2001 regulations that prescribe alternative truthful and non-misleading labeling disclosures

that may be used on foods treated by ionizing radiation in lieu of

the existing FDA-required disclosure. The Committee expects a report on the status of the proposed regulation by November 15,

2000.

Generic Drugs.—It is the view of the Committee that one of the

most effective and immediate means to address the rising cost of

prescription drugs is to ensure that the American consumer has

timely access to more affordable generic medicines. In recent years

Congress has provided increased appropriations for the Office of

Generic Drugs to hire more reviewers to reduce the backlog of generic applications and to accelerate generic drug approval. Despite

such increases, current approval times for generic drugs are three

times the statutory requirements. In an effort to continue to reduce

approval times, the Committee directs that an increase of

$1,500,000 (from within funds provided) shall be used for the upgrade of information technology systems that allow for the electronic submission of generic drug applications.

Genetically modified foods.—The Committee expects the Food

and Drug Administration to develop a unified effort to respond to

consumer safety and environmental concerns while providing sufficient information that would allow consumers to make informed

choices about the production and consumption of bioengineered

foods. Any regulatory decision should be based on sound, verifiable

science. The Committee also expects FDA to coordinate its activities with those of the Department of Agriculture to provide a unified approach across agency jurisdictions.

Medical Devices.—The Committee notes that advances in research and development in the medical device industry are likely

to increase the number of new technologies submitted for review by

the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the

118

Center for Biologics, Evaluation and Research (CBER). Therefore,

the Committee requests the FDA to dedicate a level of funds in the

fiscal year 2002 budget request to meet statutory review times for

medical devices. Further, the Committee urges the Center to continue its work to expand the list of eligible devices so as to improve

the success of the third-party review program for medical devices,

and to actively utilize its authority to contract with outside technical expertise when such expertise is needed to assist in the

prompt and efficient review of breakthrough technologies.

Mutual Recognition Activities/International Harmonization.— The Committee is concerned about the world-wide proliferation of

regulatory regimes for medical devices and pharmaceutical products. In order to ensure that patients around the world receive the

latest technology promptly, it is critical that the regulatory systems

of the various nations of the world coordinate activities in such a

way as to ensure the safety and efficacy of products, while limiting

the burden of regulatory barriers to innovation and manufacture.

The Committee is particularly concerned about the potential for

barriers to the global marketing of products that are approved for

use in the United States. Therefore, the Committee directs the

Food and Drug Administration to report on the nature and scope

of its activities to promote mutual recognition and international

harmonization, aimed at approval systems as well as product surveillance. This report is to be submitted to the Committee by January 1, 2001.

National Center for Food Safety and Technology.—Within the

amounts provided for food safety, the Committee recommends

$3,000,000 for the National Center for Food Safety and Technology

in Summit-Argo, Illinois, to continue collaborative research in food

safety among government, academia, and private industry.

Orphan drugs.—The Committee is concerned that the current

method of review for biologics that are substantially equivalent to

orphan drugs may be creating a competitive disadvantage for biologics. While concern for efficacy and safety remain paramount, the

Committee expects the FDA to develop a system to treat biologics

and chemical-based substances on a more equal basis when these

alternatives to protected orphan drugs are developed.

Radiopharmaceuticals.—The Committee believes that there is a

need to have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clarify its

existing enforcement authority and position on the compounding of

radiopharmaceuticals. Radiopharmaceuticals are excluded from the

exemptions provided by section 127 the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (see 21 USC 353a(e)(21)).

With respect to radiopharmaceuticals, FDAMA was not intended to

change the law that was in effect at the time of its enactment (H.

Rep. No. 105–399, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 95 1997). Furthermore,

the law at the time FDAMA was enacted did not exempt radiopharmaceuticals from the adulteration, misbranding, and new drug

requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, FDA should clarify its enforcement policy on the compounding

of radiopharmaceuticals to stop the compounding of radiopharmaceuticals that are essentially copies of approved and commercially

available drug products. The Committee urges the agency to

promptly issue guidance setting forth its enforcement policy with

119

regard to the compounding of radiopharmaceuticals, but nothing

herein shall preclude the agency from taking enforcement action

under current law prior to issuance of such guidance.

Seafood Inspection.—The appropriations request included detailed authorization language which would transfer seafood inspection activities from the National Marine Fisheries Service to the

Food and Drug Administration. The Committee feels strongly that

this is a matter to be addressed by the authorization committee,

and therefore has not included the requested authorization language.

Secondary Market for Prescription Drugs.—The Committee supports the recent FDA action to delay the effective date for implementing certain requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing

Act until October 1, 2001 and reopen the administrative record in

order to receive additional comments. The Committee believes the

agency should thoroughly review the potential impact of the proposed provisions on the secondary wholesale pharmaceutical industry. The Committee directs the FDA to provide a report to the

Committee by January 15, 2001 summarizing the comments and

issues raised and agency plans to address the concerns.

Shellfish Safety.—FDA’s Office of Seafood has a memorandum of

understanding with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission

(ISSC) to develop shellfish safety regulations. The Committee understands that the agency funds this agreement at a level of

$200,000, and directs that this level of effort is to continue in fiscal

year 2001.

Tobacco.—On March 21, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed

the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

that FDA lacks jurisdiction under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics

Act to regulate tobacco products. Subsequent to this decision, the

Food and Drug Administration has taken steps to terminate contracts with State agencies regarding age and picture identification

provisions that have been in effect, and the Agency is in the process of terminating the enforcement program. Therefore, the budget

request of $39,000,000 to carry out these activities in fiscal year

2001 is no longer required, and the Committee recommends reducing the budget request accordingly. In addition, the Committee recommends rescinding $27,000,000 of the funds provided for fiscal

year 2000, which are no longer required under current law.

Vibrio Vulnificus.—The Committee expects that FDA will continue its work with the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission

(ISSC) to promote educational and research activities related to

Vibrio Vulnificus. The Committee directs the use of $250,000 for

this effort, within the amounts appropriated for the Food Safety

Initiative.

Waste-management Education and Research Consortium.—Within sums provided for food safety, the Committee directs the Food

and Drug Administration to provide not less than $100,000 for the

Waste-management Education and Research Consortium (WERC)

to continue its work in minimizing microbial hazards.

Recommendations by activity.—The Committee recommends that

of the total amount provided: (1) $302,557,000 shall be for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) $329,797,000 shall be for

120

the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (3) $153,479,000 shall be

for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4)

$62,761,000 shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and for

related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5)

$171,677,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and Radiological

Health and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory

Affairs; (6) $37,868,000 shall be for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) $25,855,000 shall be for Rent and Related

activities, other than the amounts paid to the General Services Administration; (8) $104,954,000 shall be for payments to the General

Services Administration for rent and related costs; and (9)

$78,230,000 shall be for other activities, including the Office of the

Commissioner, the Office of Senior Associate Commissioner, the Office of International and Constituent Relations, the Office of Policy,

Planning, and Legislation, the Office of Management and Systems,

and central services for these offices. Funds may be transferred

from one specified activity to another with the prior approval of the

Committee.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $11,350,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 31,350,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 11,350,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... .........................

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥20,000,000

The Buildings and Facilities account was established for repair

and improvement of existing facilities, as well as for construction

of new facilities when needed.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides an appropriation of $11,350,000, the

same as the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease

of $20,000,000 below the budget request.

The Committee recommends $8,350,000 for repairs and improvements to existing facilities, and $3,000,000 for continuing construction of phase III at the Arkansas Regional Laboratory. The Committee does not recommend the request for $20,000,000 for the first

phase of construction of the replacement Los Angeles laboratory.

This funding has been provided in House action on the bill H.R.

3908. While the Committee supports replacement of this laboratory, it does not recommend the request for advanced appropriation

of $23,000,000 for the second phase of Los Angeles construction.

Such funds are not required at this time, and the Committee will

consider this item in the future. The Committee is concerned about

the impact the transfer of the FDA laboratories to Irvine will have

on FDA employees who currently work at the FDA laboratories in

Los Angeles. The Committee expects the FDA to retain these experienced employees and to take steps to minimize the impact on employees throughout the planning and implementation of the move

to Irvine.

121

Arkansas Regional Laboratory.—The Committee approves the full amount of the budget request of $3,000,000 which will go towards a portion of the third and final phase of the overall Arkansas Regional Laboratory project at Jefferson, Arkansas. This phase

will provide for the renovation of the existing Building 50 in its entirety for joint Office of Regulatory Affairs and National Center for

Toxicological Research administrative support space and the restoration of the laboratory project site.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2000 appropriation ................................................................................ $63,000,000

2001 budget estimate ............................................................................ 72,000,000

Provided in the bill ................................................................................ 69,000,000

Comparison:

2000 appropriation ......................................................................... +6,000,000

2001 budget estimate ..................................................................... ¥3,000,000

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administers the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended. The purpose of the Commission is to further the economic utility of futures

and option markets by encouraging their efficiency, assuring their

integrity, and protecting participants against abusive trade practices, fraud, and deceit. The objective is to enable the markets to

better serve their designated function in providing a price discovery

mechanism and as a means of offsetting price risk. In properly

serving these functions, the futures markets contribute toward better planning, more efficient distribution and consumption, and

more economical marketing.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee

provides an appropriation of $69,000,000, an increase of $6,000,000

above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and a decrease of

$3,000,000 below the budget request.

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2000 limitation .................................................................................... ($35,800,000)

2001 budget estimate ......................................................................... ............................

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (36,800,000)

Comparison:

2000 limitation ............................................................................ (+1,000,000)

2001 budget estimate .................................................................. (+36,800,000)

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) originally created by Executive Order No. 6084 on May 27, 1933, was transferred to the

Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1939, by Reorganization Plan

No. 1. From December 4, 1953 to January 23, 1986, the Administration was an independent agency under the direction of a Federal

Farm Credit Board (12 U.S.C. 636). The Farm Credit Amendments

Act of 1985 (P.L. 99–205) clarified the FCA’s role as an arm’slength financial regulator, granting it the same intermediate enforcement powers as other Federal financial regulatory agencies.

The Act also replaced the Federal Farm Credit Board of 13 PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
122

dentially appointed part- time Board members with the FCA

Board, comprised of a Chairman and two other Board members, all

serving in a full-time capacity. Not more than two members of the

Board shall be members of the same political party.

The FCA is responsible for regulating, supervising, and examining the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System). The

FCA and the System institutions operate under the authority of

the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The institutions of the System are the Farm Credit banks, Federal land bank

associations, Federal intermediate credit banks, production credit

associations, Federal land credit associations, agricultural credit

associations, and banks for cooperatives. The combined lending activities in the System institutions provided short- and long-term

credit to the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and producers and harvesters of aquatic products, and their cooperatives. System institutions are owned by their member borrowers. The operation of the

System is funded through the sale of systemwide consolidated

bonds and discount notes in the public money markets, and the institutions are fully liable for the payment of these securities. The

operating expenses of the FCA are paid by the System institutions

and by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation through assessments, which are deposited in a special fund in the Treasury

which is available for the use of the FCA.

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administration, the Committee provides $36,800,000, an increase of

$1,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2000 and an

increase of $36,800,000 above the budget request. The fiscal year

2001 budget proposed no limitation on the expenses of the Farm

Credit Administration.

(123)

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for

fiscal year 2001 are fundamentally the same as those included in

last year’s appropriations bill.

Section 724: Language is included to prohibit funds from being

used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural America.

Section 725: Language is included to limit the amount of funds

available for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to

$174,000,000.

Section 727: Language is included to prohibit funds from being

used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food

Systems.

Section 728: Language is included that funds in this Act shall

not be used to carry out any commodity purchase program that

would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.

Section 729: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.

Section 730: Language is included prohibiting the use of funds to

carry out certain activities unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment and charges

a fees for those activities.

Section 734: The Committee reminds the Administration of the

Constitutional power of the Senate to advise and consent to treaties. The Committee notes with disapproval that this Administration exhibited disdain for the will of the Senate when the Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol in contravention of Senate Resolution 105–98, known as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which was approved by a vote of 95 ayes and 0 nays.

The Committee notes with disapproval that nearly three years

after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 1997, it still

has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent as to

ratification. The Committee is concerned that such protracted refusal to make submission to the Senate flouts the powers and prerogatives of the Congress as a whole. The Committee directs that

within three years of the date of adoption, the Kyoto Protocol shall

be submitted by the Administration to the Senate for advice and

consent as to ratification. The Committee also notes that the Kyoto

Protocol has not yet entered into force pursuant to Article 25 of the

Protocol.

This year the Committee has clarified that funds shall not be

spent for items found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in

the laws of the United States. These items include carbon emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism. The

Committee has taken keen note of the Administration’s comments

that there has been confusion regarding this funding limitation.

The Committee notes with disapproval dozens of expenditures by

124

the Administration for the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. The Committee encourages United States exports to improve the environment of foreign nations and does so with express reference to the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC). Likewise all other provisions of the UNFCCC which

have legislative enactment are encouraged.

Section 735: Language is included requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to compensate wheat producers and handlers for losses

due to karnal bunt not later than 45 days after the receipt of a

valid claim.

Section 736: This provision makes the towns of Lloyd, New York

and Harris, New York eligible for rural development loans and

grants.

Section 737: This provision increases the fee on single family

guaranteed loans from one percent to two percent.

Section 738: This provision conforms the contracting authority

for persons overseas employed by the Foreign Agricultural Service

to the authority provided to the Department of State.

Section 739: Language is included that extends the dairy price

support program and delays the dairy recourse loan program.

Section 740: Language is included that provides $4,000,000 for a

hunger fellowship program.

Section 741: This bill includes language that supersedes Section

718 of Public Law 105–277, as amended, and provides that on a

permanent basis beginning with fiscal year 2001, funds made available through the annual appropriations process for the market access program, or any program that replaces the market access program, may be used to promote any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as

amended, except for products that have been specifically excluded

from the market access program by Section 1302, Title I of Public

Law 103–66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

Section 742: Language is included prohibiting the use of funds

regarding certain floodplains in Arkansas.

Section 743: Language is included that enhances the ability of

the Friends of the National Arboretum to provide additional support for the National Arboretum.

Section 744: Language is included that the Secretary shall include the value of lost production when compensating owners of

trees destroyed as part of the Citrus Canker Eradication program

in Florida.

Section 745: The Committee is aware that USDA has recently

issued a final rule regarding the use of Alternate Protein Products

in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program,

Summer Food Service Program, and Child and Adult Care Food

Program. The Committee is also aware that prior to promulgating

this rule, USDA asked meat and vegetable protein industry groups

to work together to build consensus on the use of alternative protein products in USDA’s feeding program and is aware USDA’s

final rule does not reflect this consensus. The Committee believes

that these comments have merit and warranted careful consideration by the USDA. The Committee therefore instructs USDA to

reinstate fortification requirements and to disclose to program parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
125

ticipants meat and poultry products containing greater than 30%

Alternative Protein Products.

Section 746: This section provides that ratites and squab slaughtered for human consumption be subject to the poultry Products Inspection Act.

Section 747: Language is included that provides for compensation, out of available funds, to nursery stock producers for losses

caused by Hurricane Irene in October 1999.

Section 748: The Committee has studied the Action Plan to

Eliminate Salmonella Enteritidis Illnesses Due to Eggs, published

on December 10, 1999. The Committee applauds and shares the

commitment to egg safety evidenced by the plan. The Committee

also expects that a thorough economic impact analysis of the action

plan will be completed prior to the issuance of any proposed rule

pursuant to the plan, in order to prevent any undue adverse impact

on producers.

In preparing regulations to implement the action plan, the Committee expects that the Food and Drug Administration and other

relevant agencies will (1) combine proposed rules on Salmonella

Enteritidis testing and HACCP-based prerequisite programs for

shell egg producers, in order to expedite the implementation of

quality assurance programs; (2) strongly consider including in their

rulemaking a ban on the repackaging of eggs returned from retail

establishments, as well as nationwide standards for ‘‘sell-by’’ or

‘‘best-by’’ dates; (3) modify the egg warning label proposed by the

agency on July 6, 1999, to ensure that the label is consistent with

equivalent labels on meat and poultry products, and to take into

account additional protective measures in the action plan; (4) to the

extent funds are available, consider a program to indemnify producers who may be required to divert eggs to pasteurization, based

on the difference in price received for diverted eggs and shell eggs

sold in retail markets; and (5) report to the Committee on the procedures it will use to assure that any functions assigned to state

agencies under the action plan will be implemented in a consistent

manner in all jurisdictions. The Committee expects that where possible, the agency will utilize the services of personnel of the Agricultural Marketing Service (as well as state agency personnel cooperating with AMS under existing agreements) who already perform inspection or other functions in shell egg packing plants,

under a cooperative agreement or similar arrangement whereby

the Service’s costs would be reimbursed by the agency.

Section 749: Language is included that allows the USDA to make

loans to poultry farmers who have incurred losses due to disasters.

Section 750: Language is included that extends the time within

which to compensate cotton producers in Georgia out of available

funds.

Section 751: Language is included that provides emergency funds

for market/quality loss payments for apples and potatoes.

Section 752: Language is included prohibiting the use of funds to

reimburse crop insurance providers and agents for administrative

and operating costs that exceed 20 percent of the premium.

(126)

TITLE VIII—TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT

ENHANCEMENT

Language is included providing for Trade Sanctions Reform and

Export Enhancement.

TRANSFER OF UNEXPENDED BALANCES

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing

the transfer of unexpended balances provided in the accompanying

bill. Transfers of unexpended balances are assigned to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations by clause 1(b)(3) of rule

X.

1. Office of the Secretary.—The bill allows the transfer of unobligated balances of representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural

Service to the Office of the Secretary.

2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.—

The bill allows transfers to or from the rental payments account

based on changing space requirements.

3. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required.

4. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings.

5. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.—

The bill requires a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office

of the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies.

6. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of

animals, plants, and poultry.

7. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill limits the transfer of

section 32 funds to purposes specified in the bill.

8. Farm Service Agency.—The bill provides that funds provided

to other accounts in the agency may be merged with the salaries

and expenses account of the Farm Service Agency.

9. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation.

10. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.—The bill provides that

funds from the account shall be transferred to the Farm Service

Agency salaries and expenses account.

11. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.—The bill provides that funds for administering loans shall be transferred to the

Rural Development Salaries and Expenses account.

12. Rural Community Advancement Program.—The bill provides

that funds for certain administrative expenses may be transferred

to the Rural Development Salaries and Expenses account.

127

13. Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account; Rural Development Loan Program Account; Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account and Rural Telephone

Bank Program Account.—The bill provides that administrative

funds may be transferred to the Rural Development Salaries and

Expenses Account.

14. Rural Housing Assistance Program; Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program; and Rural Utilities Assistance Program.—

The bill allows funds to be transferred between authorized programs within the account.

15. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.—Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of credit payments to this account.

16. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to

transfer section 32 funds to these programs.

17. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC).—The bill permits transfer of funds to other

programs under certain conditions.

18. Foreign Agricultural Service.—The bill allows for the transfer

of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account and Public Law 480 Program Account.

19. Public Law 480.—The bill allows for the transfer of up to 15

percent of the funds between title II and title III, and provides that

funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title

I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably.

20. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform.

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. In most

instances, these provisions have been included in prior appropriations bills, often at the request of or with the knowledge and consent of the responsible legislative committees.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities of those Federal agencies which require annual authorization or additional legislation which to date has not been enacted.

Language is included in the bill in several accounts that earmarks funds for empowerment zones and enterprise communities

as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1993.

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law:

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses,

as determined by the Secretary.

128

2. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— Language is included which allows the transfer of limited amounts

to and from this account.

3. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of

hearings.

4. Agricultural Research Service.—The bill includes language

that prohibits funds from being used to carry out research related

to the production, processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco

products. Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant an easement at the Beltsville, MD agricultural research center, and language is included that authorizes the

Agricultural Research Service to charge fees for any permit, easement, lease or other special use authorization for the occupancy or

use of land and facilities issued by the agency and such fees shall

be credited to the Agricultural Research Service and remain available until expended.

5. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.—The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being

used to carry out research related to the production, processing or

marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

6. Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.—Language is

included which provides that funds may be used to support facility

renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance.

7. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget.

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing training to non-APHIS personnel.

8. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur.

9. Agricultural Marketing Service.—The bill includes language

that allows the Secretary to charge user fees for AMS activity related to preparation of standards.

10. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events

occur.

11. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included that allows

the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments.

12. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund, Reimbursement for Net

Realized Losses.—Language is included to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also included which limits

the amount of funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of CCC hazardous waste sites.

129

13. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses.

14. Natural Resources Conservation Service—Conservation Operations.—This language, which has been included in the bill since

1938, prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the

government, although construction on land owned by states and

counties is authorized by basic law. This paragraph also includes

language carried in the bill since 1950, which prohibits the use of

funds for demonstration projects authorized by the Act of April 27,

1935.

15. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.—Language,

which was also included in the Emergency Jobs Bill of 1983 (P.L.

98–8) and all bills since 1984, provides that funds may be used for

rehabilitation of existing works.

16. Rural Housing Service—Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year be funded for a five-year period.

17. Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan Program

Account.—Language is included to allow borrowers’ interest rates

for loans to exceed seven percent.

18. Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account.—Language is included that allows for transfer of cushion of credit payments to this account.

19. Child Nutrition Programs.—Language is included to prohibit

funds from being used for studies and evaluations.

20. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to prohibit funds from

being used for studies and evaluations, and to allow certain transfers of funds.

21. Food Stamp Program.—Language is included to prohibit

funds from being used for studies and evaluations, and to limit

funds available for employment and training.

22. Commodity Assistance Program.—Language is included that

allows a specific funding level for Commodity Supplemental Food

Program administrative expenses.

23. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979

enables this organizational unit to utilize funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving

international development and technical cooperation. The bill includes language that prohibits funds from being used to promote

the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products. Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses.

24. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to allow CFTC to recoup expenses incurred from providing

training to non-CFTC personnel.

25. General Provisions.—

Section 704: This provision permits the Secretary to transfer

funds made available by this Act, as well as other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture, to the

Working Capital fund for the acquisition of plant and capital

equipment, and provides that no funds appropriated to an

agency shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval of the agency administrator.

130

Section 705: This provision, carried since 1976, is again included which provides that certain appropriations in this Act

shall remain available until expended where the programs or

projects involved are continuing in nature under the provisions

of authorizing legislation, but for which such legislation does

not specifically provide for extended availability. This authority

tends to result in savings by preventing the wasteful practice

often found in government of rushing to commit funds at the

end of the fiscal year without due regard to the value of the

purpose for which the funds are used. Such extended availability is also essential in view of the long lead time frequently

required to negotiate agreements or contracts which normally

extend over a period of more than one year. Under these conditions such authority is commonly provided in Appropriations

Acts where omitted from basic law. These provisions have been

carried through the years in this Act to facilitate efficient and

effective program execution and to assure maximum savings.

They involve the following items: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, the integrated systems acquisition

project, the boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the

screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated

with colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection

Service, field automation and information management project;

funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants, and funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries and

expenses to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service,

middle-income country training program and up to $2,000,000

for foreign currency fluctuations.

Section 708: This provision, included since fiscal year 1981,

limits the overhead that can be charged on cooperative agreements to a maximum of 10 percent. This provision is necessary

because many universities attempted to apply the same overhead rates to cooperative agreements as was being applied to

grants and contracts, without giving consideration to the cooperator’s contributions as an offset to the overhead charges.

Section 710: This provision, added in 1987, provides that

none of the funds in this Act may be used to restrict the authority of CCC to lease space. This provision allows CCC to

continue to lease space at a lower cost than space leased by

GSA.

Section 711: This provision provides that none of the funds

in this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged

against agricultural research, education, or extension grants

awarded by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service in excess of 19 percent of total direct costs,

except for grants available under the Small Business Innovation and Development Act.

Section 712: This provision clarifies that loan levels provided

in the Act are to be considered estimates and not limitations.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 provides that the appropriated subsidy is the controlling factor for the amount of

131

loans made and that as lifetime costs and interest rates

change, the amount of loan authority will fluctuate.

Section 713: This provision allows funds made available in

the current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund

Program Account; Rural Telephone Bank Program Account; the

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program

Account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account to remain available until expended. The Credit Reform

Act requires that the lifetime costs of loans be appropriated.

Current law requires that funds unobligated after five years

expire. The life of some loans extends well beyond the fiveyear period and this provision allows funds appropriated to remain available until the loans are closed out.

Section 714: This provision provides that sums necessary for

the current fiscal year pay raises shall be absorbed within the

levels appropriated in this Act.

Section 715: This provision provides that the Agricultural

Marketing Service; Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety and

Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements.

Section 716: This provision provides that the Natural Resources Conservation Service may use cooperative agreements.

Section 717: Provides that not more than 5 percent of Class

A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank may be retired in fiscal

year 2001. The provision also prohibits the maintenance of any

account or subaccount which has not been specifically authorized by law. The provision also prohibits a transfer of any unobligated funds of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account to the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank

that are in excess of current requirements.

Section 718: Provides that of the funds made available, not

more than $1,500,000 shall be used to cover expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions,

and task forces of the Department of Agriculture except for

panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitive award grants.

Section 719: Provides that none of the funds may be used to

carry out certain provisions of meat and poultry inspection

acts.

Section 720: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any

other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days

unless the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment.

Section 721: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture from transmitting or making available to any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or responses to

questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process.

Section 722: Language is included that requires approval of

the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
132

quisition of new information technology systems or significant

upgrades.

Section 723: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations

Acts.

Section 724: Language is included to prohibit funds from

being used to carry out programs under the Fund for Rural

America.

Section 725: Language is included to limit the amount of

funds available for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to $174,000,000.

Section 726: Language is included to prohibit contract acreage payments to a producer who plants wild rice on contract

acreage unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for

each acre planted to wild rice.

Section 727: Language is included to prohibit funds from

being used to carry out the Initiative for Future Agriculture

and Food Systems.

Section 728: Language is included that funds in this Act

shall not be used to carry out any commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmerowned cooperatives.

Section 729: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to carry out the Conservation Farm Option program.

Section 730: Language is included prohibiting the use of

funds to carry out certain activities unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment and charges a fees for those activities.

Section 731: Language is included that prohibits funds from

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous year’s budget due to user

fee proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions which should occur if the user fees are not enacted.

Section 732: Language is included that prohibits the use of

funds to carry out a Community Food Security program or any

similar activity without the prior approval of the Committees

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

Section 733: Language is included that prohibits the use of

the funds made available by this Act or any other Act for the

National Swine Research Center.

Section 734: Language is included that provides that hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto Protocol, including

such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions trading schemes

and the Clean Development Mechanism that are found solely

in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of the United

States.

Section 735: Language is included requiring the Secretary of

Agriculture to compensate wheat producers and handlers for

losses due to karnal bunt not later than 45 days after the receipt of a valid claim.

Section 736: This provision makes the towns of Lloyd, New

York and Harris, New York eligible for rural development

loans and grants.

133

Section 737: This provision increases the fee on single family

guaranteed loans from one percent to two percent.

Section 738: This provision conforms the contracting authority for persons overseas employed by the Foreign Agricultural

Service to the authority provided to the Department of State.

Section 739: Language is included that extends the dairy

price support program and delays the dairy recourse loan program.

Section 740: Language is included that provides $4,000,000

for a hunger fellowship program.

Section 741: This bill includes language that supersedes Section 718 of Public Law 105–277, as amended, and provides that

on a permanent basis beginning with fiscal year 2001, funds

made available through the annual appropriations process for

the market access program, or any program that replaces the

market access program, may be used to promote any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural

Trade Act of 1978, as amended, except for products that have

been specifically excluded from the market access program by

Section 1302, Title I of Public Law 103–66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

Section 742: Language is included prohibiting the use of

funds regarding certain floodplains in Arkansas.

Section 743: Language is included that enhances the ability

of the Friends of the National Arboretum to provide additional

support for the National Arboretum.

Section 744: Language is included that the Secretary shall

include the value of lost production when compensating owners

of trees destroyed as part of the Citrus Canker Eradication

program in Florida.

Section 745: Language is included that instructs USDA to reinstate fortification requirements and to disclose to federal nutrition program participants meat and poultry products containing greater than 30 percent alternative protein products.

Section 746: This section provides that ratites and squab

slaughtered for human consumption be subject to the Poultry

Products Inspection Act.

Section 747: Language is included that provides for compensation, out of available funds, to nursery stock producers

for losses caused by Hurricane Irene in October 1999.

Section 748: Language is included that any regulation which

establishes requirements for producers/packers to conduct Salmonella Enteritidis tests shall defray or reimburse such costs

to producers/packers.

Section 749: Language is included that allows the USDA to

make loans to poultry farmers who have incurred losses due to

disasters.

Section 750: Language is included that extends the time

within which to compensate cotton producers in Georgia out of

available funds.

Section 751: Language is included that provides emergency

funds for market/quality loss payments for apples and potatoes.

134

Section 752: Language is included prohibiting the use of

funds to reimburse crop insurance providers and agents for administrative and operating costs that exceed 20 percent of the

premium.

26. Title VIII—Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement.—Language is included providing for Trade Sanctions Reform

and Export Enhancement.

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

AGRICULTURE MARKET TRANSITION ACT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Other Commodities

CHAPTER 1—DAIRY

SEC. 141. MILK PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

(b) RATE.—The price of milk shall be supported at the following

rates per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) During each of calendar years 1999 øand 2000¿ through

2001, $9.90.

* * * * * * *

(h) PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS.—This section (other than subsection (g)) shall be effective only during the period beginning on

the first day of the first month beginning after the date of enactment of this title and ending on December 31, ø2000¿ 2001. The

program authorized by this section shall terminate on December

31, ø2000¿ 2001, and shall be considered to have expired notwithstanding section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 142. RECOURSE LOAN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROCESSORS OF DAIRY PRODUCTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall be effective beginning

January 1, ø2001¿ 2002.

SECTION 321 OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT ACT

SEC. 321. (a) * * *

135

(b) HAZARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENT.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) LOANS TO POULTRY FARMERS.— (A) INABILITY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to

a poultry farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of

a chicken house for which the farmer did not have hazard insurance at the time of the loss, if the farmer—

(I) applied for, but was unable, to obtain hazard

insurance for the chicken house;

(II) uses the loan to rebuild the chicken house in

accordance with industry standards in effect on

the date the farmer submits an application for the

loan (referred to in this paragraph as ‘‘current industry standards’’);

(III) obtains, for the term of the loan, hazard insurance for the full market value of the chicken

house; and

(IV) meets the other requirements for the loan

under this subtitle, other than (if the Secretary

finds that the applicant’s farming operations have

been substantially affected by a major disaster or

emergency designated by the President under the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)) the requirement that an applicant not be able to obtain

sufficient credit elsewhere.

(ii) AMOUNT.—The amount of a loan made to a poultry farmer under clause (i) shall be an amount that

will allow the farmer to rebuild the chicken house in

accordance with current industry standards.

(B) LOANS TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT INDUSTRY STAND- ARDS.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to

a poultry farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of

a chicken house for which the farmer had hazard insurance at the time of the loss, if—

(I) the amount of the hazard insurance is less

than the cost of rebuilding the chicken house in accordance with current industry standards;

(II) the farmer uses the loan to rebuild the chicken house in accordance with current industry

standards;

(III) the farmer obtains, for the term of the loan,

hazard insurance for the full market value of the

chicken house; and

(IV) the farmer meets the other requirements for

the loan under this subtitle, other than (if the Secretary finds that the applicant’s farming operations have been substantially affected by a major

disaster or emergency designated by the President

136

under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.))

the requirement that an applicant not be able to

obtain sufficient credit elsewhere.

(ii) AMOUNT.—The amount of a loan made to a poultry farmer under clause (i) shall be the difference

between—

(I) the amount of the hazard insurance obtained

by the farmer; and

(II) the cost of rebuilding the chicken house in

accordance with current industry standards.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1121 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 21, 1998

AN ACT Making omnibus consolidated and emergency appropriations for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

SEC. 1121. INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR COTTON PRODUCERS.

(a) * * *

(b) CONDITIONS ON PAYMENT TO STATE.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall make the payment to the State of Georgia under subsection (a) only if the State also contributes $5,000,000 to the indemnity fund and agrees to expend all amounts in the indemnity

fund by ønot later than January 1, 2000¿ not later than January

1, 2001, to provide compensation to cotton producers as provided in

such subsection. If the State of Georgia fails to make its contribution of $5,000,000 to the indemnity fund by July 1, 1999, the funds

that would otherwise be paid to the State shall be available to the

Secretary for the purpose of providing partial compensation to cotton producers as provided in such subsection.

* * * * * * *

(d) ADDITIONAL DISBURSEMENT.—

(1) COTTON STORED IN GEORGIA.—The State of Georgia shall

use funds remaining in the indemnity fund established in accordance with this section to compensate cotton producers in

other States who stored cotton in the State of Georgia and incurred losses in 1998 or 1999 as a result of the events described

in subsection (a).

(2) GINNERS AND OTHERS.—The State of Georgia may also

use funds remaining in the indemnity fund established in accordance with this section to compensate cotton ginners and

others in the business of producing, ginning, warehousing, buying, or selling cotton for losses they incurred in 1998 or 1999

as the result of the events described in subsection (a), if—

(A) as of March 1, 2000, the indemnity fund has not been

exhausted;

(B) the State of Georgia provides cotton producers (including cotton producers described in paragraph (1)) an

additional time period prior to May 1, 2000, in which to establish eligibility for compensation under this section;

(C) the State of Georgia determines during calendar year

2000 that all cotton producers in that State and cotton proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:26 May 17, 2000 Jkt 064390 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR619.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR619
137

ducers in other States as described in paragraph (1) have

been appropriately compensated for losses incurred in 1998

or 1999 as described in subsection (a); and

(D) such additional compensation is not made available

until May 1, 2000.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

State Mediation Grants

Dairy Indemnity Program

Elderly Feeding Program

Emerson-Leland Hunger Fellowships

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following information is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: The bill proposes rescission of $3,911,000 of funds derived from

interest on the cushion of credit payments in fiscal year 2001 under

the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, which is

an annual technical adjustment contained in the budget estimates. The bill proposes rescission of $27,000,000 appropriated for ‘‘Food

and Drug Administration Salaries and Expenses’’ for fiscal year

2000 in Public Law 106–78. These funds are no longer required due

to the March 21, 2000 Supreme Court decision that FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Full committee data

302(b) allocation This bill

Budget

authority Outlays Budgetauthority Outlays

Comparison with Budget Resolution:

Discretionary .................................................................................. $14,376 $14,861 $14,491 $14,867

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 48,128 31,061 60,884 31,061

Total .......................................................................................... 62,504 45,922 75,375 45,928

NOTE.—The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the

subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation. However, pursuant to

section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended,

138

increases to the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding designated as emergency requirements. After the

bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on

the Budget will provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new allocation

will eliminate the technical difference prior to floor consideration.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying

bill:

[Five year projections, in millions of dollars]

Budget Authority ................................................................................ 75,375

Outlays:

2001 .............................................................................................. 39,628

2002 .............................................................................................. 4,786

2003 .............................................................................................. 548

2004 .............................................................................................. 320

2005 and beyond .......................................................................... 507

The bill provides no new revenues or tax expenditures, and will

have no effect on budget authority, budget outlays, spending authority, revenues, tax expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan guarantee commitments available under existing law for

fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the financial assistance to state and local governments is as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

New budget authority ........................................................................ 18,810

Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 15,461

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2001, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), 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 of 2001, the House and Senate Committee reports, and

the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the committee of conference.

If a Sequestration Order is necessary, in implementing the required Presidential Order, departments and agencies shall apply

any percentage reduction for fiscal year 2001 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99–177 to all items specified in the explanatory

139

notes submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House

and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2001 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 state, district, and county offices.

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules

of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on

an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names

of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Obey.

Description of motion: To provide an additional $13.7 million in

emergency appropriations for investigation and follow-up legal actions related to market concentrations and anti-competitive behavior in agriculture.

Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 28 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan

Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay

Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey

Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode

Ms. Kaptur Ms. Granger

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kingston

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Obey Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Olver Mr. Latham

Mr. Pastor Mr. Lewis

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Price Mr. Packard

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Peterson

Mr. Sabo Mr. Porter

Mr. Serrano Mr. Regula

140

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Delay.

Description of motion: To strike title VIII of the bill that would

implement a process to lift agricultural or medical sanctions

against any foreign country unless the President justifies any proposed sanction and the imposition of any proposed sanction is approved in law. Title VIII also includes exceptions for imposing sanctions.

Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 35 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Bonilla Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cunningham Mr. Boyd

Mr. DeLay Mr. Callahan

Mr. Forbes Mr. Cramer

Mr. Frelinghuysen Ms. DeLauro

Ms. Granger Mr. Dickey

Mr. Hobson Mr. Dicks

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Dixon

Mr. Kingston Mr. Edwards

Mr. Lewis Mrs. Emerson

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Farr

Mr. Miller Mr. Goode

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Hinchey

Mr. Murtha Mr. Istook

Mrs. Northup Mr. Jackson

Mr. Packard Ms. Kaptur

Mr. Porter Ms. Kilpatrick

Mr. Regula Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Rogers Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Skeen Mr. Latham

Mr. Taylor Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Wicker Mr. Obey

Mr. Wolf Mr. Olver

141

Mr. Young Mr. Pastor

Ms. Pelosi

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Price

Ms. Roybal-Allard

Mr. Sabo

Mr. Serrano

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

ROLLCALL NO. 3

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of motion: To provide $53,100,000 of emergency appropriations to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and

animal diseases.

Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 28 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan

Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay

Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey

Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Forbes Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode

Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Obey Mr. Latham

Mr. Olver Mr. Miller

Mr. Pastor Mrs. Northup

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Packard

Mr. Price Mr. Porter

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers

Mr. Serrano Mr. Skeen

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Taylor

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

142

ROLLCALL NO. 4

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.

Description of motion: To provide $115,000,000 in emergency appropriations for apple market loss assistance and for quality loss

payments for apples and potatoes.

Results: Adopted 26 yeas to 22 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan

Mr. Dickey Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Goode

Mr. Farr Mr. Hobson

Mr. Forbes Mr. Kingston

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kolbe

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Latham

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Miller

Mrs. Lowey Mrs. Northup

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Packard

Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Rogers

Mr. Obey Mr. Skeen

Mr. Olver Mr. Sununu

Mr. Pastor Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Peterson Mr. Wamp

Mr. Price Mr. Wicker

Mr. Regula Mr. Wolf

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Young

Mr. Sabo

Mr. Serrano

Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Walsh

ROLLCALL NO. 5

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Edwards.

Description of motion: To provide $284 million in emergency appropriations for crop loss assistance authorized by section 801 of

Public Law 106–78.

Results: Rejected 18 yeas to 27 nays.

Members Voting Yes Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Dixon Mr. Callahan

Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Forbes Mr. Dickey

143

Mr. Hinchey Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Jackson Ms. Granger

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kingston

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Obey Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis

Mr. Pastor Mr. Miller

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Sabo Mr. Packard

Mr. Serrano Mr. Peterson

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Porter

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

ROLLCALL NO. 6

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of motion: To provide $80 million in emergency appropriations for equity capital and grants to establish farmerowned cooperatives for the processing and marketing of agricultural commodities (including livestock).

Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 26 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Bonilla

Mr. Dixon Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey

Mr. Farr Mr. Emerson

Mr. Forbes Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson

Mr. Jackson Mr. Kingston

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Latham

Mr. Moran Mr. Lewis

Mr. Obey Mr. Miller

Mr. Olver Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Pastor Mr. Packard

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Porter

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers

144

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

ROLLCALL NO. 7

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.

Description of motion: to increase appropriations for Community

facility grants by $10,000,000, Rural business enterprise grants by

$10,000,000, Rural business opportunity grants by $2,000,000,

Water and waste disposal grants by $34,000, and Solid waste management grants by $1,000,000, and reduce the commission on crop

insurance policies from 24.5 percent of the premium to 20.0 percent.

Results: Adopted 25 yeas to 23 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Mr. Cunningham Mr. Frelinghuysen

Ms. DeLauro Ms. Granger

Mr. Dixon Mr. Hobson

Mr. Edwards Mr. Istook

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Farr Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Forbes Mr. Latham

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Lewis

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Miller

Mr. Jackson Mr. Nethercutt

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Packard

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Porter

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Rogers

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Skeen

Mr. Moran Mr. Sununu

Mr. Obey Mr. Taylor

Mr. Olver Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Pastor Mr. Wamp

Mr. Price Mr. Wicker

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Wolf

Mr. Sabo Mr. Young

Mr. Serrano

Mr. Visclosky

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule XIII of the

House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an

145

amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of

those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 8

Date: May 10, 2000.

Measure: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001.

Motion by: Ms. DeLauro.

Description of motion: To provide $14,400,000 in emergency appropriations for services authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection

Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act.

Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 24 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Dickey

Mr. Dixon Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode

Mr. Forbes Mr. Hobson

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Kingston

Mr. Jackson Mr. Knollenberg

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kolbe

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Latham

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Lewis

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller

Mr. Obey Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Olver Mr. Porter

Mr. Pastor Mr. Rogers

Mr. Price Mr. Skeen

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Sununu

Mr. Serrano Mr. Taylor

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

(165)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY AND HON.

MARCY KAPTUR

Regrettably, this bill falls short of meeting basic needs in the

programs it covers. In addition, it contains some very harmful legislative riders—most notably involving restrictions on discussions

and research in the area of global climate change and on programs

to ensure that the eggs we eat are free from harmful bacteria. During committee consideration, Democrats offered several amendments to try to make up some of the most important shortfalls. Unfortunately, most of these amendments were defeated.

The bill also does very little to address the crises of low prices,

low incomes, and economic decline that is plaguing much of rural

America. Because these problems tend to involve fundamental

issues of federal farm policy, in many ways the Agriculture Committee is a better forum than the Appropriations Committee for debating the causes and fashioning basic solutions. There are indications that the Agriculture Committee may be prepared to consider

a farm assistance package this year—something which it did not do

in 1998 or 1999. We would welcome that development and look forward to the ensuing debate. However, to the extent that the task

of fashioning emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers once

again falls to the Appropriations Committee, we will do our utmost

to try to ensure that the assistance is distributed fairly and broadly

and goes to where it is most needed.

While emergency aid may seem to have dominated the work of

the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee in the past two years,

we must not lose sight of the important and wide-ranging programs

covered by the regular appropriations in this bill. In addition to activities that directly help farmers and ranchers, the bill also funds

most federal food safety efforts, regulation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices by the FDA, nutrition programs for children and the elderly, housing, water and sewer and

economic development programs available throughout rural and

small town America (both on and off farms), and conservation programs of vital importance to protecting water quality and preventing erosion and other environmental damage.

In short, this bill is important not just to people who live and

work on farms, but to everyone who has an interest in safe food,

clean water, protection from dangerous and ineffective drugs, meeting the nutritional needs of vulnerable low-income children and

senior citizens, and preventing the spread of agricultural pests and

diseases that can threaten urban trees and gardens as well as

farmers’ crops.

As we will describe below, the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill reported by the committee falls short of meeting many of

these needs. In saying so, we mean no criticism of Chairman Skeen

and the others involved in developing this bill. They did the best

166

they could with the hand that was dealt them. Rather, the fundamental problem is that the congressional budget resolution—which

reflects and implements the budgetary policies and priorities of the

majority party in Congress—has allowed insufficient resources for

this bill and for the other appropriations measures that meet major

domestic needs.

Overall, the budget allocation that the Agriculture subcommittee was given allows an increase of $431 million in non-emergency discretionary appropriations over the previous year’s level. In percentage terms, that’s growth of about 3 percent—barely enough to keep

up with inflation, and well below the growth rate of the economy.

In fact, if ones takes into account that some of the basic on-going

programs covered by the bill were funded in part by emergency appropriations last year, the year-to-year increase is probably closer

to $200 million or about 1.5 percent. And compared to the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2001, the bill is short by $1.1

billion.

Following are some of the practical consequences of these shortfalls.

Food safety

For the Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection

Service (FSIS)—which is responsible for inspecting and ensuring

the safety of all domestic and imported meat and poultry products—the bill falls short of the President’s budget request by more

than $14 million. Pay costs make up about three quarters of this

agency’s budget, and the increase provided by the bill is not enough

to cover the higher pay and benefit costs resulting from the pay

raises received by all federal employees. To cover the costs of basic

inspections of processing plants, the bill would require the FSIS to

reduce assistance for state-run meat and poultry inspection systems, or cut back on inspections of imports or on laboratory operations, or take other problematic steps. And the improvements and

initiatives that the Administration had proposed—such as risk assessment studies, upgrades to egg safety, and expanded collaboration with state and local food safety programs—will be almost impossible to achieve under this appropriation.

To its credit, the bill does fully fund the budget request for the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) operating account—other

than the request for tobacco-related programs. These appropriations for regulation on food and drug safety are badly needed, and

we hope they can be preserved in conference.

On the other hand, the bill falls short in other food safety areas

within the Agriculture Department, in addition to the inadequate

appropriation for the Food Safety and Inspection Service just discussed. For example, it fails to provide for an important initiative

within the Agricultural Marketing Service to begin a systematic

program of testing fruits and vegetables to assess levels and patterns of microbiological contamination, as well as failing to provide

requested funds for food safety research.

During the Committee markup, Representative DeLauro offered

an amendment to bring funding for FSIS up to the Administration’s request (using emergency appropriations). That amendment

was defeated by a vote of 20 to 24 (roll call number 8).

167

Farmers and consumers both squeezed by the middleman

Many believe that a major cause of family farmers’ current difficulties is the increasing squeeze they face as the markets that

they sell their products into and buy their seed and other inputs

from become more and more dominated by a handful of large corporations. Many formerly independent producers are simply becoming contractors for agri-business corporations, which can essentially

dictate the terms on which these farmers and ranchers operate and

the prices they will pay and receive. The Clinton Administration

once again requested some modest funding increases to provide the

Agriculture Department with some additional staff and a bit more

resources to analyze and investigate the growing concentration of

economic power in agricultural markets and to take action against

abusive practices that violate existing law. This bill denies most of

these requested increases, providing only $1.4 million of the $7.1

million increase requested for the Grain Inspection, Packers, and

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) and no increase at all for the

Department’s Office of General Counsel.

Funding to investigate and respond to market concentration

When the bill was considered by the Appropriations Committee,

Representative Obey offered an amendment to provide an additional $13.7 million (on an emergency basis), to help the federal

government respond to market concentration and abusive practices

in agriculture. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 21 to 28

(roll call number 1).

Addressing the problems of concentration in agriculture will also

require substantive legislation to strengthen the enforcement powers of the federal government. However, more funds and more staff

to better enforce existing law would have been a useful first step,

and we regret that the committee refused to take that step.

Assistant to producer cooperatives

Another useful step that could be taken to help small and medium-sized producers reposition in today’s marketplace would be to

make some funding available to enhance and expand producerowned cooperatives. These co-ops can provide alternative processing and marketing facilities, to help add value to crops and provide markets not under the control of giant agri-business corporations. In our view, it is more prudent to provide relatively modest

funding now to enable producers to derive income from the marketplace than to once again later in the year provide billions in ill-targeted emergency economic assistance.

During the committee markup of this bill, Representative Kaptur

offered an amendment to provide $80 million in emergency funds

to be used for equity capital and grants to establish and upgrade

farmer-owned cooperatives and other cooperatives that would help

create market-oriented opportunities in rural America. The amendment was similar to a proposal made by the Clinton Administration, as part of its farm safety net initiative. The Kaptur amendment was defeated, however, by a vote of 19 to 26 (roll call number

6).

168

Animal and plant pests and diseases

Various parts of the country are facing serious outbreaks of agricultural pests and diseases. Many of these problems recently arrived from outside the U.S. Citrus canker is devastating fruit trees

in parts of Flroida—including trees in urban yards as well as in

commercial groves. The Asian Longhorned beetle—which evidently

entered the country in wood packing material from China—is killing hardwood trees in New York and Illinois, and threatens to

spread further. Plum pox—which destroys peaches, plums, and

other stone fruits—has turned up in Pennsylvania (apparently the

first appearance in the United States of this disease which is normally found in Europe and the Middle East). Bovine tuberculosis

is threatening to spread in Michigan. Pierece’s disease is becoming

an increasing serious problem for the California grape industry.

And the list could go on.

To help detect and eradicate these and other pests, the Administration requested a substantial increase for the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). This

bill, however, underfunds that request by $42 million. In fact, since

the committee provided increases above the President’s request for

certain line items within APHIS (such as boll weevil control and

wildlife services), the measures falls short of the amounts requested to deal with emerging pest and disease problems by about

$53 million.

Rep. Kaptur offered an amendment during committee markup to provide $53 million in emergency appropriations to bring the bill

up to the Administration’s request for effectively dealing with these

problems. That amendment was defeated 22 to 28 (roll call number

3).

Natural Resources Conservation Service

The Agriculture Department’s Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service)

provides advice and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers in

designing and implementing conservation measures on their land.

In some cases, this assistance is needed to help comply with requirements of federal farm programs; in other cases, farmers and

ranchers are simply seeking help in preventing soil erosion and

otherwise preserving and enhancing their land. This is an extremely popular program in farm country, and the Agriculture Subcommittee received letters from many Members and constituents

urging a substantial increase in funding. The President’s budget proposed an $86 million increase for NRCS conservation operations, including $28 million more for basic

‘‘on the ground’’ technical assistance, $20 million for assistance to

animal feeding operations in devising and implementing waste

management plans, and $13 million for other purposes under the

President’s Clean Water Actin Plan, as well as funding for several

other initiatives.

The bill, however, provides only $16 million of the $86 million requested increase. Most of that amount is allocated to partially fund

the proposed increase for animal feeding operations, and to various

specific projects designated in the committee report. According to

NRCS, the bill’s funding level would require its conservation staff

169

to be reduced by 261 positions below the FY 2000 level. Given the

importance of NRCS services—not just to farmers and ranchers but

also to attaining clean water and other environmental protection

goals—the bill is taking a large step in the wrong direction.

Rural development

The bill, as reported by subcommittee, did provide increases (totaling about $163 million above FY 2000) for rural development

programs, and Chairman Skeen is to be commended for finding the

funds to make that possible. However, most of the increases are

needed just to offset higher credit subsidy costs resulting from

higher interest rates, and therefore do little more than keep levels

of loans and loan guarantees from declining.

An amendment offered by Representative Maurice Hinchey during the full committee markup (roll call number 7) added another

$57 million for rural water and waste grants, community facilities

grants, and rural business enterprise and rural business opportunity grants—all programs that fill vital needs. (These increases

were financed by reducing the commissions paid by the federal government to agents who sell crop insurance.)

Even after the Hinchey amendment, however, the bill remains

about $180 million below the President’s request for rural development. Some of the largest shortfalls come in rural housing programs, as well as rural development loans (the ‘‘intermediary relending’’ program) and assistance for development of cooperatives.

Given the needs that exist in rural America, it is unfortunate that

the Majority’s budget program does not allow more funding for

rural housing and economic development.

Other funding issues

There are several other funding issues and problems in this bill.

For example, it provides $37 million less than requested by the Administration for overseas food assistance under title II of the PL

480 ‘‘Food for Peace’’ program. Not only does this program help

meet real human needs in areas suffering from food shortages and

disasters, but it also helps farmers by removing surplus commodities from U.S. markets and thereby relieving downward pressures

on prices. At a time of disastrously low prices for many commodities, we should be doing more—not less—to help reduce domestic

surpluses by putting them to use in meeting urgent humanitarian

needs overseas.

The measure also underfunds a number of accounts that pay the

salaries of USDA employees. It is understandable that, in a time

of tight budgets, Congress tends to put money into priorities other

than basic ‘‘salaries and expenses’’ appropriations. However, such

a policy also leads to serious problems. Among other things, federal

employees receive cost-of-living pay raises each year, and unless increases are provided to cover the cost of those raises and associated

benefit costs, it becomes necessary to reduce staffing levels. While

some staff reductions can be offset by increased efficiency, it will

be very hard to prevent cost that have been occurring at USDA

from having a harmful impact on delivery of services and oversight

and management of programs and resources.

170

Language regarding Kyoto Protocol

During subcommittee markup of this bill, an amendment was

adopted adding language to the bill that seeks to restrict use of

funds for mechanisms related to addressing the threat of global climate change. This amendment was adopted on a straight partyline vote, with all Republican Members voting ‘‘Yes’’, and all Democrats voting ‘‘No’’.

The provisions thereby added to this bill go well beyond compromise language included in previous years’ appropriations bills,

which prohibited use of funding ‘‘to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in

preparation for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol’’. Rather, the

new language seems to prohibit any spending to discuss, research,

or work on developing approaches such as carbon emissions trading

systems or the Clean Development Mechanism that could be used

to implement any system for reduction of greenhouse gases and

global warming that might be agreed on in the future.

The new restrictions are ironic, considering that objections to the

Kyoto Protocol as it now exists tend to focus on inadequate participation by the developing world and potentially high costs to the

U.S. economy. Little progress can be made toward solving those

problems and improving the Kyoto Protocol if the executive branch

is forbidden to work on or discuss mechanisms that could help reduce costs and increase participation by developing nations. Including such restrictions in an agriculture appropriations bill seems especially unfortunate, since there appears to be an important and

positive role that could be played by farmers and farmland in addressing global warming problems.

We can imagine no useful purpose for including this new restrictive language in the agriculture appropriations bill, and will work

to ensure that any measure enacted into law contains no restrictive

language that goes beyond what was agreed to last year.

Egg safety

A second unfortunate provision added to the bill in subcommittee

is legislative language restricting the actions that can be taken by

the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department

to reduce bacterial contamination and improve the safety of eggs.

Among other things, this language requires the government to pay

producers and packers of eggs for the costs of any tests they might

be required to conduct to detect the presence of Salmonella bacteria. The government does not reimburse other industries or food

producers for tests required to ensure that their products are safe

for consumers, but rather treats food safety costs as part of the

basic costs of production. It is not clear why eggs should be treated

differently. In addition, the bill language seeks to limit the number

of tests that can be required and the circumstances under which

the government can require eggs to be pasteurized because of suspected bacterial contamination.

In essence, this language makes various scientific and policy

judgments about egg safety. These are judgments which the Appropriations Committee does not have the background or expertise to

make—certainly not based on just a few minutes of debate during

markup and without the benefit of hearings on the subject. While

171

the amendment may have been intended to reduce the possibility

that unnecessary costs could be imposed on the egg industry by

new food safety rules, this kind of legislative rider on an appropriations bill is absolutely the wrong way to go about achieving that

goal. Instead, the federal agencies involved should be allowed to

continue their public rulemaking process, with appropriate oversight by the congressional committees having expertise and jurisdiction over the issues.

Effort to supplement funding for 1999 disaster loss assistance

Finally, we regret the committee’s defeat of an amendment offered by Representative Chet Edwards during consideration of this

bill. The amendment would have added $284 million to emergency

appropriations made last Fall to assist farmers who suffered losses

due to droughts, floods and other natural disasters during the 1999

crop year.

Losses eligible for this assistance have turned out to be larger

than anticipated, and the amounts appropriated last year have

proved insufficient to compensate farmers under the basic formula

for this program. Because appropriations were less than the

amounts needed under the formula for 1999, payments had to be

pro-rated, with farmers receiving only 69.6 percent of the amounts

for which they would otherwise be eligible. A similar, but less severe situation arose in the disaster assistance program for the 1998

crop year, in which farmers received only 84.9 percent of the

amounts for which they were eligible.

The Edwards amendment would have added funds to the 1999

disaster loss program, in order to bring payments up to 1998 levels.

In other words, farmers who lost crops due to natural disasters in

1999 would have received a supplemental payment, so that they

would receive the same percentage compensation as farmers who

lost crops in 1998. It seems only fair to treat both groups alike, and

the extra assistance could have been put to good use by farmers

who suffered severe losses in the droughts, storms and floods of

1999. Unfortunately, however, the Edwards amendment was defeated by a vote of 18 to 27 (roll call number 5).

The following table, based on Agriculture Department data,

shows payments under the existing 1999 crop loss program made

to farmers in each state as of May 11, 2000, along with an estimate

of the additional amounts that farmers in the state would have received under the Edwards amendment.

ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF EDWARDS AMENDMENT ON DISASTER LOSS ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO

FARMERS BY STATE

[In millions of dollars]

State

Payments received under

existing appropriation

Est. additional

payments

under Edwards amdt.

Alabama ........................................................................................................................................... $19.9 $4.4

Alaska .............................................................................................................................................. * *

Arizona ............................................................................................................................................. 3.4 0.7

Arkansas .......................................................................................................................................... 23.0 5.1

California ......................................................................................................................................... 59.7 13.1

Colorado ........................................................................................................................................... 13.3 2.9

Connecticut ...................................................................................................................................... 4.1 0.9

172

ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF EDWARDS AMENDMENT ON DISASTER LOSS ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO

FARMERS BY STATE—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

State

Payments received under

existing appropriation

Est. additional

payments

under Edwards amdt.

Delaware .......................................................................................................................................... 1.5 0.3

Florida .............................................................................................................................................. 10.8 2.4

Georgia ............................................................................................................................................. 73.2 16.1

Hawaii .............................................................................................................................................. * *

Idaho ................................................................................................................................................ 9.4 2.1

Illinois .............................................................................................................................................. 12.6 2.8

Indiana ............................................................................................................................................. 15.5 3.4

Iowa ................................................................................................................................................. 15.3 3.4

Kansas ............................................................................................................................................. 31.6 7.0

Kentucky ........................................................................................................................................... 41.1 9.0

Louisiana ......................................................................................................................................... 13.5 3.0

Maine ............................................................................................................................................... 1.9 0.4

Maryland .......................................................................................................................................... 7.7 1.7

Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................. 4.7 1.0

Michigan .......................................................................................................................................... 7.5 1.6

Minnesota ........................................................................................................................................ 47.8 10.5

Mississippi ....................................................................................................................................... 20.7 4.5

Missouri ........................................................................................................................................... 39.6 8.7

Montana ........................................................................................................................................... 31.2 6l9

Nebraska .......................................................................................................................................... 20.3 4.5

Nevada ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 *

New Hampshire ................................................................................................................................ 0.7 0.2

New Jersey ....................................................................................................................................... 10.6 2.3

New Mexico ...................................................................................................................................... 4.2 0.9

New York .......................................................................................................................................... 13.4 2.9

North Carolina ................................................................................................................................. 61.9 13.6

North Dakota .................................................................................................................................... 141.8 31.2

Ohio .................................................................................................................................................. 23.0 5.0

Oklahoma ......................................................................................................................................... 31.7 7.0

Oregon .............................................................................................................................................. 14.1 3.1

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................................... 30.0 6.6

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................................................................... 11.8 2.6

Rhode Island .................................................................................................................................... 0.8 0.2

South Carolina ................................................................................................................................. 26.3 5.8

South Dakota ................................................................................................................................... 40.4 8.9

Tennessee ........................................................................................................................................ 29.1 6.4

Texas ................................................................................................................................................ 188.6 41.5

Utah ................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 0.3

Vermont ............................................................................................................................................ 2.3 0.5

Virginia ............................................................................................................................................ 15.1 3.3

Washington ...................................................................................................................................... 19.8 4.3

West Virginia ................................................................................................................................... 3.4 0.8

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................... 6.9 1.5

Wyoming ........................................................................................................................................... 1.2 0.3

* Indicates amounts less than $100,000.

Note.—This table is based on Agriculture Department data showing crop loss payments distributed as of May 11, 2000. Some funds re- mained to be distributed, and thus final figures for the program (and for the Edwards amendment) will be higher in some states than the estimates shown in the table.

Æ